Tuesday Night Open Mic for September 14, 2010

I won’t be adding four articles this week once again. Mrs. Weapon is feeling quite rough. It appears that the flu that is running rampant through our circle of acquaintances has gotten to her as well. Yep, the same flu that put me down last week so nastily. I have to tell you, that was one rough bug that hit me. I don’t get sick often. And my immune system is usually rock solid at resolving it quickly. But this one had me down and out for three days I have been struggling to get it out of my chest for another 5 days after that so far. But, I got some soup and crackers in Mrs. Weapon, and she is drinking nothing but OJ, so hopefully this will not keep her as long as it did me. As for topics, I have a few, just not as many as I normally do. Feel free to add your own as always. I highly suggest adding some of the text of the discussion you are contributing as many never click on the links, which means that discussion doesn’t really get started in the way that it should. I have found that the format I use works well: an excerpt from the article in question followed by my thoughts on it as a start to the discussion.


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Reid Adding Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill

    U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he wants to attach an amendment to a defense policy bill that would help young people in the United States illegally become legal U.S. residents.

    The Nevada Democrat said at a Capitol news conference that the legislation known as the DREAM Act is long overdue. He would not say whether he has the votes for the amendment. The act would allow young people who attend college or join the military to become legal U.S. residents.

    The young people must have come to the country when they were under 16 years of age and have been in the country five years. Those who join the military must serve at least two years and complete two years of college.

    Democrats have also promised gay rights groups an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy” that bars gays from serving openly in the military. That is in the bill that Reid said he will try to take up next week.

    Reid blamed Republicans for the inability to pass a sweeping immigration reform bill.

    “I’ve tried to. I’ve tried so very, very hard, but those Republicans we’ve had in the last Congress (who backed immigration reform) have left us,” he said.

    Minutes before Reid announced his plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell described the defense policy bill as “needlessly controversial” because of the inclusion of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” measure and plans to add the DREAM Act.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/reid-add-immigration-measure-defense/

    First and foremost this is nothing more than a political ploy by an incumbent facing a tough challenge for reelection. Reid’s state is 25% hispanic, and he is willing to do anything to remain in the seat of power, including trot this thing out at the last minute in an attempt to steal hispanic voters. Otherwise we would have seen it before.

    My favorite part of the article is the quote from Reid that he has tried “so very, very hard” to get immigration reform on the docket for the last two years. Bullshit. If he can put it on the docket now, he could have put it on the docket at any point in the last 4 years of Democratic control. He is the Senate Majority Leader after all. And it isn’t like the idea is suddenly popular which would change the climate in a way that makes it possible now. Follow that with his claim that the GOP stands in the way. Congress has managed to get a whole bunch of madness passed that was far more difficult that this. Health care reform, stimulus spending, etc. So don’t tell me that the Republicans were able to stop anything from getting through the Senate.

    But what I really dislike the most is that these two measures are being included in a Defense spending bill. I have grown quite tired of this trick by both sides of Congress. Attach something unrelated to a spending bill, rather than putting it up there on its own merit and seeing if it passes muster. I will be glad to see don’t ask don’t tell go away, and I am OK with discussing immigration reform. But I am not OK with these parlor tricks of attaching them to spending bills so that when they are voted on, everyone involved ends up being torn on their vote because there are too many different issues in play.

    This is yet another prime example of why the only sane answer in Washington DC is to scrap the entire group of incumbents and start over with different legislators. NO incumbent should be re-elected among this dirty, crooked, group of thieves that don’t even possess the integrity that thieves have.

    • First of all, I want to wish you and the Mrs. a speedy recovery. I am allergic to the Influenza vaccines so I know what you are going through – albeit I have had the flu only three times in my life, but those were some bugs. Once, on Okinawa, a doctor mistakenly gave me a flu shot thinking it would cure the flu that I had. Dang near killed me.

      I won’t touch on your statement about Homosexuals in the military, I would just be beating that dead horse into the ground. However, amnesty? Amnesty for ILLEGALS? What part of ILLEGAL is not ILLEGAL?

      I have a serious problem with opening the flood gates to anyone who wants to come here and squat, and I don’t give a tinkers (expletive deleted) WHAT country or continent they come from! There is a process CLEARLY outlined in our immigration codes that anyone from any country who wishes to become an American citizen can follow. I know that process very well because of friends who have emigrated from Europe, Mexico, Japan, Egypt, and the Phillipine Islands. What an insult opening the flood gates would be to all those who have come here legally, I just do not understand why any one would want to do that. I just don’t!

      • I too wish you and the Mrs. a speedy recovery Mr. Weapon. My lady is feeling under the weather as well. I hope I can do as good a job caring for her as you are. 🙂

    • I thought non citizens could already join the military and become citizens at some point.

      • Naten

        I was thinking the same thing. I remember seeing stories about guys wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan that were children of illegals and they would get citizenship by serving.

        Maybe D13 can weigh in on this and clear the mud.

        • Yes and No. Non citizens..those whom are here on legal visas and awaiting citizensip may join. Immigrants, without proof of legality cannot join and those that do so with illegal papers and are discovered are given a general discharge. (Why they even qualify for a general discharge and all pay and benefits are forfeited.) If it were up to me, they would not even get a general discharge. They would get no discharge and arrested for violating our laws.

          The only short cut to citizenship is through honorable military service. YOu MUST read and write the English language and you MUST speak it fluently.

          There is no guarantee to citizenship through military service but legal immigrants have been known to get it…and deservedly so.

          Hope this helps.

          • I personally know of a case of an illegal immigrant (hispanic) that got into the service and served quite honorably. Received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star with V device, Silver star, and Meritorious service medals.

            But it was discovered that he entered the military with forged documents and he was discharged and all awards foretied and the records expunged of his valor. As it should have been.

            Then one year later, several of us went to bat for him, and were able to get his Visa….then we got his awards reinstated and his records to accurately reflect his heroism. But this was done very quietly and behind the scenes. He went on to serve for thirty years with distinction.

            We bent the rules in this case and (gasp) I supported it and pushed it hard. The initial action was proper to prevent honoring an illegal and setting a precedent. His actions saved the lives of 12 men….I was one of them. Eleven of the twelve were wounded. He was the 12th. This is the exception that I actually know about.

          • My dad got his citizenship by serving in the Army during WWII. This has been permitted for a while now.

          • Is it easy to get a visa if the intent is to join the military?

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Good Question Naten.

              I am curious D13, sir, if that is the case. And, if so, then what is the vetting performed to ensure that a terrorist type isn’t allowed in?


              • The vetting is the same as anyone. They must pass a security background check if they are to hold any post that requires a confidential or above security clearance….However, it is not fool proof. The vetting takes awhile and someone can get in the military and then the backgrouand check could take ages. ( see my example above ). This person got in with forged documents but was later caught in the full background check. We should be catching them in the beginning before the hand is raised in oath.

            • No, Naten53, you cannot get a visa with intent to join the military.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      It’s just another way of giving them amnesty, and he’s doing and saying anything he can to get re elected again in November. As of yesterday, Reid was ahead of Angle, 46% to 44%. For the life of me, I can’t quite comprehend how anybody would re elect Reid to stay in the Senate. He hasn’t done anything for Nevada in years, although he’d like to think he has. He’s turned his back on the people here, and for what I see, hear, and read, they want him out, and out as soon as possible. He’s claimed to have created some 60,000 new jobs here, if he has, then why are there so many people still out of work, and why are we still at 14.2% unemployed. He’s a 2 faced liar and nothing more than a hypocrite.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    The Republican Threat to Shut Down the Federal Government

    Newt Gingrich is saying if Republicans win back control of Congress and reach a budget impasse with the president, they should shut down the government again. GOP pollster Dick Morris is echoing those sentiments, as is Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R. Ga), and Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller.

    I am continuously amazed at the GOP’s ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of potential victory. It is the gift that keeps giving.

    I was there November 14, 1995 when Newt Gingrich pulled the plug on the federal government the first time. It proved to be the stupidest political move in recent history. Not only did it help Bill Clinton win reelection but it was a boon to almost all other Democrats in 1996 (Gingrich’s photo was widely used in negative ads), and the move damaged Republicans for years.

    Gingrich hurt his cause by complaining that Bill Clinton had put him in the back of Air Force One on a trip that occurred about the same time. Republican lore has it that it was this babyish behavior rather than the shutdown itself that caused the public to side with Clinton in the game of chicken Gingrich launched over the budget. Undoubtedly Gingrich’s whining didn’t help, but it was his cavalier attitude toward government itself that was the defining issue. Gingrich was the one who first bragged he’d shut down the government if Clinton didn’t agree to what the Republicans wanted.

    Now, remarkably, Gingrich is back at it.

    Dick Armey says it’s “premature” to talk about doing any such thing. What Armey means is if the public sees Republicans already plotting a shutdown, they’ll react even more angrily than they did fifteen years ago.

    Americans may be cynical about government but we’re proud of our system of governance. And we don’t want it to be used as a political pawn in partisan power games. That’s what Republicans forget time and again. They dislike government so much they don’t see the difference between government as a bureaucracy and democratic governance as a cherished system.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-republican-threat-to-_b_716501.html

    Let me first simply laugh out loud at the sheer arrogance and ignorance of the following statement from Robert Reich in this article. Reich says, “Americans may be cynical about government but we’re proud of our system of governance. And we don’t want it to be used as a political pawn in partisan power games. That’s what Republicans forget time and again.” What I think Reich, and anyone else who utters a phrase like this really believes is insane. Because what they believe, in their heart, is that only the other party attempts to use our form of governance as a political pawn in partisan power games. They really never believe that their party does so.

    However, those of us here at SUFA are well aware that BOTH parties use our form of governance as a political pawn in partisan power games ALL THE DAMN TIME. I mean, really, how can Reich make a statement like that in a public forum with a straight face? Can he even look at himself in the mirror? Gingrich and Reich, along with every other established member of the political elite in both parties are lying hypocrites that continually feign shock at the utter lack of integrity from the “other side.” If I was going to say something as ridiculously hypocritical as what Reich has offered, I don’t think I could do it on a public site where millions of people read. I would be too embarrassed to think that someone knew I said something so stupid.

    But that isn’t why I posted this article. I posted it for its topic. Gingrich and the GOP leaders really do think that, should they gain control, shutting down the federal government in this manner would be a good idea. Personally, I don’t think the reaction during Clinton’s administration is relevant to the discussion. I think far more people today are beginning to understand the out of control growth and overall ineptness of the federal government. The mid 90s were a time when most still had their head in the sand.

    So the question is…. is this a good idea for the GOP? Politically, would pushing back on Obama by allowing the government to shut down backfire on the Republicans in the way that it did back then? Economically, would shutting down the government do even more damage to a very fragile US market? Is there any good that could come of it? After all, if it is the GOP doing it, it is a political game rather than a policy shaping maneuver. But question 3 for me, if it weren’t the GOP or the Dems, would shutting the government down do anything to slow the rate of spending or shape policy going forward? Just interested in everyone’s thoughts.

    • Life’s Politics is but a walking shadow, a poor player
      That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
      And then is heard no more: it is a tale
      Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
      Signifying nothing.

      They want the shut down because they think it will show how serious they are about rampant spending, not because it will do anything about rampant spending. It’s all theater.

      Their demands will be a percent or two lower than what the Democrats want and they’ll go to war to show their seriousness. If they were truly serious, they’d throw caution to the winds and try to slash defense spending, or means test social security (saving tens or hundreds of billions), but they’ll pick something stupid like the National Endowment for the Arts (oh, they do so hate the NEA) which, if eliminated outright, would save each American 64 cents annually.


    • Good Morning 🙂

      In response to the 3rd question, I think that shutting down the Federal Govt for a week or two would certainal shape future policy. In weighing the good and bad of such an action, there may be some inconveniences assoctiated with this, but the country would live their day to day lives and survive just fine. The main point is that it would show that the Federal Govt is NOT a necessity to the American people as the arrogant politicians want everyone to believe. The Feds legitimacy would be under fire as we would prod on with life without them, and Black Flag would be jumping for joy having proved that when it comes to the Feds, we don’t need them, but they need us.



      • I was 12 in 1995, so my memory is a bit hazy. What happened last time?

        Riots? Service interruptions? Etc?

        • Life just prodded on. I didn’t even notice. In fact, had I not read this article today, I would not have known that this event occured in 1995. Tha’s how insignificant the Federal Govt. is, life can go on without them. As I stated, they need us far more than we need them.

        • In hindsight, nothing good came of the 95 shutdown. But the PEOPLE were no where near as politically aware as they are today. SHUT IT DOWN. A shut down by the people this time. What could it hurt?

        • Mathius

          Here is what happened.

          Clinton actually shut down the govt, not Gingrich. He did this when he vetoed the spending legislation. It was to austere for his liking and he took a chance that his popularity and ability on camera would trump Gingrich and his Contract with America.

          As I recall Congress then passed a Continuing Resolution that contained some things Clinton didn’t like either. Might have been to short a period. Anyway I think he vetoed that to.

          Gingrich rose to the challenge (or took the bait) and said fine. We will not pass a continuing resolution while Congress addresses the Veto.

          So all “non-essential govt” employees and programs stopped. Only Clinton held the ACE. Somehow in the game of Govt things like Social Security are deemed “non-essential” in sending the checks but “essential” in passing the bills. So Clinton let the world know their Soc Sec checks would be late due to Gingrich.

          “Gingrich and the Republicans” shut down the Govt went out the cry. AND IT STUCK. Clinton was right. His popularity and smooth talk convinced most it was the R’s fault. Despite the fact he had Vetoed the spending bill.

          After a couple of weeks Newt and the R’s couldn’t take the heat and passed a Continuing Resolution that allowed the Govt to restart and the prior years spending levels. I don’t recall the exact dates but the actual budget bill was passed months later.

          And when it passed Congress retroactively reinstated all Federal Employee Pay that would/should have been lost during the shut down. Most got a one to two week paid vacation out of the deal.

          But the shut down and budget fight did reduce the cost of govt in that fiscal year. It drug out long enough that many program expenditures were shelved into the future. Contracts could no longer be awarded in time and new employees couldn’t be hired in time.

          Now its foggy but I think shortly after this the Congress gave the Admin two year budget authorities. Meaning they can get money in year 1 and then take two years to spend it. This eliminates the potential savings from a short term shut down.

          Gingrich obviously didn’t learn a damn thing from his experience. The man is bad news.

          By the way, this one event was not the first nor last time the Govt temporarily shut down due to lack of a budget or continuing resolution. It was just the biggest and most politically charged.

          It gave Clinton the upper hand in dealing with the new Republican majority. And then he threw it all away when he couldn’t keep his pants on.

          • That’s helpful, but what I really meant to get at was what the effect in the world was (not politically).

            Did states stop getting funding they needed?
            Did the EPA take a hiatus?
            Did anyone riot?
            Did national parks shut down?
            Did anyone actually miss a social sec check?
            etc etc

            • Mathius

              Much of the Govt shut down.

              But the Administration through OIG and Justice determine what is “essential vs Non-essential”.

              So the administration of existing contracts continued.

              Many offices remained open with only those who had “administrative” authority. The ones who had to count the pennies and track the property. The criteria has changed each time this has happened. An essential position one year can be non-essential the next.

              Parks remained open but most of the “worker bees” went home. Gate staff and Law enforcement stayed at work.

              Soc Sec checks stopped, and yes some missed their check. Due to the timing the number of missed checks was not major. Those that were missed came LATE once the shutdown ended. During the last shutdown, I monitored, Congress authorized Soc Sec to continue to avoid this problem again.

              EPA and all other agencies were mostly empty. Existing contracts and law enforcement stayed on.

              NOBODY rioted. But there was a lot of anger from AARP. And that was the most powerful lobby in Congress at the time. There was also a lot of blowback from industry groups who have continuous dealings with federal agencies. Nothing could get done while the shutdown was in place. And once it was lifted, the annual Federal Holiday and Annual Leave festival begins.

              Payments of debt continued, it is an existing contract.

              That should give you some idea. Fire away if you have more specific questions.

    • USW

      To the point.

      This is a STUPID idea put forth by a manipulative, arrogant, scheming asshole. This man will single handedly put the Dems back in the majority.

      The NEW Republicans need to show that they will stand on the principles they ran on BUT also that they are willing to GOVERN. There will be some compromises required to get the public’s confidence. They will need to show they will CUT govt spending in a serious way. This means some of the R’s traditionally pet programs.

      But shutting down the Govt will be seen as nothing but spoiled brats running the house.

      • JAC,

        Congratulations. You’ve just been elected senator for the great state of [wherever]. In fact, in an amazing twist of fortune, you’re now the Senate Majority Leader with a narrow majority in both houses and a liberal President.

        What do you do?

        • Mathius

          I TONE DOWN the rhetoric, immediately.

          I meet with the President to explain to him that his dream agenda is dead and that I recognize that the VDLG agenda will go nowhere as well.

          So lets see if we can find some very serious issues where we agree and lets start solving those.

          I would then do the same with the Dem. minority. But also promising them that they can expect fair treatment. There bills will get assigned to committee and brought to the floor if recommended by committee. I would explain that I will not use my “majority” position to beat them up, unless they start spreading lies and halftruths about the business of the Senate.

          I would announce to the country that we are serious people elected to do serious work and that they are entitled to, and will get the truth from me regarding their country’s situation.

          I would then start working to change the rules of the Senate, and hopefully my counter part in the House would agree to do the same, to prevent the kind of games that drive the citizenry crazy. Like combining bills for political gain and passing bills without actually having to comply with the normal voting procedures.

          I would push for committee leaders who would support and participate in an ETHIC Cleansing.

          Mathius, the biggest thing that would help right now is for the public to have a clear picture of what they can expect in a general sense and for the Rhetoric to be reduced to a civil level and manner. I have great respect for the purpose and institution of the Senate. I think it has taken damage thanks to Mr. Reid. Statesmanship needs to return to that particular house.

          The House side is different. This is the PEOPLES house and a little rowdiness is fine and fun. But I would like to see the power of the Speaker to dictate what bills will or will not be heard or voted upon eliminated. A legislative body needs to be able to propose, debate and then vote on legislation. If the volume is to great then committees need to take their work seriously. Perhaps requiring an equal party membership on each committee would help with this.

          • Sounds good. I, as the newly elected Senate Minority Leader, agree to a civil and adult working relationship. I hereby promise to beat my people mercilessly if they misbehave. Further, I have decided that I will not see re-election, so I am free to do whatever I like.

            So, you’re in the majority. Where would you like start? Social Security? Medicare? Defense?

            Adding, can we call it something other than an Ethic Cleansing… shudder…

            • Mathius

              Seeing as I have been elected to the Senate I will also announce my promise to not run again. Six years is plenty. Now,

              Let’s start with getting our troops home.

              Next, lets get a budget passed quickly for 2011 that freezes spending at 2010 levels, excluding the special Stimulus funding. We don’t need the distraction and one year budget isn’t going to make a big difference in the long run.

              Then lets tackle our fiscal house in totality. Instead of trying to piece it all together one issue at a time, lets start a serious discussion about the role of the Federal Govt and the level of funding that we think can be sustained over time.

              Perhaps then we can begin dealing with the recession, SS/M/M, healthcare, etc. in an honest way.

              I suggest we quickly call hearings to address the rising cost of medical care. This time we invite the actual medical care professionals to share their views on why costs are so high.

              I also suggest that we jointly announce Cap n’ Trade and many other “progressive” agenda items will not be considered until we have our financial house in order. That might reduce the stress in the private sector a little.

              Nope, I like the ring of Ethic Cleansing. Seems kind of fatal for those who do not meet the standards. I will work with you on the standards however. I have no interest is personal problems. Only those who are selling our govt to the highest bidder.

              • Mathius

                I am sorry, my dear colleague. I forgot to ask what you would like included at the top of OUR action plan.

              • Troops home: agreed

                SS/M/M: We can talk. I like means testing. If you have $1mm sitting in the bank, I’m not paying for you. If you’re broke, I’m good with helping out. Also, I’d remove the retirement age. If you’re 35 and can’t work, then you can’t work. If you’re 105 and you can still work, then you should be working.

                Cap ‘n’ Trade: I’m not ready to sell out the environmentalists. But I’m willing to discuss less harmful ways of limiting our pollution. Still, I recognize that it’s not happening while you’re in charge.

              • Nope, I like the ring of Ethic Cleansing. Fine. Then let’s do it the right way: with a machete.

                PS: I moved left for my agenda.

                • Mathius

                  I was going to use a rope and knife but machete is an acceptable compromise.

                  Hope your not adverse to skinning them and hangin their hides on the fence for the rest to see.

                  • How ’bout tar ‘n’ feathering?

                  • As a lowly voter may I suggest to your august personages that their heads be put on a pike along the stairs leading up to the Capitol itself, as a constant reminder to our elected representatives as to what happens to those who follow corruption over honorable service to the nation?

          • I want to help those who need help and kick everyone else to the curb. Means test SS. (perhaps eliminate it and beef up welfare?)

            Then I want to gut the DOD.

            I want to kill, burn and bury DOMA and DADT.

            I want to break the back of the teachers union and fire all the bad teachers. This is the single biggest thing on my agenda.

            I want to change all speed limit signs to the real speed limit (the one you get a ticket at).

            Then I want to pay down the debt. All of it. Every red cent.

            Then I want to pass a balanced budget amendment (with an exemption for a defensive war fought on US soil).

            I want a law requiring that all future laws be written in plain language.

            I want to eliminate federal drug laws. Give a 1-year lag on this so that states can pass their own.

            I want to allow medicines to be sold without prescriptions (except for antibiotics – no unnecessary breeding of super germs). And drugs can be sold without FDA approval (but with a warning label to that effect) – caveat emptor.

            I want a law requiring all bills to be passed on their own. No more riders, no more omnibus, no more earmarks.

            I want a law requiring all bills to be posted in their entirety online 7 days before voting. (some kind of exemption for emergency legislation should be made here).

            Then I want a law requiring that all future laws come with a one page rider describing in clear language where the Constitution grants this authority. This must be approved by a panel of high school social studies teachers.

            Think we can find some room to work together?

            • Mathius

              We have plenty of good ground to plow together.

              But I warn you. I would rather tackle the bigger picture, the fundamental concepts, before arguing about details.

              Social Security for example.

              What is its purpose? The goal?

              Do we need a mandatory retirement fund or can it be voluntary? Obviously I don’t support mandatory because it violated my principle of freedom and liberty. But you see where I am coming from.

              You can not address “means testing” without first reaching agreement on what the purpose of the program is. If it is retirement for example, then means testing is not required. You get back what you put in.

              If it really just another social welfare program then there is no reason to have separate payroll taxes to support the program.

              By the way, do you realize that if we have a balanced budget and no debt that the Soc Sec fund will be even shorter of the required funding for retirement than it already is?

              • Social Security should be a safety net of last resort for people who are unable to work (due to age, illness, disability, etc). It should not be an entitlement that everyone gets. I see it as no different from normal disability and, in fact, the two can be combined for all I care.

                Let’s start with that premise.

                It is not, and should not be, forced retirement savings. Given this change, the amount of money it needs is minuscule by comparison. It will never run out, and we can lower the payroll tax after we’ve paid off the national debt.

            • Richmond Spitfire says:


              I thoroughly enjoyed this! I think that there is a whole lot more in common between people than what MSM and Political Machines brainwash all of us to believe!

              Good Job!!!!

              Best Regards and hugs to both of you!


      • Which assclown are you referring to, Gingrich or Reich?

        You replied based on the people involved. What about the actual question USW asked?

        So the question is…. is this a good idea for the GOP? Politically, would pushing back on Obama by allowing the government to shut down backfire on the Republicans in the way that it did back then? Economically, would shutting down the government do even more damage to a very fragile US market? Is there any good that could come of it? After all, if it is the GOP doing it, it is a political game rather than a policy shaping maneuver. But question 3 for me, if it weren’t the GOP or the Dems, would shutting the government down do anything to slow the rate of spending or shape policy going forward? Just interested in everyone’s thoughtsYou replied based on the people involved.

        • Anita

          Sorry, I thought it was clear but after your comment I see I needed to use a period and not just keep going.

          This is a STUPID idea.

          And the assclown I was referring to was Gingrich. Although Reich certainly qualifies for that title as well.

          I think the blow back on the Republicans would be WORSE than it was then. I think that even among many Tea Party folks it would be viewed as childish. And it is not necessary.

          Pass a spending bill and if Mr. Obama vetoes it then pass a continuing resolution that adopts the prior years spending. No growth in programs. If he vetoes that then simply pass it again and again and again. Each time making sure that the public understands that the R’s are trying to keep the govt running so they can start to address the recession.

          I think there is a difference this time. Mr. Obama is not as popular as Clinton was in 1994, 1995. So I don’t think he could keep vetoing a “continuing resolution” and stick it on the Republicans.

          But shutting down government is not a good idea and should not be discussed as a responsible option.

        • Anita

          To your last question. Shutting down govt would not affect policy making in the future.

          It will alienate people and cause all kinds of problems where alliances and working relationships are needed. It will quickly become a PARTY war and the Republicans will still need the Blue Dog Dems, if they survive their party races.

          It will not slow Govt Spending because the Congress will reinstate all Federal Employee pay once the shutdown is over.

          The exception is this. If the R’s stood fast and never passed a budget but kept extending the Continuing Resolution, govt spending would be frozen at existing levels. In theory, if they could survive the heat, it would reduce total spending over the next three years.

          • Supposedly Obama is going to freeze spending starting 2011 anyway. Remember some months back when he jacked up the spending ceiling but promised a spending freeze starting in’11. I bet he brings that back out of the woodwork shortly to help the Ds in the campaign.

  3. The last I heard it wasn’t illegal to burn books or flags in this country but one of our Supremes has to think about it when it comes to the Quran because of the internet. Someone has lost their minds and it ain’t me.

    “Justice Breyer: No right to burn Korans in First Amendment?
    posted at 12:55 pm on September 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

    I’m not sure which is more unsettling — the fact that a Supreme Court justice can get the First Amendment so wrong, or that it is so unclear that George Stephanopoulos thought to ask the question. Until now, I perhaps naïvely thought that everyone understood that the provocateurial pastor in Florida had the right to burn Korans, or any other book he legitimately owned, but that it was a really bad idea for many reasons, most of which Allahpundit argued in his excellent posts on the subject. Silly me:

    Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

    “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?” …

    “It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

    Hopefully, they put more thought into it than Justice Breyer does in this argument. The “fire in a crowded theater” standard is intended to limit government intrusion on free speech, not enable an expansion of it. It means that only when speech that will directly and immediately result in a threat to human life in the proximate setting can the government criminalize it — and it has to contain the element of malicious falsehood as well. After all, no one will prosecute a person who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater when it’s really on fire, or when the person yelling honestly believes it to be so.

    Otherwise, Breyer’s argument would put government in charge of judging the qualitative value of all speech. Would speech urging an invasion of Pakistan be therefore criminalized, too? After all, it might cause Pakistanis somewhere to riot and people to die, even if the argument is largely discredited in contemporary American politics.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already ruled on burnings as free speech. In both Texas v Johnson and US v Eichman, the court ruled that free speech trumped any offense and/or concerns about public safety raised by burning the American flag. In Johnson, the court spoke directly to this issue:

    The State’s position … amounts to a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or … even stirs people to anger.”

    Now, perhaps Breyer foresees a reversal of Johnson and Eichman, but that doesn’t appear to be where he’s leading. Instead, Breyer seems to want to put the Koran in a separate class for purposes of protest, a dangerous direction that flies in the other First Amendment restriction, the establishment clause regarding religion.

    Put simply, Breyer couldn’t have possibly been more wrong in this answer, and one has to wonder just what kind of standard Breyer will apply to future cases of free speech.”


    • I’m ashamed to acknowledge that he’s one of the Liberal judges on the bench..

      Maybe he’s secretly a radical Muslim bent on imposing Sharia law in America. I demand to see his birth certificate!

      • Matt,

        Not sure if this is a liberal view, or a personnal one on Breyer’s part. There have been many discussions about Islam on this site, including whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not. It seems the Breyer’s opinion is that Islam is NOT a peaceful religion, and therefore free spech in America should be curtailed because of this. I don’t have the need to burn any religious books, but some people just can’t stop bringing attention to themselves.

        If Breyer is right, and Islam is a violent religion, then maybe bringing this into the public view will help it change, by choice of the Muslims, or by overwhelming force.


        • Islam is a violent religion. But so is every other religion.

          But the upshot is this: I should not have my rights curtailed because you’re loony.

      • I know your kidding about the Muslam part but in all seriousness what is his reason?

        • Hi reason? He’s afraid.

          This is an act of cowardice.

          Please, please, don’t hurt me.. just leave me alone with my gavel and my robe and I promise I’ll make it so that no one does anything to upset you! If we capitulate to your every whim, maybe my bed-wetting nightmares will stop. If not burning your books isn’t enough, I’ll see what I can do about making burkas mandatory. After all, more than two centuries of hard-won and cherished freedoms mean nothing nothing to me if I’m too scared that you’ll get offended.

          • I’ll go with both he’s lost his mind and he’s acting like a coward-G’s right though is argument is saying that Islam is dangerous.

            • So what if they are dangerous*?

              Should we be banned from saying bad things about everyone whose dangerous? My brother is a violent sociopath. Does this mean that the First Amendment doesn’t protect my right to call him an doody-head for fear it might upset him and create a clear and present danger?

              *I don’t believe that as a generality, but let’s go with it for now).

              • I agree with you-just agreeing with G too-You can’t support this as a danger like screaming fire in a building without inferring that Islam is not just dangerous but extremely dangerous. Course it can’t be supported anyway but that would have to be the argument presented. Which would probably further irritate the extremist or make them feel more powerful. I don’t really know or care. Our freedoms can’t be determined by intimidation tactics.

  4. Of course they can’t just get rid of the 1099 provision-it is a new tax-they will raise it for now but it must be left intact so they can lower it later without calling it a new tax-just an added bonus that they can create another tax while sorta getting rid of this one.

    “WH to Congress: Let’s repeal a part of ObamaCare, mm-kay?
    posted at 1:36 pm on September 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

    The momentum to repeal ObamaCare picked up a little momentum in an unlikely place: the White House. After facing a deluge of criticism for new tax records mandates that threaten to drown both the IRS and small businesses, Congress finally scheduled an attempt to remove that portion of the new law. Yesterday, the Obama administration quietly asked Democrats to expedite the process and eliminate the 1099 requirements:

    Facing a backlash from small businesses over a new tax-reporting requirement in the healthcare law the president signed in March, the Obama administration is embracing the first change to the landmark legislation.

    In a letter to Senate leaders, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner urged the Senate to back a proposal to scale back the new reporting mandate.

    The law requires businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service transactions worth more than $600, a provision that was added to the law to raise an estimated $17 billion over a decade and offset the cost of expanding coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

    The small item garnered little attention when it was inserted into the gargantuan legislation.

    Well, why did it garner “little attention”? The media may have missed it, but we’ve been talking about this for at least eleven months. Cato reminded everyone about it in April, and yet it has taken five months for the White House to conclude that it will create huge costs and administrative burdens for business and the IRS alike.

    Had this bill been processed normally through committees and debated honestly, this flaw would have gotten immediate attention. Instead, the ObamaCare bill got written in back rooms, rushed to the floor of both chambers, instead of developed in the normal process. The excuse was that it was too important to get vetted, and too time-critical to delay it or pass it in components. Well, this is what happens when Congressional leadership says that they have to pass a bill to find out what’s in it, and when they drop 2800 pages of legislative text on members just 48 hours before floor votes.

    What remains to be seen is how Democrats plan to replace the $17 billion they assumed they would get from the provision. Two months ago, they seemed perfectly content to blame Republicans for not hiking other taxes to replace the revenue. The Wall Street Journal notes this problem, and another issue with the White House’s favored solution:

    Most Democrats now claim they were blindsided and didn’t understand the implications of the 1099 provision—which is typical of the slapdash, destructive way the bill was written and passed. As the critics claimed, most Members had no idea what they were voting on. Some 239 House Democrats voted to dump the 1099 provision in August, and the repeal would have passed except Speaker Pelosi rigged the vote procedurally so it needed a two-thirds majority. She thus gave Democrats the cover of a repeal vote without actually repealing it.

    In the Senate today, Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns will offer his amendment to scrap the new 1099 rules altogether. But the White House is opposing this because it fears it would set a precedent for repealing the larger health bill. Over the weekend the Treasury Department pronounced the Johanns amendment “not acceptable in its current form.”

    Yesterday the White House endorsed a competing proposal from Florida Democrat Bill Nelson that would increase the 1099 threshold to $5,000 and exempt businesses with fewer than 25 workers. Yet this is little more than a rearguard action in favor of the status quo; the Nelson amendment leaves the basic architecture unchanged while making the problem more complex.

    Businesses would still have to track all purchases, not knowing in advance which contractors will exceed $5,000 at the end of the year. It also creates a marginal barrier to job creation—for a smaller firm, hiring a 26th employee would be extremely costly. The Nelson amendment also includes new taxes on domestic oil production, as every Democratic bill now seems to do.

    Let’s just reflect on the fact that Democrats now claim that they backed a bill in the face of overwhelming opposition from voters, and now say they didn’t understand it when they did. And instead of cutting the spending in the bill, Democrats insist on raising taxes to cover their own mistake. If that’s not an election-year ad, I don’t know what is.”


    • Why is the 1099 tacked onto healthcare to begin with? This Congress needs a reality check,quick ❗

      • It’s in there to supposedly help pay for the monstrosity. Of course the idea that this thing is anywhere near paid for is laughable. Actually it’s not funny at all but I don’t think cryable is a word.

  5. I don’t think it would be smart for either side to shut it down right now. The rest of the world thinks we’re a joke as it is. What would China have to say. They could call for a cash-in on our debt, then what? What would Iran think? Or the Taliban? It could steele their resolve against us.

    BUT…If WE THE PEOPLE could organize a shut down… that would send a totally diferent message..to the Congress and to the world. A message that says WE KNOW we’re outta control and WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE! No one in Congress gets paid during the shutdown and we don’t reopen until certain pledges are made: Bring the troops home..Cut spending..Vote on one issue at a time..Repeal healthcare..I can continue if you like….

    You can say..But what about the entitlement crowd? They’re on SS or food stamps.. how will they ever…You know what I say… Take a hit for your country! Have your family or friends give you a hand up. You should be aware we have big problems and you should have been preparing for a political armageddon all along anyway. It would hurt. But the alternative is worse.

    • DRAT! This is a reply to Topic 2

    • Anita,

      Why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? If we are such a joke to other countries, then I have a simple solution. Stop all imports, stop sending finacial aid, stop sending food that we produce and then ask them if they are still laughing. 👿

      As far as entitlements, SS is taken from all workers while working, and given back when retired, not an entitlement as things like welfare are.

      • I like all your stops. Keep stopping. Then fire up the presses right here again. Made in the USA. We are preparing for the worst in our own lives to be self sufficient. Why can’t America do the same?

    • Anita

      The rest of the world thinks we’re a joke as it is.

      True, but the game is called “Greater Fool”. It’s sort of like Musical Chairs in reverse – you don’t want to be the one holding on to the T-Bills.

      But that is the game and as long as everyone plays, it works.

      Secret: Be among the first to stop playing.

      What would China have to say. They could call for a cash-in on our debt, then what?

      They hold T-bills – an IOU.

      What are they going to do, foreclose??

      The essence of all government debt is that it is never repaid. It is always defaulted simply because “who and what army is going to tell us different?”

      However, for a long period of time, no one will sell to the government either. But eventually, the People go insane and believe this time will be different. It never is. It’s like voting.

      But for that period of time of default there will be large political consequences. Political payouts cannot be made and some People will get angry. This is the dangerous period – short and deadly.

      That is where your concern should be focused.

      A message that says WE KNOW we’re outta control and WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

      Short of burning down a few major cities, you can kick and scream until you get a heart attack and it will cause Zero impact.

      Cut spending..

      I’m not picking on you, but you show precisely the very problem.

      You never complete your sentences.

      Cut spending…where?

      Who are you going to damage so badly that THEY will burn down your city?

      I’d love to hear your list. I’d love to hear anyone’s list. Every list that does come out always protects their government money, and argues to take away some other distant group’s government money.

      There are no answers to the follow up question “..and you believe 100 million of your fellow Americans will simply curl up and die in a corner??”

      Vote on one issue at a time..Repeal healthcare..I can continue if you like….


      Repeal Healthcare. ~50 million Americans depend on subsidized health services. What are you going to do about them now?

      You can say..But what about the entitlement crowd? They’re on SS or food stamps.. how will they ever…You know what I say… Take a hit for your country!

      So you do believe they will simply die on the streets peacefully??

      Have your family or friends give you a hand up.

      Do you believe YOU would let your sons and daughters suffer on food stamps if you could do something about it?

      I didn’t think so – but you believe others would – you would have a bizarre, but common, psychosis of ego-centric world view if that is what you believe.

      So, given that there are people on food stamps and welfare, given that if their families could do something they would, you now order families to do what they cannot do.

      Few are prepared to suddenly carry additional family into their current load. Can you? Could you suddenly support 3? 5? 10? more mouths to feed, cloth and house?

      But the obvious point – you are demanding others suck it up for YOUR benefit.

      Have you offered cutting back any of YOUR benefits?

      Are you -voluntarily- handing back every dollar the government gives to YOU back to someone else or the government? Nope!

      “Pain for them, but for me – leave mine alone!” is the mantra.

      But the alternative is worse.

      It may be.

      But for too many, the path is just as worse. Therefore, it will be the Musketeer motto:

      “One for all and all for One”

      • nice post, BF.

      • I understand that you are speaking to ‘the whole’ not to just me but I think that you are not seeing the whole picture either. In my city for example there have been big time cutbacks in city services and while people have balked no one is rioting in the streets. In 07 I lost the biggest contract I had and had to layoff 9 people. It was a financial and emotional hit to all of us and we still keep in contact to this day. Two of the people get handouts from the food bamks and have shared what they come across with the ones who can’t bring themselves to do the same. Everyone is still making it somehow. I myself have given cash straight up to a couple of them. Or we just trade up helping each other with projects around our homes. I think you go overboard in your doomsday scenarios. You seem to have no faith that people will help each other along yet that is what you preach about in your village

        Cut spending? We could argue back and forth all day about what is appropriate to cut back on. My pet peeves are on the projects that do nothing but waste money. We have posted lists in the past here. The save the minnow project, the $800 hammer. Those are the types of spending deals that keep us down in my opinion. Add them all up and it probably runs into hundreds of billions. There is no harm in cutting that kind of spending.

        For the record. I have not had a paycheck since 07. I have been running the business on my own but have not collected a check ..a couple ‘loans’ from the business but no payroll check. Luckily I’m debt free but I am sure not in any govt handout line either.

        • Anita,

          Again -not picking on you- however, you are a good example of the common thinking -for better or worse.

          In my city for example there have been big time cutbacks in city services and while people have balked no one is rioting in the streets.

          What big cutbacks? Did the city actually reduce their expenditures?

          I’ll wager dimes to donuts they didn’t.

          No one balked because the cuts were minor and placed only a small minority, right?

          But the budget did not decrease, right?

          And most importantly, you are talking LOCAL, not FEDERAL

          Do not assume because it works at a city level – where community support is local and personal – will work at the Federal level. People in NYC do not care about the people in LA.

          I think you go overboard in your doomsday scenarios.

          I posted to Cyndi awhile back about her paranoia.

          “It can’t happen here” is a serious disease, because it leaves you unprepared when it does happen here.

          You seem to have no faith that people will help each other along yet that is what you preach about in your village

          I do believe people will help along the way – but we are talking that 1 out of 6 need FEDERAL funds – you think there is the ability to carry them all?

          Cut spending? We could argue back and forth all day about what is appropriate to cut back on.

          Simple test.

          Are you willing to cut all of your government money.

          The answer, I know, will be: No.

          And there it is…. everyone is like you. No one will cut themselves, but happy to cut someone else.

          The great circle of non-cuts goes around and around.

          Anyone who says “Let’s cut!” ask them this:

          Ok, let’s toss the entire Dept. of Education. That will save $400 billion a year. Shall we do this?

          If they hum and haw, you know no one is serious about cuts

          My pet peeves are on the projects that do nothing but waste money.

          All government projects waste money since there is no way to measure profit and loss.

          So cut them all. But that is a fantasy; it will never happen.

          We have posted lists in the past here. The save the minnow project, the $800 hammer.

          So, pray tell me.

          What is the price of that hammer?

          If it was $100, you’d be happy?



          What is the “magic” number?

          Those are the types of spending deals that keep us down in my opinion.

          But you have no idea whether the money is well spent or not.

          You do not know where that hammer is.

          You do not know what it is used for.

          You do not know the ease or difficulty of delivery. For all you know it could be a hammer needed in the middle of a jungle by 007 fixing an atomic bomb. It needed to bet THAT hammer, delivered RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW.

          How do you know?

          How can you measure the cost benefit if all the measures of profit/loss cannot exist in government?

          There is no harm in cutting that kind of spending.

          How do you know?

          What is your measure?

          • BF you can’t tell me that you defend an $800 hammer. A hammer costs $4.50. If you’re in the middle of the jungle you either have the hammer or you use a damn rock. You keep saying nothing will work. You are just content to let it all die. You’re gonna see people in the streets big time then.

            1 in 6 on govt aid. These people are not alone in the world. They have family or friends or charities. Cmon BF. You ride both sides of the fence. What about personal responsibility? You have to adress all sides if you’re going to be preaching.

            I get NO govt help so I can’t give any up. You are wealthy. How about supporting a few families yourself? I’m doing what I can.I have GIVEN a room to 3 people in need in the last 4 years. I open my kitchen to my ex’s son who I basically raised because his dad is just barely making it. Tell me who you have supported?

          • And what paranoia would that be, praytell?

            • Cyndi,

              You made a comment asking if you were paranoid.

              I responded with a bit of history of Mises and a couple of other “paranoid” fellows.

              • Ah, I remember now.

                Sorry about bristling up on you. I’m a bit defensive because often I’m dismissed as ‘paranoid’. I keep telling myself not to bother but I can’t help myself when I see a glimmer of awakening in someone. Some are rude about it, but most treat me like the crazy auntie in the family. Either way….

  6. I am extremely ashamed of the Republican Party ELITES.

    Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell, a perennial candidate with no government experience, soundly defeated veteran politician Mike Castle for the Republican Senate nomination in Delaware Tuesday — posing a major upset to the political establishment on the last big day of primaries.

    With all precincts reporting, O’Donnell beat Castle 53-47 percent.

    O’Donnell’s win stands as the latest sign of Tea Party strength but also the latest test of whether that movement helps or hinders the Republican Party, with an open seat and perhaps a GOP Senate majority at stake.

    Party fractures on full display, Republican aides told Fox News Tuesday that O’Donnell would not be getting national fundraising support. State party leaders had warned that O’Donnell cannot compete against Democrat Chris Coons and vigorously backed Castle, a nine-term congressman and former governor.

    The whole article can be read here:

    What infuriates me so much is that in this primary the PEOPLE spoke, and the REPUBLICAN party doesn’t listen…though they will constantly beg for contributions. They will not get a thin dime from me. There should be national Republican backlash for this atrocity.

    • Is ther even a republican party anymore? RINO indeed!

    • I’ve been ranting about this all morning-Just who I wonder is the Party gonna back the democrat-they should be grateful that the Tea Party is running their candidates as republicans instead of independents.

    • It’s inyeresting that we may be witnessing the destruction of the political party system in it’s infancy. While the Repubs seem to be first, eventually, even the Democrats will wise up and see the corruption that is prominate in politics. I just wish both parties would fall off the cliff, we would all be better off.

      • That is hopeful thinking 🙂 but doubtful IMO-we may be seeing the beginning of the destruction of one or both of our present parties but I suspect new ones will take their place.

        • V

          If the people see that both Political parties are evil, it would make perfect sense to crush the weaker one first, then eliminate the stronger one. The conservatives far outnumber the Liberals in this country. This method is slow, but better than an armed Revolt.

          • Agreed. As much as I would like to elimiate the party system, I see it as most likely that new ones will arise. Still, new ones are better than the same old ones. And yes, it is slow, but it is the only non-violent option. Awaiting collapse may not initiate violence, but a violent upset it would be.

          • At this point though, I don’t see any of the “old”, or perhaps Blue Dog Democrats stepping out and speaking against the hijacking of “their” platform by the far left progressives. As long as they let this progressive ideology rule, they are sunk. The country made the mistake with The One, never again.

            There is a new book out by 3 Conservatives – they were on Hannity last night – Ryan from WI, Cantor from VA, and I believe McCarthy (?) from CA. It was great for them to first identify themselves as Conservatives and then to admit past mistakes in letting govt. and spending to grow to the point it is today. It is a start!

    • the good ole boys try to keep everyone that goes against them out. This is not just a politics thing this is an everyday thing. Jobs, Sports, Politics, you name it.

    • Terry

      Last year, when I was still a Repub Party member, I had to sit through a County meeting and get lectured by the “establishment elephants” that it was our job to support R’s no matter what. The issue came up when new T’s in the party started asking for accountability of our elected officials to stand for the platform.

      The tension grew to the point I finally quit the party. The “establishment” wanted the new blood to work for THEIR people and to shut the hell up.

      I sent one of the members an email two weeks ago asking why it was that the leadership who lectured us about supporting R’s at all costs, now seemed OK with chastising any and all T Party candidates that won the primary. And in fact why was the PARTY taking positions in the primaries at all. That has been traditionally taboo. Well until the establishment candidates became threatened. Now we see them out in the open hand picking “their” people.

      The Tea Party has stirred the pot something fierce. The fall out is exposing all the ugliness of party politics. It is going to get very interesting the next two months.

      OH………I never got a response to my email……….just the sound of crickets.

      Spread the word far and wide. STOP giving money to the Republican party in any of its forms.

      DONATE directly to candidates.

      • It is rather illuminating, isn’t it. I could not agree with you more. It sickens me to see these politicians place themselves above who pay them…unless it is election time. I will be re-registering as a non-party affiliate…I will not ever donate to any party, rather the individual I support.

        It also sickens me (and always has) the way they hawk anyone who has ever donated anything to them (Rebublican Party). My parents who are both in their late eighties constantly get called and mailed for donations. I get at least 3 emails a day for the same. I AM OFFICIALLY FED UP WITH ALL CAREER POLITICIANS…kick them all out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • I’m donating to O’Donnell today! The cleansing continues and the Roves and Perrino’s of the world can’t help themselves! Good riddance!

      • I used to have respect for Rove but that got blown apart last night!

      • Kathy and Anita

        So what does Rove and other’s reactions and behavior tell you about what has been going on all this time?

        • Oh yeah, I know, but it was interesting to see his public meltdown.

          We all realize that as “the architect”, he certainly wasn’t a conservative. Apparently his behind the scenes “group”, tried to make a deal with the tea party earlier this year to “let” Castle win and the tea party, said, “we don’t make deals – that’s been part of the establishments problem is the deals”. So he lost twice last night, well actually three times as he is being ripped a new one throughout the blogosphere today as many people are seeing the real him for the first time.

        • Just confirms what we @ SUFA have been saying all along. It’s a control thing. I like this ‘young guns’ approach that Kathy is talking about. Now can they practice what they preach?

    • New campaign slogan:

      Balls to the Wall!

      Rush Limbaugh weighs in. “I never heard Karl Rove as mad at a Democrat as he was at Christine O’Donnell last night.”

      More Rush: “If 51 seats is so important, let’s go balls to the wall” for O’Donnell.

  7. Canine Weapon says:

    The letter to dad:

    Dear Dad,

    $chool i$ really great. I am making lot$ of friend$ and $tudying very hard. With all my $tuff, I $imply can’t think of anything I need, $o if you would like, you can ju$t $end me a card, a$ I would love to hear from you.

    Your $on.
    The Reply:

    Dear Son,

    I kNOw that astroNOmy, ecoNOmics, and oceaNOgraphy are eNOugh to keep even an hoNOr student busy. Do NOt forget that the pursuit of kNOwledge is a NOble task, and you can never study eNOugh.


    • Canine Weapon says:

      Jesus, hanging on the cross, says, “Peter, come here.” Peter, believing he is about to receive a profound religious truth, tries goes to Jesus but Roman soldiers push him back.

      Again Jesus summons, “Peter, come here.” Peter tries to, but Roman soldiers again push him away.

      Jesus summons a third time, “Peter come here.” Peter gathers all of his strength and finally breaks through. Bleeding profusely from several lance wounds, Peter says, “Yes, my lord?”

      Jesus looks upon Peter and says, “I can see your house from here!”

  8. Good Morning to all;

    Just a note to remind everyone to take time each day to re-confirm your love and appreciation for those close to your heart. Given the trying times we live in we all need to remember and remind each other that together we will move forward.

    So with that:

    A year ago this coming Sunday my good friend Robert Kowalkowski lost his battle with cancer and passed on to his final journey. Since tomorrow is the begining of early deer season here in Michigan I will be in a mighty oak awaiting the approach of some fresh back-straps. As always I will use that time to reflect and rejuvinate my soul. But before I do I will make sure that all those still thrashing out a path here on Mother Earth are reminded of my passion and love for them.

    I suggest the same for all of you.

    As a tribute to my friend and fellow hunter I wrote the following a few days after his passing (Sept 18th, 2009). I wanted to share it with all of you not only to honor him, but to remind everyone that we all have like friends and loved ones that warrant our affection.

    So take a moment today and each day to remind those close to you how much you care and appreciate them.


    We all meet and engage many individuals in life’s journey. Some are haphazard passengers struggling to eek out an existence, while others go boldly forward toward a clear and righteous purpose. Some are but fleeting memories, others make indelible impressions, and yet still, there are those very few we call “Blacksmiths” who further forge our soul and spirit.

    These Blacksmiths, in the truest sense, positively affect our journey, our nature, our being, and in doing so hone our souls and spirits for the better. They take the tools developed and perfected through years of effort, trial and error, failure and success and wield them to hammer out a kindred spirit in those they chose to nurture.

    Few spirits roaming the world are fortunate enough to meet up with these Blacksmith’s, or when they do, are too blind to see them when they present themselves. I was fortunate to meet one and more fortunate to call him “friend”.

    Robert Kowalkowski came into my life some 12 years past. He was then already an impressive soul and learned Blacksmith, having pushed through a great many challenges, succeeded where most men never venture, and developed a persona the majority could only dream of. His heart was scared, but whole and strong, his demeanor direct, his chosen path clearly plotted, and his mind bright and open.

    He possessed a purpose that enabled him to guide others without veering from his own direction. He was honest, sometimes brutally so, but his honesty was always directed for the betterment of the individual. He spoke with a clear sense of purpose, never floundering or worrying about his intentions being misinterpreted.

    He was rarely wrong, because he was thoughtful, but on the occasion proven so he accepted the responsibility and apologized soulfully.

    He pursued life like he pursed the hunt; passionately and with fervor unmatched by most I have known. He was never shamed to show affection and never hesitant to demonstrate heartfelt compassion. He held a special place for those less fortunate, because he felt himself to be blessed, although sometimes he felt unworthy of those blessings.

    He brought and helped raise two remarkable individuals into a challenging world filled with unrest and misdirection, but managed to instill character, honesty, tenacity, and love into their souls. As a result they will continue to enrich the lives of many and make meaningful contributions to our society.

    He built and developed many friends and colleagues. He inspired many to accomplish, grow and believe. He shared his knowledge with all those who chose to listen, and his wisdom, thoughtfulness and guiding hand have helped direct many an individual path.

    Some say Bob was a complex man, but I disagree; he was very much just Bob. An individual, who marched to his own beat, spoke his mind, extended a helping hand and met challenges head on. He feared nothing nor anyone, respected all those that did in kind, and lead by example.

    He was an honest man and I can say that I have never experienced him lying, or hearing anyone accuse him of doing so.

    I was blessed to have spent as much time with him these last several years, learning from him, laughing with him and experiencing those gifts and contributions he brought to the world. I am and will continue to be a better man for having done so.
    Bob will be missed by many, but he left all of those who knew him part of his spirit, his knowledge, and all of his love.

    I believe he will continue to watch over those he cared for, pointing the way, forging a trail and building on the character that he helped Blacksmith.

    Go forward on your continued journey Robert Kowalkowski with the knowledge that your time on earth was cherished, and that those you left behind will one day pick up your trail and see you again.”


    • CM

      A well written tribute! He must have been a very good man.

      Good luck on your quest for the ellusive whitetail, our bow season starts two weeks from Saturday.



      • G-Man;

        If you Google Robert Kowalkowski you will see that he was an offensive guard for the Detroit Lions in the 60’s. That was just a part of his life. You can also Google ‘Kolo Charities’ and there is more.

        Bob touched a number of souls throughout his 65 years, and all of them miss him.

        BTW: We have an early deer season here in Michigan starting the 16th and ending the 20th because the state has way too many ‘corn rats’ and they are eating anything they can reach. As a result the DNR has authorized 786,000 anterless tags that can be used throughout the entire deer season. Each hunter can purchase up to 15 anterless tags plus their regular buck tags and certain counties will allow additional doe tags.

        You can bet I will do my very best to harvest as many as I can fillet and stuff into the freezer or give away.

        Shoot straight my friend


        • CM

          Sorry it took so long to reply. Spent many extra hours scouting and shooting the bow while the weather was nice. I’ve been scouting everyday since July 3rd, and have watched the deer change their feeding habits quite abit over this time. July is feeding the grass fields and the young corn plants, August is alot of the young corn in the first two weeks or so, then the deer basically disappear for a few weeks, except for the fawns and momma’s, because we had a huge acorn crop on the high part of the mountains. The fawns can’t handle acorns yet, but the bucks were invisible as they didn’t have to go far to feed.

          In the last week, the bucks are back in the grass fields, and as the feed corn matures, they are not causing much damage there. I’m working with a neighbor farmer with his crop damage issue, in return, I can hunt his land. Tonight, I shot a Porcupine at 150 yards in the field I watch. They are a major corn damage problem here, way more so than deer. In fact, most corn crop damage is caused by porcupines, raccoons and bear. Deer come in last place but are frequently blamed, good for crop damage tags, bad for their reputation.

          Deer here are now in the gorging stage, as the fighting for superiority will begin around the second week of October. I’ve seen no sparring amongst the bucks yet, but will be happy to see it begin. I’m seeing them in fields at all times of the day and night, and they are getting their winter coats alittle early this year.

          Happy and safe hunting!


    • I remember you sharing his story last year, CM. What a great tribute to your friend.

    • CM…as lucky as you were to know this gentleman, he was equally as lucky to have a friend such as you. Here’s wishing you an awesome hunt, shoot straight and enjoy nature’s bounty!

  9. Charlie Rangell won his primary? What is wrong with the people in New York?

    “Obama needs people like me”

    “This country and this world is a lot better off because of Pres. Obama”



    • New York is the second most awesomest state in the Union, right behind SoCal. Don’t be a hater.

      But I didn’t vote for him, so don’t blame me.

      • Haha..I almost directed the post to you! Good job not voting for him.

        I beg to differ on your choices on best states! 🙂

        • Beg all you like.

          1: NY (City and Westchester)
          2: SoCal
          3: CT

          15: NoCal

          40: NY (Upstate)
          41: Pennsylvania

          56: Texas*

          116: Ohio
          117: Florida

          By the way, I didn’t vote at all in the primaries yesterday – I was stuck at work until late and then I just wanted to get home. In all honesty, I don’t even know how I would have voted.

          *Note, this is the last of the famous 56 states Obama has visited

          • And what are the criteria for this ranking?

            • Ranked according to awesomeness.

              Florida and Ohio used to be higher ranked before 2000 and 2004 respectively.

              • That is a rather subjective ranking strategy. I have been to Southern California…nice but not that highly ranked on my “awesomeness” scale. I have purposely avoided New York as it really doesn’t appeal to me.

                I would rather be with Common Man on a hunting trip!

    • It’s Harlem for goodness sakes! (Was that racist of me? Oops!)

      • Not racist in my book! heehee

      • Rangel and the people who voted for him are the antithesis of MLK, Jr. famous quote:


        “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
        Martin Luther King, Jr.”


        ….judge them only by the color of their skin, NOT by the content of their character.


  10. Vit. D, USWep, Vit. D

  11. We’ve talked about ridicule being effective. Chris Christie does not mess around!


    • The teacher’s union is concerned that it opens the door and that they’ll wind up paying more and more every time there’s a crunch.

      Remember, that while public school teachers make good money, it’s nothing like what they could make in the private sector. When you’ve been teaching for 35 years, have a Ph.D. and 20 different types of accreditation, and are making 85k, I can understand why you might get irked that you’re being paid less in benefits. Not that I necessarily agree with the teachers union on this – I don’t – but Christie is using a straw man argument here. Nobody is arguing that children are stressed because the teachers aren’t getting enough.

      I think this kind of discourse does nothing but alienate the other side and make reaching a sensible agreement virtually impossible. He’s more interested in throwing around red meat than getting the issue resolved. And the teacher’s union is being too Chicken Little.

      Both sides need to grow up.

      • Teacher’s Unions are IMMORAL.

        To make more in the private sector there has to be a private sector.

        Many teachers pursue MS/MA and pHD only to get higher pay. Because their stupid unions negotiated pay scales on that basis.

        • JAC;

          You are only partly correct. Yes teachers do get more pay for more education, but after a Masters and 30 credits the pay difference for a PHD is only $1500 annually; at least in Michigan. Therefore most teachers avoid paying the tuition costs of garnering a PHD, especially since $1500 is basically one clsss.

          The real issue is that Michigan mandates that teachers obtain X number of credits every 5 years in order to maintain their license and/or certification. If they don’t they can be terminated.

          Just another way the State of Michigan helps fund public universities, and another example of a failing education system.

          And for all those that didn’t know it “Jenny” got a manditory retirement bill passed for Michigan teachers this past June. It basically says that if you have 30 years + at the end of school year 2010 and you choose to retire you keep your curent pension. (In Michigan you teachers add to their retirement fund each year they work past 30). If you don’t retire then the state will deduct X% each year from your current retirement each year you stay on. In addition, all Michigan teachers are now also contributing 3% of their earnings to the teachers retirement fund.

          This bill accomplished the following:

          – Several hundred teachers took retirement
          – The average Michigan teacher’s salary went down some 20%
          – Several younger teachers and newly graduating teachers were or are being hired to replenish those that left
          – Union numbers increased
          – Many Superintendents and educational administrators recieved raises


        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          In Virginia, teachers (in the public sector) are required to have a Masters Degree for k-12. Not sure if this is true for the private sector.

      • I disagree!

        Teacher Unions, like many other unions, have run rough-shod over education for some time now. It’s about time for push back. If you are unhappy making 85K (for 10 month work calendar, plus extensive time off during those 10 months), then don’t get into the profession. Simple as that. Teachers love to cry wolf, that they have to have continuing eduation, further accreditation, blah, blah, that somehow should justify their ridiculous benefit packages. Hello! Many professions require such ongoing updates.

        Christie is being transparent (where have I heard that buzz word before?). Let the people know the real circumstances behind the situation and the requests. I’m betting more and more NJites will be showing up at school board meetings after learning this inside story.

      • Sorry Mathius, but I also disagree with you here Surprise! Labor unions in general, and the teachers union specifically have way outlived their usefulness. They are a big problem in the US today…IMHO.

        • I specifically said I disagree with the teacher’s union.. what gives?

          • I guess it is because you (in an offhanded way) tried to make excuses for the teachers union.

            You said: “The teacher’s union is concerned that it opens the door and that they’ll wind up paying more and more every time there’s a crunch.”

            It sounds sort of like you are making excuses for them. Besides, I really like Christie…even if he is so close to New York!:)

            • I get that a lot (not just here) and I really can’t understand it. I try to see things from both perspectives and people always assume I’m taking the other guy’s side when I’m just trying to explain their reasoning.


  12. The often talked about, ever description challenged, Bush Tax Cuts. Whose money is it anyway?

    Here’s a new tactic from (surprise!) a liberal journalist doing her very best to educate us idiots.

    “…..extend an array of expiring tax breaks that would deprive the Treasury of more than $4 trillion over the next decade,”

    Deprive the Treasury! OMG!

    Senate Republicans unveil a plan to make Bush tax cuts permanent


    • Then here’s another (surprise!) liberal host, who just plain has to ask, “What’s so good about them”


      (PS – these are the 3 Young Guns referenced above – would love to see the whole clip on how they responded to her)

    • Kathy

      Let me prepare you.

      Tax cuts are referred to as “EXPENSES” in all Govt budget reports. That is the CBO’s terminology.

      On the other hand, we must admit that if we are so concerned about DEBT and DEFICITS that keeping taxes at the current level will increase the DEFICIT and DEBT without serious Budget cuts.

      Instead, the “conservative” talking heads immediately jump to another issue or scream…….its our money.

      The “leaders” need to start being honest with themselves and the rest of the country.

      • Well, let’s see, I’ve learned from the left, that you just have to change the terminology and then it all works.


        There fixed.

        • Kathy

          Good one.

          I love “temporary”, as in some unspecified time in the future that WE will decide.

          Or how about the latest. President Obama is really a moderate Democrat and the Republicans are mis-characterizing him as a “liberal” or “progressive”.

          Kind of reminds me when the Greenies started calling the Sierra Club moderate because they were right of Earth First and ELF.

    • If the sheep ever figure out the money isn’t theirs; that the Fed just let’s them borrow it, would that get their attention?

      • Cyndi P

        In a somewhat heated debate last week with a lefty I was told to get the hell over my “stupid” view that it was my money.

        I was told in no uncertain terms that it is ALL the GOVT’S MONEY and I DO NOT own it. The Govt owns it and they can take it back whenever it suits them.

        And this was the rationale for the Govt imposing taxes upon us at whatever rate the LEFT deems necessary to pay for a more comfortable and enlightened life.

        • JAC,

          Well, technically it is the FED’s money.

          You should have asked him, given you held a vote and everyone agreed, when he will be leaving your “new” house.

          • BF

            You know I gave it some hard thought and I don’t think that it is the Fed’s money, technically or otherwise.

            It is a piece of paper printed by the Fed and then given to someone, who eventually gave it to me.

            So using the laws of ownership it seems to me that I own this dollar bill, er excuse me, Federal Reserve Note.

            Now granted, they could destroy the value of the paper but that does not mean I don’t own the paper. After all, you could destroy the value of my house by building a dairy next door. But I still own my house.

            The left doesn’t handle the concept of “majority” rule works only as long as “I” am in the majority, very well. I find that there is an assumption that “THEY” are the majority and will ALWAYS be the majority. The rest of us are just wingnuts.

            But then most “conservatives” actually think the majority of us are “conservatives” so I guess that sums up politics today.

            • JAC

              You know I gave it some hard thought and I don’t think that it is the Fed’s money, technically or otherwise.

              It is a piece of paper printed by the Fed and then given to someone, who eventually gave it to me.

              So using the laws of ownership it seems to me that I own this dollar bill, er excuse me, Federal Reserve Note.

              Now granted, they could destroy the value of the paper but that does not mean I don’t own the paper. After all, you could destroy the value of my house by building a dairy next door. But I still own my house.

              A core test of ownership is destruction.

              You can destroy your house at your will.

              Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or

              unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank
              bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national
              banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal
              Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note,
              or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined
              under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both

              You do not own that note – you are allowed to USE it, but it is not yours.

              It is closer to renting a house than owning it.

              • BF

                But is that any different than other laws which essentially convert your ownership to rental status.

                Because you see, I can not simply destroy my house. I must get a permit and then I must pay the city/county and the law will force me to haul away the pieces of what I own and dispose of them.

                So is not this law similar in its nature? It is simply an encroachment on my Ownership.

        • If there okay being slaves, its worse than we thought…….

  13. Mathius,

    I want to help those who need help and kick everyone else to the curb. Means test SS.

    So you will default the government and turn SS into a tax – taking from one group for the benefit of a different group.

    Then I want to gut the DOD.


    I want to kill, burn and bury DOMA and DADT.

    What will you do for the millions of unemployed?

    I want to break the back of the teachers union and fire all the bad teachers. This is the single biggest thing on my agenda.

    How do you “measure” teacher performance to know the difference between a harsh but good teacher and a harsh but bad teacher?

    If the kids don’t like a harsh teacher do you fire the teacher?

    If the kids all get “A”, do you give a raise to the teacher?

    What is a “bad” teacher?

    What is your yardstick?

    I want to change all speed limit signs to the real speed limit (the one you get a ticket at).

    Why have speed limits?

    Studies show that with no speed limits, the drivers drive at about the same speed anyway.

    Why? Vast majority of drivers drive as safe to the their limits as they can.

    Then I want to pay down the debt. All of it. Every red cent.

    Where are you getting this money to pay debt?

    Then I want to pass a balanced budget amendment (with an exemption for a defensive war fought on US soil).

    Balanced…how? Isn’t the budget balanced if you simply borrow the money anyway?

    And if you own the creation of money, how can you ever NOT balance your budget?

    I want a law requiring that all future laws be written in plain language.

    The ultimate deterioration of law.

    You need a law to demand the understanding of the law.

    That law will be incomprehensible even to Mensa members.

    Why bother with laws that need to be so complicated you can’t understand them? That is a sign it is not a Rightful Law

    I want to eliminate federal drug laws. Give a 1-year lag on this so that states can pass their own.

    They will never pass any laws and will let the time expire and demand you extend the time.

    I want to allow medicines to be sold without prescriptions (except for antibiotics – no unnecessary breeding of super germs).

    …and nothing changes. Because of a personal reason, you want to inhibit THEMoverThere, but free yourself.

    In no time, THEMoverThere will pass a law that inhibits you.

    Then you will pass a law that inhibits them.

    A few laps, you’re right back here again.

    And drugs can be sold without FDA approval (but with a warning label to that effect) – caveat emptor.

    But isn’t that already self-evident. So why require it?

    I want a law requiring all bills to be passed on their own. No more riders, no more omnibus, no more earmarks.

    So what will be the boundary?

    If this is a highway bill, does that count for gravel roads? What about the ditches next to the highway, do they count? What about the service roads connecting the highways, do they count? What about the businesses that service the highways, do they count?

    I want a law requiring all bills to be posted in their entirety online 7 days before voting. (some kind of exemption for emergency legislation should be made here).

    Then everything will be an emergency.

    Then I want a law requiring that all future laws come with a one page rider describing in clear language where the Constitution grants this authority. This must be approved by a panel of high school social studies teachers.

    Buck will point to the Commerce Act and everything will be Constitutional.

    High school teachers do not have the firepower of the US Marines to enforce their version of the Constitution.

    Think we can find some room to work together?

    As long a people believe LAW is the answer to human social problems, nothing will change.

    • I want to help those who need help and kick everyone else to the curb. Means test SS.

      So you will default the government and turn SS into a tax – taking from one group for the benefit of a different group.


      Then I want to gut the DOD.


      All over the place. We spend more than the next ten countries combined – I’m sure there’s plenty to cut. And I don’t think we need to maintain 2,000 nuclear missiles either.

      I want to change all speed limit signs to the real speed limit (the one you get a ticket at).

      Why have speed limits?

      Good point. We’ll just fall back on law against reckless endangerment. Somewhat subjective, but I can live with that.

      Then I want to pay down the debt. All of it. Every red cent.

      Where are you getting this money to pay debt?

      With savings from reduced expenses. Also, if necessary, short term tax increases. You have to have clean books in order to run a business and I intend to run my government like a business. And I always stay in the green.

      I want a law requiring that all future laws be written in plain language.

      The ultimate deterioration of law.

      You need a law to demand the understanding of the law.

      That law will be incomprehensible even to Mensa members.

      I need a law to stop them from writing laws in such a way that they are deliberately opaque. Politicians use this tact to hide what is getting put in. If they must use accessible language, then We The People can decide if we agree or not.

      I want to eliminate federal drug laws. Give a 1-year lag on this so that states can pass their own.

      They will never pass any laws and will let the time expire and demand you extend the time.

      Let them demand to their hearts content. I don’t answer to them and I’m not seeking reelection. Don’t pass a law in time? Oh well.

      I want to allow medicines to be sold without prescriptions (except for antibiotics – no unnecessary breeding of super germs).

      …and nothing changes. Because of a personal reason, you want to inhibit THEMoverThere, but free yourself.

      I limit only the one thing that threatens everyone. The breeding of antibiotic resistant germs has been well established. Already penicillin is virtually worthless against a host of diseases. But anything that doesn’t threaten the whole of society, you’re free to put in your body at your own peril – who am I to say otherwise?

      And drugs can be sold without FDA approval (but with a warning label to that effect) – caveat emptor.

      But isn’t that already self-evident. So why require it?

      Because I don’t want people to be duped into believing something has been vetted when it hasn’t. I actually spelled out my transition thoughts to get away from the FDA a few days ago. Go back and read and tell me what you think. Then end there is similar, I think, to where you want to be. This is really just a first step.

      I want a law requiring all bills to be passed on their own. No more riders, no more omnibus, no more earmarks.

      So what will be the boundary?

      Great question. I’m open to suggestions.

      I want a law requiring all bills to be posted in their entirety online 7 days before voting. (some kind of exemption for emergency legislation should be made here).

      Then everything will be an emergency.

      Probably. But how do you leave wiggle room for a true emergency? Maybe a 4/5ths rule in the house to authorize emergency status? Again, I’m open to suggestions.

      Then I want a law requiring that all future laws come with a one page rider describing in clear language where the Constitution grants this authority. This must be approved by a panel of high school social studies teachers.

      Buck will point to the Commerce Act and everything will be Constitutional.

      High school teachers do not have the firepower of the US Marines to enforce their version of the Constitution.

      They don’t need firepower. That’s irrelevant. It’s just a question of having a good understanding of civics. The Commerce Clause has already been ruled to be limited in many cases. Overreaching with it is something that is generally pretty easy to spot.

      Think we can find some room to work together?

      As long a people believe LAW is the answer to human social problems, nothing will change.

      I’ll take that as a ‘no’?

    • Missed this one:

      I want to kill, burn and bury DOMA and DADT.

      What will you do for the millions of unemployed?

      I suppose some homosexuals will find employment in the military. But also, there’s a lot of money in the wedding industry. Some estimates show that as much as 10% of the population is gay. That’s a big boost to the industry. People spending money means someone else is making money. And frequently they need to hire people to do the extra work that they’re paid for. I remember see an article on how much money the gay marriage industry brings in where it’s legal.

      But mostly, it’s not about unemployment. The law is wrong. It should be abolished. I’m sure you can get on board with that.

      • Mathius,

        However, it is moot.

        This is a fantasy, way up high, over the rainbow next to the leprechaun’s farm.

        Public Choice Theory states that you will not even get close to elected if this was your platform.

        • The question was what would my agenda be if I was suddenly whisked into power. Not if would I ever get into a position of power in the first place.

          I am not electable. I wouldn’t want to be elected even if I could be – I am too private of a person for that.

          But, if I were elected, this is one of the things I would hope to accomplish. I imaging that, while you probably would reject most of my agenda, you would support this item.

          • Mathius

            Besides, we have the benefit of being elected under the current system, which gives us the power to do these things we are proposing.

            The last thing we do before retiring is fix it so nobody can change it without 75% of the States agreeing.

            Do you think I poked him hard enough???

            • I propose that there be a very high barrier to NEW laws, but a low barrier to removing laws.

              We could debate the ways of setting them up, but they should be configured in such a way as to provide a sort of ratcheting effect.

              75 percent in both houses and the President in order to pass a new law. 40% of both houses (no President) in order to remove a law. Changes to existing laws are treated the same as new laws.

  14. Anita,

    BF you can’t tell me that you defend an $800 hammer. A hammer costs $4.50.

    Ok, answer me this.

    How can I defend spending $115,000 on a computer system!?!? A home computer costs $500!!

    Please answer me this in detail.

    • What is your point?

      Is it that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? I agree. In good times. We’re in a jam right now, trying to find a way out and you are content to just let it collapse.

      How many people have you helped in the last year? Oh, I forgot ( or maybe mis-interpreted) You have already bailed. How nice for you to preach. And , Yes, you are getting on my last nerve 🙂

      • Anita,

        My point is simple.

        You have no way to know whether $800 or $4.50 is the right price.

        There does not exist a measure to know. That’s the problem.

        Was it worth it cannot be calculated.


          I understand you are using a hammer as a metaphor, but you are not using common sense. You are using theory. Just like all the guys in DC.

          Gimme a break.

          • Anita,

            I sure can.

            You cannot demonstrate otherwise.

            You are saying: “you cannot defend the color blue!!”

            You have no measure to know whether spending $800 or not is a good decision – like my computer analogy.

            How do you know?

            • Beeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeF,

              The difference between $800 and $4.50 is COMMON SENSE

              The difference between saving the minnow and giving farmers water is COMMON SENSE.

              My measure is COMMON SENSE

              • Anita, attack his premises. Appeal to common sense does not work with him – he wasn’t programmed that way.

              • Anita

                Actually it is your experience that tells you.

                We all know what the price of a hammer is because we see them in the hardware store all the time. We may have actually purchased one.

                We all want our Govt to spend the least amount needed to accomplish the job. It it takes an $800 hammer to fix the space station then so be it. But if you (govt employee) order an $800 hammer to build a shit house in Iraq your going to here from both Mathius and I. And our enforcer Anita will be coming along for a “discussion” about your mental capacity.

                🙂 🙂 🙂

                Figured one good turn deserved another.

                • A great story (probably apocryphal) goes back to the space race. Pens don’t work so well in zero-G, so NASA spent a few million and developed a really cool space pen that did work. The Russians gave their cosmonauts pencils.

                  • Mathius

                    It seems we are working for the same railroad today.

                    See my comment to you below.

                    But I got to tell you, those pens worked really good in the woods because you could take notes while holding the notebook above your head.

                    Which is required to write in the rain. Worked really good until some brainiack decided to use cheaper ink. Then it would just wash away when it got wet. So we went back to the pencils.

                    We used ink to prevent someone from changing the data later. Just in case you were wondering.

                • Anita,

                  Read JAC’s response above.

                  You do not know where or what hammer this is.

                  You do not know if it is worth it.

                  Someone happened to see it as a line item and did what you did. They thought it was wrong, but did not investigate any further.

                  You can sit there and spout:

                  “Paying $115,000 for a computer is WRONG. It’s common sense. I can buy one for $500!!”

                  But you have no idea what computer is bought or for why.

                • I keep coming back to this keyboard with a bigger burr on my brow every time. I’m severly striking these keys right now. uuugghhhh!!!!!! 🙂 🙂

            • Gee whiz, I must of missed it.

              I didn’t know the hammers were blue.

              Well hell that explains the $800

        • The question is simple.

          If you have no access to an alternative market and are captive within your microcosm where a hammer is worth $800, then $800 is the “right price” for a hammer.

          The us government, however, has the same access to Home Depot that you and I do. So when they pay $800 for a hammer it is $795.50 more than they need to.

          The “right price” for any item is the lowest price you can get for it respective of convenience and quality. Assuming that the $800 hammer is a high quality hammer, that might go for $40 at Home Depot. The $800 presumably includes convenient shipping, so let’s call it a $50 comparable if bought from Home Depot.

          The law of supply and demand fails if a buyer is indifferent to changes in price, ceteris paribus. Therefore, they are certainly “overpaying” for the hammer. But the real question is why:

          A) The government is unaware and the manufacturer is ripping them off. I’ve seen this where they bill for “vital” supplies and the amount is paid automatically to avoid delay.
          B) Some bureaucrat has cut a deal and is deliberately overpaying.
          C) The government is inflating the book expense but not actually spending it in order to hide money that they channel elsewhere (whether legitimate or nefarious).
          D) Some or all of the above

          • Mathius

            It historically was often because of “skewed bidding” on equipment and supplies when the contracts are awarded.

            You want hammers today and the trucks next year. I increase the hammer price so I increase my cash flow to help me build the trucks later. The bids for trucks is slightly less but the TOTAL bid price is the same as if both items were priced at the market.

            The other common problem was over specification by the govt. Somebody would draw up specifications that demanded specialized supply. So the entire cost of design and production was put on the single bid item. Like special “toilet seats”.

            Here is the classic example for this one. The USA spent millions on acquiring pens that would write in space. They need to pump ink without gravity. The Russians solved the problem by using a No. 2 pencil.

  15. Anita,

    You keep saying nothing will work. You are just content to let it all die. You’re gonna see people in the streets big time then.

    You do not understand.

    The period of possible action came and went 25 years ago.

    The last possible opportunity was Reagan.

    -The end of the Cold War
    -A stern FED Chairman willing to take the heat of unpopularity
    -A vast majority of Americans on side.
    -A devastated Democratic party suffering from the aftermath of Carter.

    And he couldn’t do it. He succumbed to the Elite’s demands. After that, the USA was doomed to be here and doomed to collapse.

    1 in 6 on govt aid. These people are not alone in the world. They have family or friends or charities. Cmon BF.

    Again, you believe that friends or family have the ability to absorb them.

    I asked you if you could.

    You can’t – I know.

    But you demand others do what you cannot do.

    You ride both sides of the fence. What about personal responsibility?

    Do not confuse my personal ethics with government policies and consequences.

    I chose a very long time ago to do the things that needed to be done for my own prosperity and survival.

    I have been a self-work in progress for 35 years getting where I am able to effectively resist the consequences of government collapse.

    I have no misconceptions that those that have spent zero time doing these necessary things -let alone even starting a plan– will NOT be able to successfully navigate the consequences.

    To believe you can demand that hundreds of millions of people will “suck it up”, overnight, a collapse of the their lifestyles by half is delusional.

    You have to adress all sides if you’re going to be preaching.

    What other side?

    The man is falling without a parachute. What do you believe he has as choices? Flapping his arms?

    The option of not jumping is long gone. Demanding of me for a solution for him is futile. None exists. He will hit the ground at terminal velocity. Whether he goes through some trees, a thicket and hits mud and merely breaks his legs and back -but survives- is not within my power to design.

    My repeated advice:
    Do not be standing under him.

    I get NO govt help so I can’t give any up.

    No SS?
    No Medicare/Medicaid?
    No subsidy or benefit whatsoever?

    You are wealthy. How about supporting a few families yourself?

    If I did, I would be at risk of failing to support my family.

    We have prepared some contingencies. We have certain bilateral agreements with close friends depending on how the situation falls out.

    I am under no misconception that they may renege – thus, I have to hold MY contingency of self-support regardless.

    Tell me who you have supported?

    An entire country, but they did not appreciate it.

  16. No SS?
    No Medicare/Medicaid?
    No subsidy or benefit whatsoever?

    Nope. I’ve paid INTO SS and Medicare for 34 years though and don’t expect it to be there in another 20. So I guess I have donated my cash to the govt. I have never been on any kind of govt program. I do use the roads and traffic signals so I guess that’s what I get for my donation.

    You are wealthy. How about supporting a few families yourself?

    If I did, I would be at risk of failing to support my family.

    BULLSHIT. You are in way more of a position than I am to help. Run that by someone else who believes it.

    • I’m stunned..

      Faraway Objects Are Tougher to See

      The Study: “Why is it easier to see someone close than far away?” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Feb. 2005


      The Beer-Goggle Effect is a Bona Fide Phenomenon

      The Study: “Science of Beer Goggles Revealed,” Bausch & Lomb press release, Nov. 2005

      The Findings: Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, suggests an analysis by an optometrist at the University of Manchester in England. The researcher was the first to scientifically quantify the alleged beer-goggles effect, wherein a drinker’s diminishing visual acuity can impair his or her ability to make sound judgments about a potential date. The optometrist quantified the phenomenon in an equation that accounts for variables such as amount of alcohol consumed, smokiness of the room and quality of eyesight. One finding: A nearsighted, sober person who isn’t wearing his or her glasses can experience a beer-goggle effect equivalent to drinking eight pints of beer.


      Swallowing More Than One Magnet is Dangerous

      The Study: “Multiple magnet ingestion alert,” Radiology, Nov. 2004


      Smoking Cigarettes Costs You Money

      The Study: “The wealth effects of smoking,” Tobacco Control, Dec. 2004


      Women Like Funny Men

      The Study: “The influence of humor on desirability,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Jan. 2006


      Time Flies When You’re Busy

      The Study: “Time estimation: the effect of cortically mediated attention,” Brain and Cognition, July 2004


      Combining Drugs and Alcohol is Bad For You

      The Study: “Differential effects of cocaine and cocaine + alcohol on neurocognitive performance,” Neurology, June 2000


      Too Many Meetings Make You Grumpy
      The Study: “The relationship between meeting load and . . . well-being of employees,” Group Dynamics, March 2005

      • Too much Hopium can make a person go blind
        Masterbating to the soothing sounds of Hope-N-Change can disconnect one from the real world.

    • Cyndi,

      No, Chinese government would be a huge loser.

      Yes, the US would suffer but it is unlikely that the US would suffer a coup because of it.

      The Chinese economy is mercantilist.

      The government is subsidizing the entire economy for export. There is nearly no internal consumption.

      The end of trade with the US will create – literally – a billion unemployed Chinese.

      The US is heavily internal consumption based. It would take a few years, but all the goods the Chinese exported would eventually be manufactured in the US.

      It will take decades to turn China into a consumer nation. Their average income is still under $250 a month.

      The Communist party would collapse and civil war would break out.

      The REAL big winner in a trade war would be India.

  17. September 15, 2010
    Gold and the Obama Administration
    Steve McCann
    On September 13 Gold hit a new high of $1,274.00 per ounce. Gold has often been the safe haven for investors fearful of future financial downturns and political upheavals. As such it also serves as a barometer of the success or failure of economic policy being pursued by the major western economies, particularly the United States.

    A cursory examination of the price of Gold the day after a Presidential election in the United States versus the price of Gold 22 months thereafter as well as the end of a President’s first term shows more than any government issued statistic or media-driven poll the perceived success or failure of a Presidency.

    In reviewing that period in the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Barack Obama the following is revealed:

    In 1976 Jimmy Carter won the election versus Gerald Ford. On November 3, 1976 Gold was priced at $122.50 per ounce. By September 15, 1978 the price had risen to $212.15 per ounce (an increase of 73%). Thanks to some of the most inept policies ever adopted by an administration (up to that time). These policies resulted in the worst downturn in the economy since the Great Depression so that by the end of Carter’s term and Election Day 1980 Gold was selling at $652.00 per ounce, a jump of 432%)

    Ronald Reagan came into office, following Jimmy Carter, with what was the worst recession since the 1930’s. Unemployment hit 10.5%, the prime rate exceeded 18% and confidence was at an all time low. The prospects for the economy and the country were the bleakest since the Great Depression. On Election Day Gold was selling at $652.00 per ounce. However, thanks to the President’s newly enacted economic program by September 14, 1982 gold had stabilized and was selling for $666.50 per ounce (an increase of only 2%). By the end of Reagan’s first term and on Election Day 1984 Gold had fallen to $343.80 an ounce (a decrease of 48%).

    George W. Bush won a contentious election in November 2000. At that time Gold was selling for $265.50 per ounce. Within ten months the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 occurred and an inevitable downturn in the economy ensued which was countered by adopting many of Ronald Reagan’s policies. By September 14, 2002 Gold was selling for $273.25 per ounce (an increase of 3%). At the end of the first Bush term and on Election Day 2004 Gold was selling for $333.00 per ounce or an increase of 25%.

    On Election Day 2008 and as an aftermath of the financial market meltdown, Gold was selling at $652.00 per ounce. President Obama has since passed various incarnations of stimulus bills, new taxes, Health Care Reform, Financial Reform and tens of thousands of pages of new regulations. As of September 13, 2010 Gold is selling for $1,274.00 per ounce (an increase of 72% nearly mirroring Jimmy Carter’s performance 32 years earlier). It appears that by the end of his first term, if significant changes are not made, Obama will surpass his predecessor as the possessor of the worst economic record since the 1930’s.

    In summary: % Increase in Gold Price after first 22 months post Election Day

    Jimmy Carter 73%

    Ronald Reagan 2%

    George W. Bush 3%

    Barack Obama 72%

    While the President and his puppet Joe Biden run around touting the “Summer of Recovery” and the so-called “jobs saved”, the market is not fooled by empty rhetoric or suspect statistics coming from the bowels of Washington D.C. It is not only the ongoing ineptness of the current governing class that has completely eroded confidence in the current policies of this administration, it is also their stubbornness in their allegiance to radical re-distribution ideology.

    Perhaps some of the people can be fooled some of the time but the markets will not be. They will reflect reality.


  18. Republican Leaders Pledge Support for O’Donnell After Infighting

    Published September 15, 2010

    | FoxNews.com

    Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell addresses supporters after winning the Republican nomination for Senate in Delaware Sept. 14 in Dover, Del. (AP Photo)

    Influential Republicans pledged Wednesday to support Christine O’Donnell’s general election campaign after party leaders initially turned their backs on the Tea Party candidate following her upset win in the Delaware Senate primary.

    O’Donnell’s rise from obscurity to victory over longtime Rep. Mike Castle had sent Republican honchos in Delaware and Washington into a state of political shock. Aides for the top fundraising
    arm for Senate Republicans said Tuesday she would not be getting help from them — a reaction that raised concern the party would torpedo its chances at a congressional takeover out of spite.

    But National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn said in a written statement Wednesday that O’Donnell would have NRSC support as well as the maximum $42,000 donation from the organization.

    “Let there be no mistake: The National Republican Senatorial Committee — and I personally as the committee’s chairman — strongly stand by all of our Republican
    nominees, including Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Cornyn said.

    Castle, who argued O’Donnell could not win in a general election against Democrat Chris Coons, reportedly will not endorse O’Donnell. But party leaders on Capitol Hill tried to embrace her candidacy Wednesday.

    ?Tall?-sized Troubles Prompt Starbucks to Bring Back 12-Oz. Beverages
    Ten Worst Places to Live
    President Changes Tune on Health-Care Costs
    Gold Hits Record High as Investors Scramble for Safety
    Why Did Jack Daniel Name it ‘Old No. 7’?

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Fox News he would support the nominee and donate money from his political action

    Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele announced his support.

    Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the third-ranking Republican in the House, said he would not count out O’Donnell in November.

    “I categorically reject that Christine O’Donnell cannot win in Delaware,” he said. “This is a whole new world. We elected a Republican in Massachusetts.”

    O’Donnell’s win posed one of the biggest upsets to the Republican establishment this year — a campaign season marked by a series of outsider Tea Party victories. Republican leaders ultimately came around to candidates like Sharron Angle in the Nevada Senate race and Joe Miller in the Alaska Senate race, where incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski was defeated in the primary last month and has not yet decided her next move. Cornyn pointed out Wednesday that the NRSC also just aired its first ad in support of GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, in Kentucky.

    O’Donnell, though, was a perennial candidate with no government experience and a history of personal financial problems. Delaware Republican leaders had condemned her candidacy and offered few words of encouragement after her victory over Castle by a 6-point margin.

    Republican strategist Brad Blakeman said the initial move to alienate O’Donnell was poor strategy for Republicans looking to take over at least one chamber of Congress in the fall. He said the party needs to unite with all the Tea Party-backed nominees before November or risk not only losing seats but the possibility of the Tea Party defecting into a bona fide third party.

    “We’re not going to like every candidate 100 percent,” Blakeman said. “You need to regroup now. … The risk is you’re going to blow apart the Republican Party.”

    Democrats sought to exploit any sign of division over the O’Donnell win. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Wednesday that Tea Party candidates like O’Donnell will hurt Republicans in the fall.

    “Republicans in Delaware nominated somebody that they don’t believe can win — I think, in the words of the state party chair, couldn’t be elected dogcatcher,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

    Long-distance disputes between O’Donnell and her supporters and prominent Republicans continued into Wednesday, though party leaders began to embrace her.

    Former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove, a Fox News contributor, had criticized O’Donnell’s candidacy Tuesday night. O’Donnell, in an interview with Fox News Wednesday morning said Rove’s “credibility” had been damaged by her victory.

    Asked about the tiff, Rove said Wednesday that his problems with O’Donnell concern her “character” and “background,” not her ideology.

    “If she wins, more power to her — she’s right on the issues,” he said. “She’s got to answer these troubling questions.”

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who gave O’Donnell a boost in profile by endorsing her in the final days of the campaign, said Republicans need to close ranks now that the primaries are over.

    “Those who say that the GOP nominee is not elect-able or that they’re not even going to try, well I say buck up,” Palin told Fox News. “I have absolutely nothing against Karl Rove. … They need to realize that the time for primary debate now is obviously over and it’s time for unity.”


    • V.H.

      This one absolutely pisses me off: ““Republicans in Delaware nominated somebody that they don’t believe can win — I think, in the words of the state party chair, couldn’t be elected dogcatcher,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.”

      Can I have permission to personally skin this low life son of a bitch when we take over. Excuse me, that wasn’t fair. I have degraded the reputation of true bitches everywhere by associating this scum with them.

      What the hell is a PRESIDENTIAL Press Secty. commenting on a Senate race in Delaware or on the status of the Republican electorate in any state?


      Oh well, I guess one arrogant jackass deserves another.

      I’m done now.

      Back to your regular programing.


  19. JAC,

    I must get a permit and then I must pay the city/county and the law will force me to haul away the pieces of what I own and dispose of them

    Those laws are not a challenge to your ownership – they mitigate harm or damage to neighbors, etc.

    The law regarding FRN prohibits any such destruction – heck, you can’t even write on them, legally.

    Only the FED can destroy their own notes, because it is their property.

    • BF

      You may have just given rise to an idea that would truly awaken the American citizen.

      Suppose a Person were to publicly destroy millions of these pieces of paper. And the Fed Govt tried to prosecute said person.

      During the trial the Govt would have to prove it “owned” said pieces of paper and that the citizen actually owns NOTHING.

      Now as I see it the poor Judge is between a Rock and a Hard Place. Or in the best case, the JURY finds in favor of the PERSON and nullifies the law as UNJUST.

      Either way it would be most enlightening, or entertaining, don’t you think?

      • JAC,

        Interesting idea – expensive though! 😉

        • BF

          Not really.

          You see we announce the event and then burn piles of funny money.

          Then we throw a few hundred on the pile so when they show up looking for evidence they have ash from the real thing.

          We could even run a campaign for donations. Give to the Bon Fire of the Vanities, something catchy.

          This could be one of my best ideas since I tried to intercept the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society donations and stash them in a warehouse. Except this one doesn’t include charges of mail fraud and grand theft.

          I am feeling so Pirate Like at the moment.

          • JAC,

            Don’t laugh.

            I think its a grand idea.

            It’s like Ron Paul’s Prez run – make a web site and advertise it.

            It will most certainly attract thousands (and thousands of dollars!) as a protest against the failing dollar turning to funny money!

            “Burn the Funny Money” Event!

            • BF

              Trust me. I am not laughing.

              Well maybe I am but only out of devious revelation.

              If everyone donated one dollar………160 million up in smoke.

              Of course, we would first have to pay TAXES on the INCOME but what the hell. We don’t want the Govt case to go beyond proving ownership.

              Or even better. A not for profit and we pay no taxes. Publicly supported, check. No profits distributed, check.

              Now lets expand. What other things could we force into the light using the same method?

          • I’m in……how much, when and where?

  20. OK

    I just have to share with everyone here. For those that don’t know this is the single biggest “festival event” in the State of Nevada.


    So if Harry Reid gets re-elected you will now have a better understanding of why. DEAD BRAIN CELLS.

    Of course you could look at this as an example of the “libertarian” spirit in the state.

  21. I hope others will agree with me, that too little attention was paid to V.H.’s post. I, for one, was not aware of the un-employment numbers. They seem to prove that Hoover & FDR made a depression into “THE GREAT DEPRESSION”.

    V.H said
    September 14, 2010 at 9:42 am

    A Non-Prediction
    Email Thomas Sowell | Columnist’s Archive

    When people learn that you are an economist, they often want you to predict which way the economy is going. There seem to be more than the usual number of calls for such predictions lately. But an economist should be more aware than others are of how hazardous such predictions can be.

    One reason is that what happens in the economy is affected by what politicians do in Washington– and who can predict what politicians will do?

    However, let me go out on a limb, and try to predict what politicians will not do.

    What would probably get the economy recovering fastest and most completely would be for the President of the United States and Congressional leaders to shut up and stop meddling with the economy. But it is virtually impossible that they will do that.

    Think about telling all the millions of people who have lost their jobs, their homes or their businesses: “I really messed you up but, hey, nobody’s perfect. So I’m going to leave things alone now.” In fact, that would be hard even to tell yourself.

    If the stimulus isn’t working, the true believers have to believe that it is only because it hasn’t been tried long enough, or with enough money being spent.

    There are always calls for the government to “do something” when things are going bad. Those who make such calls have almost never bothered to check out what actually happens when the government does something, as compared to what happens when the government does nothing.

    It is not just free market economists who think the government can make a mess bigger with its interventions. It was none other than Karl Marx who wrote to his colleague Engels that “crackbrained meddling by the authorities” can “aggravate an existing crisis.”

    The history of the United States is full of evidence on the negative effects of government intervention. For the first 150 years of this country’s existence, the federal government did not think it was its business to intervene when the economy turned down.

    All of those downturns ended faster than the first downturn where the federal government intervened big time– the Great Depression of the 1930s.

    There are two conflicting assumptions about what happened during the Great Depression. The most popular assumption, especially among politicians, is that the market failed and the government had to intervene to save the economy.

    Another assumption is that the market went down and was on its way back up when federal intervention sent it down again and led to massive unemployment. If you don’t let facts get in the way, you can just pick whichever assumption you like– and the first assumption wins that popularity contest, hands down.
    But, if you look at the facts, they go like this: Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the big stock market crash of 1929 that is often blamed for the massive unemployment of the 1930s. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the October 1929 crash, and then began drifting downward.

    Unemployment was down to 6.3 percent by June 1930, when the first big federal intervention occurred. Within six months, the downward trend in unemployment reversed and hit double digits for the first time in December 1930.

    What were politicians to do? Say “We messed up”? Or keep trying one huge intervention after another? The record shows what they did: President Hoover’s interventions were followed by President Roosevelt’s bigger interventions– and unemployment remained in double digits in every month for the entire remainder of the decade.

    There is another set of facts: The record that was set in 1929 for the biggest stock market decline in one day was broken in 1987. But Ronald Reagan did nothing– and the media clobbered him for it.

    Then the economy rebounded and there were 20 years of sustained economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.

    Can you imagine Barack Obama doing another Ronald Reagan? I certainly wouldn’t predict that.


    Just A Citizen said
    September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am


    I think you have answered USW’s question quite well. Except that the programs and actions put in place by this Administration need to be repealed and unwound.

    I also think there should be a little “surtax” added to the incomes of those who got bailed out and that included the wages of those who worked in the company. The tax would apply to all income in excess of that which existed prior to the bailout and would be 100% for all executives, directors, and officers.
    PeterB in Indianapolis said
    September 14, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Mathius believes that with Government Intervention the highs are lower, but the lows are higher, and the recessions end sooner.

    Sowell believes that with Governmnet Intervention, the highs are lower AND the lows are LOWER, and the recessions last LONGER.

    I am with Sowell on this one.
    Kathy said
    September 14, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Me too.

  22. Mathius,

    Social Security should be a safety net of last resort for people who are unable to work (due to age, illness, disability, etc).

    It was never presented or sold that way.

    To make it that way would be a government default.

    You will turn SS into a tax and prove the government was lying from day one.

    Further, the consequence would simply be a continuing extension of what constituted “last resort”.

    You can try to bury evil with paperwork, but it is relentless. It fills in all the blanks and pages dutifully, and then comes and kills you.

    Let’s start with that premise.

    It is not, and should not be, forced retirement savings. Given this change, the amount of money it needs is minuscule by comparison. It will never run out, and we can lower the payroll tax after we’ve paid off the national debt

    So you will no longer deduct it from paychecks?

    Then no one will join your scheme.

  23. KATHY

    Did you catch what the big Democrat Party announcement was?

    Heh, heh, heh.

    All I could think of was my story about the three letters.

    #2: Reorganize


    I tried the new site. After being forced to provide an email address and zip code to get to page two I was hit with a solicitation for donation. And that was all. No other options. You MUST contribute money to get past the second page. Not sure what the third page might be. I couldn’t bring myself to get past page 2.

  24. Hijack from a commenter at MM

    When Osama bin Laden dies he gets to heaven and is greeted by St Peter. He is let in and begins to walk around admiring the sights when up walks George Washington, who proceeds to kick the stuffing out of him. After GW is finishes, along comes Thomas Jefferson who repeats, blow for blow, what GW had earlier done. This is followed by George Mason and then Patrick Henry. A battered, bruised and bleeding Osama manages to stagger back to St Peter and asks, “What is going on? I thought this was heaven?” St. Pete replies, “It is!” Osama says, “But I was promised 72 virgins for eternity, not to get savagely beaten!” Pete answers, “You misheard the statement, it isn’t 72 virgins, it’s 72 Virginians!”

    • Anita

      You have made the end of my day. Just choked on my glass of wine.

      Damn straight. Virginia is my adopted eastern state, only because of the great freedom loving men who came from there. It must have been such an exciting place to live at one time.

      I award you 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 for that little ditty.

    • Kathy

      Lets assume it is accurate.

      Then the Fed has bought back 900 million worth of debt that was in the open market. The US treasury now owes the Federal Reserve Bank 900 million more than it did before, because the Fed now owns the notes.

      So the up side is that 900 million of debt was retired and replaced with 900 million in cash. Down side is the debt is not really retired as the Fed now owns the notes. In theory, the Fed can destroy the notes thus reducing the USA debt. This or another article states the Fed gets to keep a little as its FEE for handling the transaction. YES, the FEDERAL RESERVE gets to charge you and I a fee for handling the money it decides to give out or take in. Nice racket don’t you think?

      But now lets look at where the money came from to buy the notes.

      It came from the Federal Reserves “income” from “mortgage backed securities” and “agency mortgage debt”. Not sure what the second one is, but guessing actual mortgages they got from Freddie or Fannie. So the Fed has acquired MBS’s and motgages and is now cashing in on them as they mature. So if they were secure enough to reach maturity then why did the Fed acquire them and from who and for how much?

      So on the surface this looks like a good thing. The money used to purchase and thus retire the debt wasn’t printed and did not come from other loans. It was the profit from MBS’s. But as BF would say, lets follow the money trail. The “profits” had to come from somewhere. I am assuming this is the money paid by mortgage holders that make up the MBS pool (see Mathius’s explanation of the MBS’s the other day).
      So the mortgagee (you and me) paid the bank who paid the company who paid the Fed who used the money to pay the “Market” to buy the notes. And this was done so the “Market” will spend/invest the money to further fuel the “recovery”.

      Congratulations, you are one Patriotic lady. You just helped fund the “Stimulus” that is being done by the Fed to avoid a direct vote of Congress. You and I and others just sent our money via handlers to some banker who had loaned money to the Govt to run the Visible Stimulus program. Now we are paying the banker to run the Hidden Stimulus Program.

      Now if that were not enough, think about this. Each “handler” along the way got a % for handling the transaction. Including the Federal Reserve. Yes, they get a cut for doing the deal. And of course there is the fact that the Fed had 900 million of cash lying around from “profits” made in the real estate derivatives market.

      Now inquiring minds might ask, where did the Fed get the money to purchase the “derivative” in the first place? How much did they pay for them? Who got the money? But that is just me.

      On the downside, the stated purpose of the transaction was to “keep a promise” by the Fed to “continue” funding recovery. This means that “recovery” is not going so well. If it were then why dump another 900 million into the market place? And notice the use of the word “continue”? Meaning that they have been pumping “recovery” all along behind the curtain, while the Administration argues for more Stimulus money because the original approved by Congress wasn’t big enough.

      Let me know if this is confusing. I am getting very tired and brain is running things together. So I’ll stop for now and just say YES, it is a big deal. It has some good parts, some bad parts and should be viewed in total as an indicator that the recovery is not going well.

  25. Black Flag

    and Kathy, since you expressed an interest.

    New Idea same game.

    We get people to write JOKE across a dollar bill, or many dollar bills, and then spend them.

    Every time somebody gets one they will wonder or they will know.

    A direct act of non-violent “defiance” towards the Govt.

    Now the fun part for those who are inclined. You make the O look like the Obama logo. Circle, sun and lines.

    • I like it!

      If this happens often enough they’ll pass a law that requires anyone receiving a ‘defaced’ $ bill to call the FBI and report the crime. America, land of the (formerly) free.

    • So we’re not burning our money, just making a joke out of it. I think we still need a website so that when people get one of these bills, they have a place to learn more….perhaps with a link to SUFA!

  26. I wish I could post the picture, but the story is worth aread:

    Here’s a picture of the new world record whitetail. It was taken by the cousin of a co-worker’s sister’s, uncle’s, best friend’s, son-in-law’s, niece’s hairdresser’s, neighbor’s ex-boyfriend’s oldest nephew. Reportedly it will score 2603-1/8 by B&C standard and was shot in West Texas on a really windy day, 85 degrees downhill, around a curve at 900 yards with a 22 mag. Supposedly, this deer had killed a Brahma bull, two Land Rovers, and six Jehovah’s Witnesses in the last two weeks alone. They said it was winning a fight with Bigfoot when it was shot. It had also been confirmed that the buck had been seen drinking discharge water from a nuclear power plant.

    This has been checked on Snopes who confirmed it. Honest!!!


    B. Obama

  27. I must of missed it-just when was it “proven” that smoking outside hurt other people?-and if one is upset about littering you fine for littering.

    Get your butt off the beach: Bloomberg turns New York into the city that never smokes

    Last updated at 12:28 PM on 16th September 2010

    Smokers in NYC have had the areas where they cannot light up expanded in a move to make the city cleaner and healthier.

    Car free areas of Times Square, parks, beaches and boardwalks will now all be ash free officials announced today.

    Nicotine lovers will not be able to light up when hanging out along pedestrian walkways across the five boroughs, in all parts of Central park or along the famous Coney Island boardwalk.
    Sienna Miller

    Ash your lot: Sienna Miller was free to light up in Central Park on a break from filming Factory Girl. Under the new law she would be slapped with a $250 fine

    Mayor Bloomberg said in announcing the widespread ban, ‘The science is clear: Prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke – whether you’re indoors or out – hurts your health. Today, we’re doing something about it’.

    Violators of the new law could face a fine for as much as $250 but City officials say they expect New Yorkers and tourists to follow the new regulation.

    Parks and Recreation Commissioner Adrian Benepe said: ‘By supporting this legislation, we welcome the chance to improve the beauty and health of the City’s public outdoor spaces.
    Whoopi Goldberg

    Protest: Comedian Whoopi Goldberg pictured here in Battery Park in 2003 had criticised the NY Mayor when he first introduced the smoking ban. Goldberg has since given up smoking.

    ‘Tens of millions of visitors – New Yorkers and tourists alike – enjoy our beaches and parks year round.

    ‘We hope this new legislation makes it even safer and more pleasant for our children and adults to play sports and for visitors of all interests to enjoy healthier and cleaner parks and beaches.’

    The ban also extends to 29,000 acres of parkland in the city and 14 miles of public beaches. Smoking was already banned in some parks facilities including playgrounds, but not in most open recreational areas.

    Central Park

    Cleaner air: Central Park, Times Square, beaches and boardwalks are all now smoke free zones in a bid to may New York cleaner and healthier

    Several other cities across the U.S. have similar bans, including Los Angeles who saw their law change in 2007.

    Comedian Whoopi Goldberg blows cigarette smoke in Battery Park

    Councilwoman Gale Brewer who introduced the legislation said: ‘New York is the national leader in creating healthy cities, and promoting a healthy lifestyle.’

    She added: ‘That’s why we’re pushing to get butts off the beaches. And it’s not just a health issue, as any beach goer knows, despite the clean up efforts of the Parks Department, the sand is too often used as an ashtray.’


  28. September 15, 2010

    Texas Chef Successfully Deep-Fries…Beer!

    I sincerely hope the committee that hands out Nobel Prizes in the science fields have taken notice of one Texas chef who recently achieved a gastronomical breakthrough: deep-fried beer.

    That’s right. According to this report: The beer is placed inside a pocket of salty, pretzel-like dough and then dunked in oil at 375 degrees for about 20 seconds, a short enough time for the confection to remain alcoholic. When diners take a bite the hot beer mixes with the dough in what is claimed to be a delicious taste sensation.

    Inventor Mark Zable said it had taken him three years to come up with the cooking method and a patent for the process is pending. He declined to say whether any special ingredients were involved.

    Zable will introduce the dish at a fried-food competition in Texas later this month. He’ll serve five of the ravioli-like bites for a very modest $5. If any of our Texas readers plan on attending this food festival, please report back to the Wild Chef (fswildchef@gmail.com) and let us know how they tasted.

    This dish sounds like the perfect hunting camp side dish. But the question is, what wild game do you think it’d go best with? I’m thinking it’d taste mighty fine next to a slab of grilled backstrap. Any other suggestions? —Colin Kearns


    • Displaced Okie says:

      The first time I went to the Texas State Fair, I was blown away by all the weird fried things they had: fried butter(probably illegal in most parts of CA), fried oreos, fried Dr. Pepper(this borders on blasphemy to me), fried frito chili pies(I think this is the one thing I will try whenever I go back), I can’t remember the rest, but I seem to remember a booth that would basically deep fry anything for you–Texans, you gotta love’em

  29. This is just funny 🙂

    Gun turned up after hands went up and pants fell down

    Court upholds cop’s decision to pull up a suspect’s baggy jeans.

    By CHAO XIONG, Star Tribune

    White Castle, weed and baggy pants. It has all the elements of a comedy, but throw in a concealed handgun, a suspected drug deal and a wardrobe malfunction, and it’s a Minnesota Court of Appeals case that even compelled a judge to quote an “American Idol” audition.

    St. Paul police officer Kara Breci and her partner spotted a possible drug deal in a car at a White Castle parking lot in November 2008. They ordered the men out of their vehicle and told them to put their hands in the air. That’s when suspect Frank Irving Wiggins’ baggy pants, already dangerously low at the knees, fell to the pavement.

    Breci hoisted the jeans and found a .38-caliber pistol inside the front pocket. Wiggins was eventually convicted of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person and sentenced to five years in prison. He challenged the legality of the pants-hoisting, with the case ultimately landing at the state Court of Appeals.

    “This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of a novel police procedure which, as far as we can tell, has never been reviewed on appeal by this court or any other,” wrote Judge Kevin G. Ross in an opinion filed Tuesday.

    Breci and her partner encountered Wiggins and another man in a car in a high drug-activity area. A third man popped into the backseat. His hands were suspiciously slider-free.

    “No one in the car appeared to be eating,” Ross wrote.

    The officers approached, and the backseat passenger admitted that a plastic bag contained marijuana. That’s when the men were ordered out, and the pants fell.

    Breci felt the gun through Wiggins’ pants and asked him about it. He denied knowing what it was. Breci removed the gun.

    Wiggins, 24, later tried to suppress the gun evidence in his case before district court, citing unlawful seizure and pat-search, but was denied.

    Ross wrote that the circumstances of the drug search would “lead a reasonable officer to suspect that Wiggins was engaging in a drug deal,” and that Breci’s actions were not unconstitutional.

    The judge wrote that Breci’s actions weren’t a search, but “incidental contact.”

    “Perhaps [Breci] decided to raise Wiggins’ pants to afford him a bit of dignity regardless of her planned search,” Ross wrote in the opinion. “Or perhaps she wanted to avoid the risk of contacting his genitalia through his underwear during her pat-search.”

    Breci’s actions were intended to provide Wiggins with privacy, not deprive him of it, as a search would, Ross wrote. “We acknowledge that one might be offended by an officer’s realigning of his pants: It is the sort of thing that one usually prefers to do for himself,” the decision read. “Wiggins argues that affirming the district court would encourage officers to trample the privacy of young people who participate in this baggy-pants fashion trend. The concern is unwarranted.

    “We are confident that our opinion will not be misconstrued to suggest that an officer can freely meddle with a person’s clothes to the refrain, ‘Pants on the ground, pants on the ground’…”


  30. This is an interesting situation-supposedly the builder agreed to future annexation but the people say they didn’t know about it when they bought their houses-the cities forcing it by turning off water they supply to them-ummm-gonna have to think awhile about this one.

    Rock Hill to cut off water despite residents’ pleas
    By Jamie Self –


    Rock Hill officials plan to turn off utility taps of county residents who refuse annexation by today’s noon deadline despite being asked for an extension, city officials confirmed Tuesday.

    Starting Monday the city plans to phase out service to residents who do not agree to annexation. Those who agree to annexation will not be affected, city officials said.

    Property owners in three York County neighborhoods and along S.C. 161 are part of Rock Hill’s annexation efforts to take control of commercial development along the S.C. 161 corridor.

    Homeowners argue they don’t want city services or their costs. They wonder whether they’re legally obligated to annex, a question their attorney plans to explore.

    Hired last week by the Miller Pond homeowners association, Attorney Jim Meggs of Columbia said he could likely get to the bottom of that question with more time.

    But the city refused his request for a 30-day extension on the city’s deadline.

    “If I have adequate time to analyze where (residents) are, they’re going to get the real skinny” on where they stand legally, Meggs said Tuesday. “But the city is not giving us the time for deliberation.”

    A stalemate

    Giving residents more time will likely do no good, said Bill Meyer, Rock Hill’s planning and development director. In what Meyer called a “stalemate,” both city officials and residents feel there have been no efforts to compromise.

    But both parties agree on one point: city officials won’t budge on seeking annexation and residents won’t budge on fighting it.

    The conflict with county residents has led to mixed feelings among Rock Hill City Council members.

    Councilwoman Susie Hinton wouldn’t say whether she supports the city’s actions.

    “I am really torn about the whole matter. It’s really a very difficult situation,” she said.

    Councilman John Black, whose ward would include the proposed annexation, said Friday that even if the city has legal grounds to terminate services, “it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.”

    The city claims the right to annex from an agreement it made with the neighborhood’s original developer. Long before houses were built, the city agreed to provide utilities in exchange for annexation at a later date.

    That obligation passed on to future property owners, according to city officials.

    But many residents claim they didn’t know about it. Residents of Miller Pond say they should be left out of the annexation because they only receive water from the city and pay around double what city residents pay.

    As paying customers, some residents wonder why the city would turn off their water.

    The city’s policy is designed to help it meet the state’s strict annexation requirements. To annex, the city needs approval of 75 percent of property owners holding 75 percent of the property value. The city’s utilities policy is a way to obligate residents to annexation long before annexation may even be possible.

    But as of Tuesday, the city had received petitions from only 20 of 121 property owners involved in the annexation and only two from Miller Pond, coming in short of what it needs to annex.

    For now, residents are waiting for taps to run dry.

    “We’re scared,” said David Grigg, president of the Miller Pond homeowners association. “I’d be lying if I said anything different.”

    Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/09/15/2453400/rock-hill-to-cut-off-water-despite.html#ixzz0zhNBG9A9

    • This is interesting. Let me see if I get this, if a landowner agreed to annexation for a “future” shopping center in 1910, the new landowner is obligated to that agreement in 2010.

      Things that make one go HMMMM!

      • The solution to the problem is expensive, but I’d drill a well and put in septic. The threat is over, the city loses!

      • It is interesting G because we have had many conversations about contracts and freedom-this situation seems to bring those talks and disagreements to life. So a real case that mirrors our past discussions.

      • Property owners in three York County neighborhoods and along S.C. 161 are part of Rock Hill’s annexation efforts to take control of commercial development along the S.C. 161 corridor.

        Why do I see this as a big fat lie! Why would they want to annex residential neighborhoods to control “commercial developement”? Is the city doing this to simply increase their tax base? Ah, Yes, more tax revenue for the city via blatant theft 👿

      • Would that not have to be written in the purchase contract for each new homeowner? The builder/seller has to provide full disclosure.

        • I would say yes, but IF it’s a legal contract with the city-utilities for future annexation wouldn’t the cities contract still be upheld legally. Wouldn’t the people’s dispute be with the developer who isn’t around anymore?

          • Question, did the legal contract with the water company stipulate annexation? If so, then that’s the end of the story. If not, then the city has to go after the developer, and the homeowners can sue the developer for failure to disclose.

            I think the homeowners can sue the city for extortion.
            They have been charging double the rate city residents pay, now are threatening to cut off their water, which is necessary for life. Might get them for endangerment.

    • V.H.

      This one is very interesting. Obviously, we would have to know what the State laws are regarding zoning as well as their county and city ordinances.

      I can tell you that the City would probably lose that argument out here. The annexation is done by the developer with a future execution regarding services that is then passed to the new owners as a commitment. Meaning they will have to pay for sewer and water hookups and service at a fixed point in the future.

      Now here that is used to create a loophole to allow spot zoning/annexation, which is not allowed under state law. Then the City uses the spot annexation to FORCE annexation of the surrounding area under the law regarding “INFILL”. Thus expanding the City in a continual creep into the County. Looks kind of like a big star fish with arms extending out to these “spots” that were annexed by the developers.

      Unfortunately the courts have upheld the loophole and the use of “infill” despite the fact the law clearly did not intend to allow this.

      Now for the real point. The absolute arrogance of elected officials to turn off basic life giving service that they have monopolized, is unacceptable.

      • So your saying that 1.the original contract probably doesn’t state that they get utilities for annexation or 2. that state and local zoning and such would make the original contract null and void ?

        • V.H.

          In our case here, the development would have been annexed before it could be permitted to begin construction. Annexation requires the same 75% of owners here. The developer is the owner so he requests the annexation. Once the City completes the annexation it controls the development. In some cases actual services would then be “promised” by the city within a specified time period, say three years.

          The sale of lots to new homeowners would carry the notice that they are within the city and will have to hook to the city services once the city runs them to the curb.

          They could not do like this situation and provide the service first with a promise or stipulation to annex later. They can not impose annexation on the individuals after they buy, but they can impose hooking to city services within an area already annexed.

          The city in the story did it backwards from how it is done here. All local systems fall under State laws governing annexation and zoning. So the State law may allow something different there than we have. But given they have the same 75% voting requirement I am guessing the City screwed up and put the annexation on the construction permits which may or may not be transferable to the new lot owners.

          It sounds to me like the City screwed up and is no playing hard ball to get what they should have gotten before the lots were sold.

  31. what can we learn from a year’s worth of graphs and data?

    * Government has grown by obscene amounts since William McKinley was president. In 1900, federal, state, and local governments combined spent under 5% of Gross Domestic Product. Today they spend 40% of GDP or more and account for half of all health care spending.
    * The federal government alone spends more than 20% of GDP, owns 29% of all land, and controls virtually all ocean activity, including oil drilling, for miles offshore.
    * This puts us square into the mix of European welfare states in terms of government spending and debt.
    * Federal government debt is on an unsustainable path, set to grow beyond 100% of GDP soon, and driven mostly by increased spending on Medicare and Medicaid. (And not defense.)
    * Yet many federal programs are ineffective and/or going broke: Medicare, Social Security Disability Insurance, the Post Office, the War on Poverty, education, affirmative action, other race-based initiatives, the minimum wage here and in Samoa, bank regulations, regulation in general, etc.

    Then came Obama.

    He asked for the second half ($350B) of TARP bailout money even before he was inaugurated. (He also voted for the TARP bailout while in the Senate.) Then, as president, he went on to buy car companies with it.

    “Pay as you go” went out the window, as Obama’s plans would explode the deficits, even in the years after the current recession was assumed over. He signed a “stimulus” bill within one month of being sworn into office, adding $814B to the 2009-2019 deficit in one fell swoop.

    His crowning achievement was the trillion-dollar overhaul of all health care in the nation under a byzantine system of additional costs, additional taxes, and additional bureaucracy. The legislators who “wrote” the bill did not even read it. Estimates of its cost cannot be trusted.

    All of his plans to end the recession and spur growth failed.

    * His stimulus did not stimulate. Actual unemployment was worse than he predicted it would be without his stimulus. But it did help pay off those who helped him get elected, like the education unions and government employee unions.
    * Cash-for-clunkers did not boost car sales.
    * His housing initiatives fell flat.
    * While real GDP did stop falling and started to rise (like it has done in every recession in history), it is stalling out before even reaching its pre-recession level.
    * Initial jobless claims and total number of jobs show similar trends of a coming double-dip or stalling out.

    Yet much of this could have been, and was, predicted.

    * Obama’s very own chief of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, demonstrated in academic studies that federal spending did not end the Great Depression or any post-war recession and that tax increases have significant and negative impacts on economic growth.
    * Fiscal “stimuli” did not work in Japan and do not seem to work anywhere else, either.
    * The Heritage Foundation has the cross-country data that show that economic freedom leads to prosperity.
    * Arthur Laffer has similar cross-state data that show the same thing.
    * International Monetary Fund data indicate that higher government debt leads to slower growth.
    * An academic study based on data from 44 countries over two centuries concluded the same thing: higher debt leads to slower growth.

    Large Edit by LOI

    Not to put too fine a point on it: liberals have been wrong about almost everything, and conservatives have been right about almost everything, at least in my lifetime (half a century). That goes not only for the economy, the role of government, and climate change, but also for many “social issues” as well.

    * The death penalty seems to actually deter murder.
    * Higher rates of handgun ownership do not appear to cause more crime.
    * Putting more people in prison seems to reduce crime.
    * Increased concealed carry of handguns by law-abiding citizens coincides with reduced homicide rates.
    * The nuclear family is disappearing, yet the safest place for a child is in the home of her married, biological parents. A child is also less likely to be poor if her parents are married.

    To me, coming up with a new graph every day for a year, this was a steady drumbeat. And always the same tune: things are bad, getting worse, and Obama and the Democrats are doing everything wrong.

    Is there any good news? Maybe.

    * The solutions do not require defying the laws of physics.
    * Other countries, as diverse as Canada, Sweden, and New Zealand, have reduced government debt by large amounts in the recent past and lived to tell the tale.
    * More people identify themselves as conservatives, and they outnumber liberals by more than two to one right now.
    * As bad as we are, much of Europe is in as bad or worse shape. (That might not be good news, but at least misery enjoys company.)

    • Instead of fixing anything real, President Obama spent our money chasing dreams. His stimulus caused an explosion in spending on climate change research. Yet man-caused, catastrophic global warming, which Obama wants to address with an expensive Cap & Trade program, is becoming ever less credible.

      * Temperatures over much of the last 2,000 years were higher than now.
      * Raw measured temperatures, which showed no warming trends, have been “adjusted” by government-funded climate scientists in ways to yield warming trends in places as diverse as Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Romania, Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri.
      * Reconstructed “proxy” temperatures were adjusted as well.
      * Climate model predictions are not matching reality.
      * One (of the two) polar ice caps has been growing since satellite observations have been available.
      * Snow extent is growing in the Northern Hemisphere.
      * There is no upward trend in hurricane damage or hurricane frequency/energy.
      * Sea levels rose much more dramatically centuries before the pyramids. The last century of sea-level rise is consistent with coming out of an ice age 20,000 years ago.
      * Meanwhile, the U.S. is doing pretty well without the government mandates of Kyoto, Copenhagen, or Cap & Trade in managing carbon emissions, air pollution, and energy use.

      Obama’s dreams of “green energy” and “green jobs” are equally empty.

      * The U.S. leads the world in recoverable fossil fuel resources, which are enough to last many more decades at least.
      * “Renewable” energy resources, other than hydroelectric dams, supply less than 5% of all energy in the U.S., even after years of government-funded research, incentives, regulations, and subsidies. Fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric will dominate for decades to come.
      * The most economical source of electricity for some time to come is natural gas. The most expensive is solar panels.
      * Contra Bill Maher, Brazil is not exactly some outstanding example of bio-fuel generation or energy conservation we need to follow.
      * Spain has demonstrated that “green energy” leads to fewer net jobs, green or not.
      * “Clean coal” is no panacea. It costs 27% to 83% more, uses 73% to 100% more water resources, and is technologically immature and uncertain. All that, just to use less of what all animals on earth exhale and all plants on earth inhale.

    • For those who thought President Obama would overturn all the Bush policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, “civil rights,” etc., sorry to disappoint you.

      * The enemy combatant population has not come down much at Gitmo.
      * The drawdown in Iraq is about what it would have been under a President Bush.
      * Our military involvement in Afghanistan has exploded under Obama, leading to more troops there, more U.S. fatalities, more Afghan civilian fatalities, and little apparent progress in reducing resistance or winning “hearts and minds.”
      * The federal government is authorizing wiretaps and fighting drugs as much as ever. It is even deporting illegal immigrants as much as ever.

      Not to put too fine a point on it: liberals have been wrong about almost everything, and conservatives have been right about almost everything, at least in my lifetime (half a century). That goes not only for the economy, the role of government, and climate change, but also for many “social issues” as well.

      * The death penalty seems to actually deter murder.
      * Higher rates of handgun ownership do not appear to cause more crime.
      * Putting more people in prison seems to reduce crime.
      * Increased concealed carry of handguns by law-abiding citizens coincides with reduced homicide rates.
      * The nuclear family is disappearing, yet the safest place for a child is in the home of her married, biological parents. A child is also less likely to be poor if her parents are married.


  32. Mathius

    As Senate minority leader I was wondering if you would agree to set a Budget Target of say 18% of GDP with 8% earmarked for debt reduction and the other 10% as the annual limit on spending?

    This would allow an annual operating budget of around $1.2 Trillion.

    • $1.2 buys a lot of stuff..

      I would feel better with 28% of GDP. Split the difference at 23? I can (maybe) move a little lower, but I’ll want a pretty progressive tax system in exchange.

      I like your 8 for debt reduction – this can be tied directly to the debt, so that as our interest payments shrink, so does the tax paying for it.

      “Budget Target” it too weak. People often miss their targets and nothing happens. No, I want a hard cap. If you “spend” more than the 10% that is taken in, the checks start bouncing.

      • Mathius

        My proposal is the target. If we use that, as an example, then we will need to reduce the current level annually until we hit the target. So perhaps start at 28 and then drop 2% per year for 5 years.

        Even we Radicals are concerned that we could shock the system so badly we kill the patient.

        Absolutely HARD cap. Balanced budget amendment with no caveats. And current year expenditures can not exceed “prior” year revenues or the 10% (?) cap, whichever is LOWER.

        I think we can work on the “progressive tax” if you will help with increasing the number of “use taxes” as well.

        Just so you know where I am coming from. I am assuming that if the American People can keep about 80 to 90% of what they make (all sources) that the demands for govt services would be greatly reduced. In fact they could set aside 20% for retirement/emergency and still be money ahead of where they are today. So the biggest risk to this concept is that they WON’T save and our kids will get pressured to increase govt support to the stupid shits 30 years from now.

        I agree that the mentally and physically handicapped need support. I am willing to work with you on various ideas to address this subgroup of our population. I am not convinced that a Federal program is the best but I am willing to explore the matter.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I misunderstood your target concept: Agree now

          Hard cap, no exceptions: One exception, defensive war actively being fought on US soil against a foreign power (as opposed to the “War on Terror,” “War on Drugs,” and the “War on Poverty,” “War on Terror,” et cetera)

          I also want to agree on a time-line. I say we must trim 5%/year until we hit the target. Because it’s a Constitutional Amendment, it will be a little tougher to override in a pinch. Expenses in excess of the budget will simply bounce checks. Borrowing from next year’s budget will be prohibited (accrual based accounting). All mandates must be fully funded.

          Further I want to reconfigure the rules for passing laws: 4/5ths of both houses plus President to pass, 2/5ths of both houses sans President to repeal.

          This all sounds great in theory… so let’s get down to it.. what to cut?

          • Dread,

            What to cut?

            What city do you want to have burn down?

            • I’ll warn my friends, let’s start with the one I left in July. It’s a crime infested, politically corrupt shithole.

              • Oh, I forgot to mention it’s loaded with welfare rat Democrats, what better reason does anyone need

                • The Wish

                  I met a fairy today that would grant me one wish. “I want to live forever,” I said.

                  “Sorry” said the fairy, “I’m not allowed to grant wishes like that!”

                  “Fine,” I said, “I want to die after the Democrats get their heads out of their asses!”

                  “You crafty bastard,” said the fairy.

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              Let’s start with Cleveland and see where we go from there.

              Everyone ok with that?

          • Mathius

            I would like to set a target for defense spending. We’ll need input from the Colonel but I am thinking around 3% of GDP.

            If we use a 10% operating budget this leaves 7% of GDP for everything else.

            Perhaps we should let the membership haggle a little over where they want to spend this.

            I would be OK with leaving it up to the various agencies. When they don’t have enough to survive then they go away.

            • I want 2 of those 7 for domestic policies. That’s the NEA, Parks Service, science grants, HUD, (legit) welfare, infrastructure, etc. I suppose that’s actually a pretty tight budget.

              I suggest we roll the CIA and NSA up into the defense budget.

              Then 3 for such things as the post office, the treasury, FBI, HHS, EPA, FDA, DOE, DOJ, etc. That’s not much money, so they’ll all have to start doing less, which is ok by me. Some will have to be outright eliminated eventually. (NOTE: They will not be allowed to impose fines and/or de facto taxes without specific and direct authorization of Congress – no artificial padding of their budgets).

              The other 2.5 are yours to do with as you like.

  33. Heard on FOX this AM, that SS Disability filings are up 21% from 2008. By 2015, SS disability will jump from 8 to 11 million. About half of them cannot be proven, such as for depression or back pain that does not show on x-rays.

    • Heard this too. Not surprising at all. People need to find some way to stay on the dole. Makes me depressed! Hey, wait a minute…..that means I could file for…..

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Saw a guy on tv the other day who was on permanent disability in Texas.

      He was a construction worker who had suffered a serious injury rendering one of his arms effectively useless. The state saw fit to give him disability. This makes sense to me since he can no longer do construction.

      But he was in his 20’s. There was nothing wrong with his brain that he couldn’t find some other line of work. To the best of my knowledge, you don’t need both hands to greet people at the door in a Walmart.

      Yet he’ll receive benefits for the next 50+ years, and never have to work another day in his life.

      .. Grr ..

      Another one I know personally – he went to med school. Shortly after med school, he developed an allergy to the latex in gloves and could no longer wear gloves, which means he couldn’t treat patients. He then spend the next 30+ years on disability.

      Why couldn’t he take his degree and teach in a medical school – no gloves needed. And do they really not make latex free gloves? And, again, to the best of my knowledge, a latex allergy does not impact your ability to greet customers at a Walmart.

      .. gr ..

      So why are we paying for these people, exactly?

      • DPM

        Because you EX room mate votes for the people who want us to pay for these people.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I don’t think that’s true. I think he’s been pretty clear that he only wants to help those who can’t help themselves. He wants to kick the ones who choose not to help themselves to the curb.

          But you’d have to ask him..

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Ah.. read that wrong, apologies.

          Yes, he does vote for people who want us to pay for these people.

          But he doesn’t like it. He just feels it’s the lesser to two evils (giving unnecessarily vs not giving where needed).

  34. Black Flag

    Question regarding your theory of money.

    If money were privatized in the USA how would international trade occur?

    That is a general question and I expect you to fill in the blanks and not give me some silly answer like “because people will trade”.

    I am looking for some explanation of how exchange rates will be established which are in turn required for trade.

    I can see how it might function if the world were on the same system, but if it were only the USA then how would it work?

    As an alternative, what if the USA were on a single currency but the supply was fixed?

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Individuals do not have the ability to issue fiat currency. Rather, they do, but no body would have any interest in using it. So privatized currencies would have to be backed by something, whether a commodity such as gold, hard assets such as land, or something more ethereal such as “the intrinsic value of Microsoft, it’s assets and the NPV of it’s future earnings.”

      This backing would all foreign purchasers to establish a relative value respective to their national fiat currency and the private hard-backed currency.

      Because this is sometimes difficult to establish (particularly for individuals), you would see a resurgence of money changers. You would see a price of 100 Microsoft Bucks and then you would go to TheJewishMoneyChanger.com and it would tell you that that’s work 150 EUR. Then you would convert your money and make the purchase accordingly.

      This is staggeringly inefficient in a global market, so you could expect to see a consolidation among the privatized currencies to the point where there is only one commodity backed, one land backed, one industry backed ccy etc. At that point, the money changers would tie in with the sellers directly or with the credit card companies (or VISA would offer its own competing service) to streamline the process.

      In the end stages, it would be little different from the way it is now in terms of convenience and usability for an individual to buy from another country.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Individuals do not have the ability to issue fiat currency. Rather, they do, but no body would have any interest in using it.”

        Sorry DPM, but this is false, in America, the only entity currently allowed to issue ANY “legal tender” currency is the Federal Reserve, and the only “legal tender” is Federal Reserve Notes.

        That could, and should, change, but probably not soon.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          The question was what would happen if it were allowed.

          They would have the ability to make fiat ccy, but who would want it?

          Not me.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            It would depend on if you VALUED the fiat currency offered or not.

            This would be solely based upon your evaluation of the ability of the issuer to honor his obligations.

            If you believe that JAC is highly unlikely to honor his obligations (or be able to honor them for whatever reason) then you probably will value JACbucks at or near zero.

            If you believe that JAC is extremely likely to honor his obligations, and he has not made more obligations than he can handle, then you are highly likely to value JACbucks at what JAC says they are worth.

            Right now, I am storing up some gold and silver, because I trust that no matter what happens, people are highly likely to accept them as payment for necessary goods.

            I am NOT saving dollars, because I believe that the government has taken on more obligations than it can handle, making it highly likely that the government will find ways to default on some (or perhaps even all) of these obligations. If that happens the value of the dollar will fall, perhaps (in the absolute worst case) even to zero.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      I don’t know if you got a chance to read this when I posted it the other day, but I think it does answer some of your questions.

      By the way, in a free market, the supply of money CANNOT be fixed. If it were, it would not be a free market.

      • Peter

        In my prior discussions with BF he indicated that absent free market money, the amount of money should basically remain fixed. This would allow the value of money to rise and fall based on supply/demand, thus eliminating the effect of increasing/decreasing the supply.

        At the time I was arguing to increase the supply to match population growth and he explained why he thought it should remain constant.

        So yes, it is not free market money. My second question deals with a single Federal currency.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Yeah, I can see where you are coming from on that one. Adjusting the money supply based solely on population growth would ensure that the same PER CAPITA supply was available to every member of the population, whereas maintaining the same supply in spite of population growth would cause more competition for money thus making the value of that money theoretically rise with population growth. I am not sure which would be better, as I have not given it much thought.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:
      • Peter

        Actually, it doesn’t answer any of my questions.

        I am trying to figure out how the mechanics of international trade would work under either of the two systems.

        Currently the value of our dollar floats relative to everyone else’s. This would still be the case.

        But now, Govts deliberately act to increase or decrease the value of their currency in order to impact import/export levels. If the USA stopped manipulating its money value deliberately, what would happen to imports/exports. Both in general quantity and the actual mechanics of how would the transactions be facilitated.

        This question came to me last night while reading about the Japanese action to devalue their currency and how the USA has been pushing for this move and it is viewed as a good thing for the USA.

        First I couldn’t understand why we wanted a higher dollar relative to Japan, as this should theoretically reduce exports to Japan.

        Second, it started me thinking about what would happen if the USA stabilized the dollar in a world where everyone else is still deliberately manipulating values to balance trade. China is keeping their money “undervalued” to help push exports. Wouldn’t the dollar increase even more relative to China if we stabilized our money supply?

        This is the crux of my questions. I don’t understand the international exchange and trading system well enough I guess to immediately grasp how it all comes together.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          In the absence of governmental manipulation, the international currency markets SHOULD work like a free market.

          Currency, whether it be paper, silver, gold, platinum, or a rock with a hole punched through the middle, has NO INTRINSIC value. Some people claim that gold has “intrinsic value”, but really it does not, it is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

          I can see why this leads to some confusion, because once you admit that currency has no intrinsic value, then you have to define money as “the medium of exchange agreed upon between two parties to satisfy a contractual agreement”.

          This means that all trades become essentially an agreed-upon barter. I will trade you 100 metric tons of steel, for your pieces of paper which claim to be worth “Fifty Million Dollars”. The steel is valuable to you (you probably have some very good uses for it, such as manufacturing automobiles or something). Therefore, the pieces of paper that are worth “Fifty Million Dollars” had better be valuable to me. If these pieces of paper are issued by a government, I would need to have the confidence that that government was going to honor ITS contractual obligation which made the pieces of paper “worth something”. If the pieces of paper were issued by a private bank, then I would need to have confidence that that bank would honor its obligation which made the pieces of paper worth something.

          Because gold has a long history of being accepted as money itself or as a solid backing for money, in a free market many people might choose to use gold or back their “money” with gold because of this history. However, it is important to note that the reason gold is almost universally accepted as a trading medium is not that it has “intrinsic value”. It is because gold has such a long history of acceptance.

          Not sure if that helped much at all, but I have no time to write more yet… I will try to get back to you on this later 🙂

        • JAC

          If the USA stopped manipulating its money value deliberately, what would happen to imports/exports.

          Who knows?

          Imports and exports would rise and fall based on demand of the product – and who can guess that?

          The manipulation of the dollar may make exports cheaper but for a short time until new inventories are replaced. The cost of the parts to make new inventory would be priced by the new manipulated dollar rate, and eliminate all gains (or losses) such a manipulation makes.

          Hence the constant manipulations.

          With an manipulated dollar, the risk of trade moves away from speculation to production.

          This question came to me last night while reading about the Japanese action to devalue their currency and how the USA has been pushing for this move and it is viewed as a good thing for the USA.

          It increases the cost of US goods – temporarily – and decreases the cost of Japanese goods temporarily.

          This means more purchases of Japanese goods, and less purchases of US goods.

          This means dollars leave the US and stay in Japan.

          This is a good thing if there is a lot of excess dollars in the USA.

          • BF

            Obviously didn’t pose my questions correctly as the answers did nothing for me.

            But before I restructure I would like to address your last point regarding Japan.

            JAC ” This question came to me last night while reading about the Japanese action to devalue their currency and how the USA has been pushing for this move and it is viewed as a good thing for the USA.

            BF: It increases the cost of US goods – temporarily – and decreases the cost of Japanese goods temporarily.

            This means more purchases of Japanese goods, and less purchases of US goods.

            This means dollars leave the US and stay in Japan.

            This is a good thing if there is a lot of excess dollars in the USA.

            So……why would the USA push for the Yen to be devalued against the dollar when that runs counter to maintaining exports and thus job creation here in the USA, when Jobs is the number one issue?

  35. V.H

    In response to your post about Justice Breyer, if in fact, he believes that Islam is violent as a whole, maybe he read his history. I tend to stay away from religious discussions, mainly because I don’t care what religion one practices, as long as it don’t effect me. But based on the following, what comments can be made that refutes that Islam is NOT a violent religion?

    US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola , Florida . Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.


    That’s what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been ‘Get Out of Bed!’ In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

    1. It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world’s most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

    2. America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America’s inability to deal with terrorism.

    3. America ‘s military had been decimated and down sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

    3. Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East . America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

    4. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

    5. Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 25 00 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

    6. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her slumber.

    7. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

    8. Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe . In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid

    9. Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rheine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

    10. Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

    11. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie , Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

    The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

    12. The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America . In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley , Virginia

    13. The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City . Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

    14. Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

    15. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia . It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

    16. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

    17. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

    18. And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America . How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

    In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn’t know. But if you’ve read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don’t have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

    I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to ‘Get out of Bed’ and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

    After the attack on Pearl Harbor , Admiral Yamamoto said ‘… it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.’ This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

    This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

    If you don’t believe it, go back to sleep.

    • Okay, lets say Americans wake up an decide that Islam it’s self is violent-what does this acknowledgement lead too-what does declaring that a religion that billions of people believe in, as basically evil accomplish-we already know that there is a danger to our lives and freedoms from extremists that follow this religion. So we should already be paying attention. Does anyone believe we should somehow outlaw the religion? Should we ignore the fact that followers of Allah have always lived amongst us here in the U.S. and haven’t hurt us. I simply am not sure what end goal would be accomplished or what consequences will come from basically declaring a billion people as dangerous.

      • The answers are as complex as the problem of Islamic extremists. Some may say “an eye for an eye”. Some may say deport all Muslims and outlaw the practice in the USA. Neither works for me. However, the perceived threat of such actions could force the Islamic leadership to take much more effective action in weeding out the extremists and their leaders, then they can police their own.

        • I certainly see and acknowledge the danger. Many countries are having problems because Muslams are immigrating there and trying to bring about Sharia Law. I don’t know what the answer is but I certainly can see the possible pitfalls of our options.

  36. JAC

    Question regarding your theory of money.

    If money were privatized in the USA how would international trade occur?

    The same way we do it today – the currencies would be converted into goods.

    We do not buy Japanese cars with US$ – we buy them with Yen.

    Somebody buys dollars and sells yen. Then the yen is used to buy the car.

    Private money uses the same mechanics.

    The next question is “why would they buy JAC$?”.

    Because they want to buy JAC-goods.

    Why do you accept $$? So you can spend them to buy food/fuel/car/sex…

    People accept money so that they can use that money to buy something.

    People will accept JAC$ if they can use JAC$ to buy something.

    This is why you do not accept the Bolivar. It cannot buy much in the US.

    You would accept the Bolivar in Venezuela because it can buy something.

    Nothing changes is the name is changed to JACbucks.

    I am looking for some explanation of how exchange rates will be established which are in turn required for trade.

    Same why it is done now.

    Sellers post price, buyers accept or bid. If the price=bid, a sale occurs.

    A good concept that may help is “how are shares bought and sold?”

    As an alternative, what if the USA were on a single currency but the supply was fixed?

    Money is just another commodity.

    Over time, more goods enter the market place. There will be more goods vs money.

    X goods=Y money;
    Goods in terms of Money;
    X/Y; (10 apples for a dollar or $0.10 per apple)

    X+A goods=Y money;
    (X+A/Y); (20 apples for a dollar or $0.05 per apple)

    So with a fixed money supply, deflation naturally occurs.

    The consequence: more people will save then spend, since the dollar in the future will buy more than the dollar today.

    More savings, more stored capital, lower interest rates.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If you fix the money supply and do not adjust it for population growth, you will also have more competition for the same money, thus making the money even more valuable, and the apples even “cheaper”.

      The danger if you fix the money supply in a non-free market is that you are going to have government or government cronies attempting to monopolize money, which would probably be disasterous.

  37. Mathius

    This may seem like a strange question but I want to know 🙂 Being Jewish is thought of as a religious belief and as a cultural heritage-right-it isn’t a nationality ?

    • No, Israeli is a nationality.

      As a ethnicity, we might be referred to as Semites, or by tribe (I’m Ashkenazi – ie, of western European descent).

      I’m culturally Jewish since I believe in many if it’s most fundamental cultural principles (duty, charity, honor, honesty).

      I am non-religious, however, since I don’t believe in a God (though, if one does exist, I think he’s just as likely to be a Flying Spaghetti Monster)

  38. PMs spot prices today…wow! The dollar sure buys less from a year ago.

    Today Change Week Ago Month Ago Year Ago
    Gold $1,273.30 +$4.90 $1,250.25 $1,224.90 $1,019.80
    Silver $20.77 +$0.20 $19.87 $18.45 $17.45
    Platinum $1,610.10 +$6.90 $1,551.70 $1,537.90 $1,351.20
    Palladium $551.55 -$6.45 $523.10 $485.25 $302.65

  39. I’m feeling paranoid again…


    D13, you may want to look at this..

    …This active-duty military unit is US Army 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team (otherwise known as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological/Nuclear, and Explosive Consequence Management Response Force or CCMRF – pronounced, strangely enough, “sea-smurf”). Last time I checked on the whereabouts of this brigade, they had returned home from Iraq (October 2008) to Fort Stewart, Georgia, which is their base.

    I’ve now found them in Orlando, Florida. They’ve been on the move, toughing it out in ‘gator territory and running simulated exercises (the type that will give them very solid experience to react to social unrest rapidly and effectively). I’ve asked before why a highly experienced combat brigade has returned to the US – and is potentially giving the finger to Posse Comitatus if this brigade is going to be increasingly taking a role in domestic law enforcement (let us remind ourselves that the US Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government to use the military for law enforcement). To find out just how highly experienced this brigade is (they are known as “Rock of the Marne”) go here.

    Of course, a Commander has been quick to state that the brigade is “…… not allowed to act in the place of law enforcement”. So they’ve been busy participating in urban search and rescue efforts along with local officials. Now let’s not lose sight of the fact that the CCMRF is a fully trained and experienced unit that has spent over 35 months in Iraq patrolling in “full battle rattle”. They are well used to confronting an enemy in a theatre of war – so why are they back in the States simulating search and rescue efforts? What are they going to be rescuing, searching for or getting control of?

  40. Newt Gingrich…….the chameleon.

    Seems I’m not the only one who sees Newt for phony he is. As I said……run from this man as fast as you can.

    I would also suggest you run from anyone who is pumping him on the airwaves. That would be Sean Hannity, my next least favorite righty leftist.

    From Michelle Malkin’s place:

    “Debra J. Saunders calls out Big Government Eco-Radical Newt Gingrich:

    This year, Gingrich is playing to the tea party crowd. He and his wife are about to release a new movie, “America at Risk” on national security threats. As a tea party courtier, he rails against carbon taxes. His political action committee has raised $250,000 from an Oklahoma natural gas and oil producer, and $100,000 from Arch Coal of St. Louis, Politco.com reported.

    Two years ago, however, the Newter was seated on a loveseat next to Speaker Nancy Pelosi starring in TV ads for Al Gore’s global warming campaign. Quoth Gingrich, “We do agree, our country must take action against climate change.” And: “If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.”

    Consider Gingrich to be the right’s Jerry Brown. Like the former and would-be next California governor, Gingrich talks big, but has no loyalty to his ideas. He was for tax cuts before he was against them. He supported a $35,000 congressional pay raise and leaner government.

    Like Brown, Gingrich’s real skill has been in seeing a trend early and jumping on it, unencumbered by any past positions.

    Then armed with a trendy vocabulary, Gingrich blusters on. During the National Review interview, he asserted Obama is “authentically dishonest.” Authentically dishonest? If anyone should know what that means, it’s probably Gingrich…”

    • Hi CP 🙂

      Your gonna have evryone here on the verge of a nervous breakdown (except me LOL)with all this not so good news. The sea-smurf stuff was interesting though, things that make you go HMMMM 🙂

      It’s better than things that make you yell “OH SHIT” though, so keep it up!


  41. I just might have to get one for my boy friend, lol!


  42. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: