Tuesday Night Open Mic for September 21, 2010

We reach Tuesday night on the heels of some interesting discussion around Atlas Shrugged and the concepts of the Objectivist philosophy. I will attempt to find time today to answer some of the comments directed at me. I will say up front that there were quite a few fallacies built into the opposition to my articles. I have grown accustomed to such things. But I will once again point them out and do my best to discuss them to completion. I appreciate everyone’s thoughts on the two articles. I assumed there would be folks on both sides. But I was surprised by the lack of understanding on them. Perhaps I needed to do a better job explaining or discussing. For tonight we have more ridiculous name changes from the White House meant to fool voters, a company that is majority owned by government contributing to government campaigns, an attempt to marginalize through association rather than substance, and an interesting poll discussing voter’s feelings about candidates who are willing to compromise. Feel free to add your own topics, as always.


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    White House: Global Warming Out, ‘Global Climate Disruption’ In

    From the administration that brought you “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation,” another terminology change is in the pipeline.

    The White House wants the public to start using the term “global climate disruption” in place of “global warming” — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

    White House science adviser John Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a “dangerous misnomer” for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.

    The call comes as Congress prepares to adjourn for the season without completing work on a stalled climate bill. The term global warming has long been criticized as inaccurate, and the new push could be an attempt to re-shape climate messaging for next year’s legislative session.

    “They’re trying to come up with more politically palatable ways to sell some of this stuff,” said Republican pollster Adam Geller, noting that Democrats also rolled out a new logo and now refer to the Bush tax cuts as “middle-class tax cuts.”

    But Republicans predicted that re-branding the issue would have limited effect on the legislative effort. GOP strategist Pete Snyder said he doubts the term is going to change hearts and minds.

    “Are they going to change the name of weathermen to disruption analysts?” he quipped. GOP lawmakers already exploited a terminology change of their own by re-branding the “cap-and-trade” bill as “cap-and-tax.”

    Read the Rest of the Article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/?test=latestnews

    I have been consistently pointing out these types of name changes over the last two years. It appears that the politicians in Washington have the belief that if they change what something is called, it will have a dramatic impact on the way voters feel about it. Sadly, I am not yet convinced that they are incorrect. It certainly appears at times that this ridiculous tactic actually works on the members of the population who are “less than” when it comes to actually understanding today’s political issues.

    Global climate disruption is merely the latest in this particular tactic. That the “war on terror” was changed to “overseas contingency operations” was laughable to me. Call it what it is…. war. If you think the American public doesn’t like the term war, then perhaps you are beginning to understand that the America people don’t like the term, because they don’t like the act. Dressing it up in a more palatable term doesn’t bring less men home in pine boxes. It only makes idiots in Washington feel important.

    That they claim the term global warming makes it seem less dangerous than it is is an outright false explanation. In a society where the media and Hollywood’s nitwits have spent billions of dollars attempting to scare the crap out of people on this topic means that people are well aware of the dangers, even though the vast majority of the dangers presented are absolute lies. My god, you have a little less than half of America believing that there will be ocean front property in Tennessee, that the Polar Bears are all drowning, that man has caused storms to be more frequent and destructive, and that the world’s food supply is on the brink of extinction. And you claim that the term doesn’t do enough to make people scared? You could call it a pink teddy bear and the coverage it has received would scare the crap out of people too interested in American Idol to research and see the lies.

    Add to this the outright lies and changes being offered in the current political debates. Nancy Pelosi has the nerve to stand up there and say the House is working to extend the Obama tax cuts for the middle class? You mean the same Bush tax cuts that all Democrats lambasted to get elected? Now that they seem necessary, the old windbag actually believes that if she says that they came from Obama, people will buy it. Then there is the claim coming today that the GOP doesn’t care about soldiers because they filibustered a bill with several last minute Democrat additions that had nothing to do with defense spending (coming from fence rider Joe Lieberman). Or the opposite, the claim that the GOP voted no on DADT, when the issue was only an issue for a few. There was also Burris’ addition of abortion in military facilities and Reid’s attempt to get partial amnesty ahead of a race he is struggling in.

    And the claim that the use of “cap and tax” is similar in use is another falsehood. Cap and tax is what it is. Cap and trade was the innocuous phrase the Dems attempted to pass it under rather than calling it what it was. Economic spendulus? Again a more accurate reflection of what it was.

    The point is that both sides play this game, and I am growing tired of it. I believe that many people are. And the reason is because it shows us how little the politicians in Washington think of American intelligence. Both sides believe that simply calling the same actions something different changes the actions in minds of people. They are dead wrong with the vast majority. Unfortunately, they are also right about a large enough portion of the population to make doing these things “profitable”.

    • All;

      You can put callico, lace and lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Personally I like my pig roasted slowly over a charcol fire with a little bit of hot sauce and some coleslaw.


    • Deja Moo – same old BS, repackaged.

      It will go nowhere.

      • BF

        You are absolutely WRONG.

        It is not only going somewhere, it has ALREADY gone somewhere.

        It has infiltrated every branch of our government and academia.

        It is affecting business decisions and behavior, both privately and government relations.

        • JAC,

          The people have no interest.

          The politicians have no motive.

          The Greenies look like the idiots they are.

          Lots of dust and smoke – but nothing else.

          True, vigilance since it could re-flame…but… without Germany, nothing is going to happen

    • I think they’re right about that large portion. Afterall, look what they made their ‘president’. ‘nough said there….

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    GM Resumes Political Giving

    General Motors Co. has begun to once again contribute to political campaigns, lifting a self-imposed ban on political spending put in place during the auto maker’s U.S.-financed bankruptcy restructuring last year.

    The Detroit company gave $90,500 to candidates running in the current election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.

    The beneficiaries include Midwestern lawmakers, mostly Democrats, who have traditionally supported the industry’s legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.).

    The list also includes Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican Whip, who would likely assume a top leadership post if Republicans win control of the House in November.

    It isn’t unusual for big companies like GM to spend on political campaigns, but complicating GM’s situation is that the company is majority-owned by the U.S. government. GM is planning to return to the public stock markets later this year, allowing the U.S. to begin to sell off its roughly 61% stake in the company.

    GM spokesman Greg Martin said the company stopped making political contributions in spring 2009 to focus on its taxpayer-financed bankruptcy reorganization.

    “As we’ve emerged as a new company, we’re not going to sit on the sidelines as our competitors and other industries who have PACs are participating in the political process,” Mr. Martin said. He called GM’s political action committee is “an effective means for our employees to pool their resources and have their collective voice heard.”

    Mr. Martin added that the company has supported members of both parties who “approach issues thoughtfully” and “support a strong auto industry.”

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506352139305206.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

    Am I the only one who thinks this is complete bullshit? General Motors gets bailed out by members of Congress and the President. They take billions of dollars in American taxpayer money. Then they turn around and are allowed to spend some of that taxpayer money on campaign contributions? They are permitted to donate to the campaigns of the people who bailed them out?

    It is just a quick mention in the article, but I think it is vastly important to the discussion that General Motors is majority owned by the US government. 61% of General Motors is owned by the US government! How is it considered ethical for a company owned by the US government to contribute to the campaigns of people running to be the people who are the majority owners of the company?

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any issue with companies contributing to campaigns. In a world where government has such a heavy hand in private industry, and if the progressives have their way that heavy hand will add weight, it is only practical to attempt to have some sort of sway in the people who will make and enforce the regulations that drastically impact business. But until GM is no longer owned by the US government, they should be prohibited from donating to US government campaigns. They shouldn’t be allowed to donate to ANYTHING until they pay every dime back and become no longer the burden on the taxpayers.

    • USW…..agree here. No political donations to either party until all tax money is repaid and GM is private again. Never should have been a bailout in the first place but now that there was…any political contribution to any candidate is un ethical and immoral.

      More so than the damn polar bears having to swim further.

    • All;

      As a Michigander news about GM and the Auto industry is constant. I have been a life long owner of GM products, but that all changed when the government took them over, propped up the UAW and screwed the bond holders. When the time comes the next pickup will be a Ford.

      What really turns my crank is the fact that they will soon offer an IPO to pay down or off the government bailout, and the larger percentage of that money will go back into the coffers of a corrupt government. Since it was not the governments money in the first place US citizens will once again grab their ankles.

      Imagine if you will that you deposit $1 million in a local bank. The bank then uses $250K of that money to assist a failing business, which as a result regains a foothold and pays off the debt to the bank. How would you react if you then found out that the bank kept that $250K and added it to their own earnings? Well, for all practical purposes that is what the government is going to do with the funds paid back by GM. US citizens will not see one red cent of those funds stolen from their pockets, and used to bail out a company that should have been left to it’s own folly.

      GM lost my business and they shall NEVER earn it back.


    • Pure conflict of interest. Buck, isn’t there a law against this?

      • There are some laws, but I don’t think there’s one that would specifically cover this type to BS. Why would Congress write a law that restricts who can give them money?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Mathius hit the nail on the head — there’s not going to be a law (written and passed by Congress) restricting who can give Congress money.

        • I get it, they will not vote a rod against themselves. What I was wondering I suppose, is whether the existing laws on conflict of interest were already written so specifically as to not have a potential application here, or if an exception for government had been written in. If neither of those are the case, is there a case?

          They did pass campaign finance reform, but that was all smoke and mirrors. Just wondering if maybe we could find a law they did not think through…

    • Bottom Line says:

      “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini

    • I agree Matt. They are more likely to create more organizations that can then make campaign contributions to them. Spend a billion (taxpayers money) to get a million back in their pocket.

      In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they’ve reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions. Similarly, Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats this cycle, compared to the 44 percent it gave during 2006.

      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie’s PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989).


    • Those that benefit from government must pay a tribute.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Big Oil Behind the Tea

    What’s an angry populist movement that’s supposed to represent real people doing defending oil companies?

    It’s a question the New York Times could have answered in its otherwise excellent editorial today, “The Brothers Koch and AB 32”. Petroleum magnates Charles and David Koch fund both Prop 23’s greenhouse gas cap repeal and The Tea Party.

    While the Tea Party is voicing authentic anger, the money fueling it is coming from petroleum magnates who simply want to profit and pollute at the expense of the rest of us. The Tea Party in California has become Big Oil’s army. Not very populist to me.

    If you believe Kansas oil and gas tycoons want to save California jobs through Prop 23, you might as well join The Tea Party. I debated a Tea Party pooh-bah on LA’s NPR station KPCC yesterday. All there is when you strip away the angry talk is a Reagan-Bush plan to deregulate everything.

    That’s why Consumer Watchdog is airing a JumboTron advertisement in Times Square, the largest public square in America, that raises the question: “Are You Mad As Hell? But Think The Tea Party Is Insane?”

    The commercial, created by Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films, calls upon those who believe in progress to use their anger to get the change they voted for. It is insane to let oil companies repeal greenhouse gas emissions caps, and it’s insane to turn the reins of government over to people who would destroy it.

    Progressives need to start speaking up and raising some hell. The power of the government is our collective will to deal with the corporate abuses at the heart of the 2008 election. We cannot allow the Tea Party or anyone else to exploit the public’s anger in order to rob us of our ability to deal with the corporate greed and corruption that pisses us off most.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/big-oil-behind-the-tea_b_733493.html

    This article, written by Jamie Court for The Huffington Post, is malarky. Court, who is the author of a book by the title of The Progressive’s Guide to Raising Hell, is simply attempting to undermine the group that opposes the wacky progressive agenda that he is foolish enough to believe in. This is the common tactic by those who attempt to sway political discourse: Show that a group who has been demonized in the media has something to do with a group who threatens your agenda. The idea being that the connection tears down the second group.

    Notice the statement from Court that negates his entire article: While the Tea Party is voicing authentic anger, the money fueling it is coming from petroleum magnates who simply want to profit and pollute at the expense of the rest of us. Instead of discussing the Tea Party’s position, which he isn’t smart enough to do, he simply attempts to negate their argument by finding a correlation. He claims the Tea Party is insane. He claims that they have no substance. He claims they are funded by Big Oil. He offers zero proof of any of this, just his claims.

    For example, does he also claim that “Evil Big Business” supports the Progressive movement and therefore the progressive movement is insane and not to be trusted? Well he should, because the article above this one points out that General Motors contributes campaign money to Democrats. Does he go as far as pointing out EVERYONE who has received money from the two oil brothers? NOPE. Know why? They are heavy campaign contributors to Congressional campaigns on both sides of the aisle. They hedge their bets with campaign contributions, just as everyone with an interest does these days.

    Realistically, I don’t care who the Tea Party gets money from. What I care about is what they do with that money. I care about what the Tea Party stands for and what they attempt to do with their newfound political clout (which, by the way, I am so far not impressed). Hitler could give to the Tea Party and I don’t care so long as the Tea Party maintains that Jews should not be harmed in any way.

    This is not an attack by me on progressives (even though I did say some bad about them). What I am pointing out is a nasty tactic that has worked for far too long and is used EXTENSIVELY by pundits on both sides of the aisle. Until we wake Americans up and teach them to ignore these types of baseless and irrelevant commentaries, we will need to consistently point out the fallacies where they occur. And we should do it no matter which side of the aisle they occur on. The goal is education. And that occurs by teaching in the right way as opposed to the way that our institutions of higher learning teach…. with a spin.

    • I have read several things by Court…..his writings are worse than some things that have been left in my front yard by the neighbors dog.

    • I think Jane Mayer has read, “The Progressive’s Guide to Raising Hell”.


      August 31, 2010
      Covering up for George Soros
      By Ed Lasky
      The sinister, omnipresent moneybags of the American left, George Soros, knows that distraction and misdirection make for a good defense. So do his many lackeys and sympathizers in the American media.

      Recently, the left has built up two conservative billionaire brothers as their latest bogeymen. I am referring to the libertarians Charles and David Koch, who fund, among other groups, Americans for Prosperity. First Barack Obama lambasted them, and his minions in the media dutifully followed. Jane Mayer’s 10,000-word article in the New Yorker, titled “Covert Operations: the billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama,” has been widely cited in other liberal media.

      In reality, the brothers have long funded a variety of causes years before anyone had ever heard of Obama. Regardless, Mayer’s article was criticized as shameful by others, including a trenchant bit of criticism by Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner. One of Hemingway’s points was right on target: Mayer’s barely visible coverage of George Soros, sugar daddy of the Democratic Party and an early, ardent and generous supporter of Barack Obama. Hemingway excerpts a paragraph from Mayer’s article and notes some omissions:

      But this passage from Mayer’s piece is also worth noting, as a measure of the article’s bias:

      Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.”

      The idea that Soros’ giving is transparent is laughable — he’s given millions to the Tides Foundation, a byzantine organization notorious for obscuring finding sources on the left …

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      With money comes influence and expectations. A little puzzled that is of no issue to you. Many of your readers of long been critical of money sources.

      • Ray,

        And everyone is right to be critical. It isn’t that I don’t care, per se. It is that I understand that is how the American political system works now. It is OK to point out funding sources. I don’t, however, support the idea that we should limit individual rights in order to stop it. What I don’t care about is what expectations there are from people who contribute. What I care about is the course of action that the people elected take. I thought the Hitler comment made that stance clear. Perhaps it didn’t.

        Identify funding sources… fine. Candidates taking money from people with an agenda…. fine. Exploiting your position to give special favors to contributors… NOT fine. As I said, I don’t care who the funding comes from. I care how the elected official performs their duties. Should the Tea Part candidates that win give the Koch brothers special deals or consideration, they should be called on it and held accountable. But it is their ACTIONS that I care about, not their funding.


  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Americans divided on merits of ‘compromise’

    One of the few undeniable trends of this midterm season is that most Americans who are expected to go to the polls this November are fed up with their political leaders. But is that because they want representatives who are more willing to reach across the aisle and compromise on tough issues, or is it because they believe leaders should be more principled about sticking to their beliefs?

    It may depend on which political party they favor.

    A new Society for Human Research Management/National Journal Congressional Connection poll out today shows that American adults are divided on the value of ‘compromise.’ About half of respondents said that they most admire politicians who “who stick to their positions without compromising,” while 42 percent said they value leaders “who make compromises with people they disagree with.”

    But according to the poll, which was conducted with the Pew Research Center, there is a pronounced divide between the parties on the question.

    Nearly two-thirds of Republicans in the survey (62 percent) said that they prefer politicians who refuse to modify their positions over those who negotiate. A majority (54 percent) of Democrats feel the opposite, favoring compromisers.

    The numbers for independents are similar to those of Republicans; just 40 percent commend compromisers over non-compromisers. Blacks also said they prefer politicians who don’t compromise on principles, by 53-35 percent.

    Those who identify with the Tea Party are the least likely to prize leaders who compromise. Seven in ten of Tea Party adherents surveyed said they prefer politicians who stick to their guns.

    With Republicans enjoying the advantageous end of an enthusiasm gap heading into the midterms, the numbers paint an electoral picture that appears to favor Congressional gridlock.

    For many of the voters who cast votes on Nov. 2, that might be precisely the point.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/21/5151586-americans-divided-on-merits-of-compromise

    I found quite a few interesting things in the numbers above. For example, the author points out that the majority of Democrats favor those who compromise. But a paragraph later, he mentions that black voters, who are overwhelmingly Democrats for the record, favor those who don’t compromise. So I felt that the article didn’t really tell us much, because the author intentionally framed his words towards a biased opinion.

    The bottom line, the author wants us to come away with the implication that Republicans don’t compromise and Democrats do compromise. Perhaps this is true in the American population, but it certainly isn’t true in the halls of Washington DC. Especially when we have a Democratic President who consistently points out that the Republicans are nothing but wrong and unwilling to compromise, while simultaneously remaining unwilling to compromise and telling Republicans that “I Won”.

    What do I personally believe. I think in the halls of Washington, compromise is a joke. Both sides do whatever is politically expedient and whatever they think will get them reelected. To say that either side stands on principles or that they are willing to work with the other side is ridiculous. I think that in the American population, on the other hand, is somewhat divided. I do believe that the Republicans are generally less willing to compromise. My personal belief is that this is fueled by a stronger religious conviction on that side. I also believe that Democrats are more willing to compromise. I think this is tied to the belief that small steps are what are needed to move the agenda forward. A compromise is still a step in their direction. For the record, I believe that Libertarians are the least willing to compromise, because they are entrenched in the defense of individual rights, and they aren’t going to back off of it because they believe it to be the most important aspect of government.

    But I am interested in what everyone here thinks. I threw out a few generalizations above about the parties. What do you think people in the population think and why? More important, what do you think? Do you prefer a candidate willing to compromise with the other side or one that stands their ground on their principles even if it means nothing gets done? As for the authors last statement:

    With Republicans enjoying the advantageous end of an enthusiasm gap heading into the midterms, the numbers paint an electoral picture that appears to favor Congressional gridlock.

    For many of the voters who cast votes on Nov. 2, that might be precisely the point.

    You bet your ass it is in the minds of many. The more gridlock we can create in Washington DC, the more likely it is that we can fix this country. Those asshats in DC certainly aren’t interested in doing so.

    • Good Morning!

      This article is somewhat encouraging. To use the topic of post #1, Congressional gridlock should now be called “stupidity disruption”. Wait, that’s not politically correct, so how about “ignorance interruption” 🙂

      Off to the woods for some early morning scouting and some coyote hunting.



    • Gridlock is a start, but I am one that would prefer to see both Houses boarded up and yellow tape wrapped around them. 99% of those that hold a seat in either of those halls are corrupt, evil and dedicated to one and one thing only; self gain.

      They do not serve the public, have absolutely no intention to do so and are predominately working to control the population and line their own coffers while they can.

      What goes on in DC is nothing more than a Soap Opera to distract the viewers as to what is really going on behind the scenes. Idiots from both parties point fingers and spew lies about each other and then laugh about how they are “herding the flock” over beers in the evening.

      Until the majority of Americans wake up and realize they are being treated like cattle nothing is going to change.


  5. University of Illinios….2010.

    Chants of USA USA USA offend Muslim students. During the 9-11 obseervance at a football game….chants of USA USA USA offends Muslims and is referred to as bellicosity and belligerance and an academia wants it banned.

    Sigh….I am so glad that the Muslim community does not want to change us.

    • September 21, 2010
      Why is there no reaction to ‘Shariah:The Threat to America’?
      Mladen Andrijasevic
      A week has passed since the report Shariah: The Threat to America was released and the only reaction seems to be coming from Islamic sites. I find this quite odd.

      OK, the report is 150 pages long if you exclude the notes, but this can be read in half a day. What is particularly strange is that of the several sites dealing with the Middle East and Israel which I read regularly, i.e. Barry Rubin, Daniel Pipes, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Gordis and Caroline Glick none have even mentioned it. [American Thinker covered it here and here – ed.]

      These sites have for years tried to educate the population about the Middle East and Islam bit by bit, and now all of a sudden we have a condensed report that in one swoop goes all the way, discusses everything, is backed by serious security professionals, including a former director of the CIA. – and… nothing…hardly anybody comments.


  6. Iran now has the capacity to produce nukes with Plutonium…now that the new reactor is on line..and then enriched uranium, which has already been stockpiled. The IAEA is no longer allowed to inspect, even though there are no Isralei or American inspectors, A-Jad has publicly stated at the UN that the new world order is Iran and the rest of the world better get in line. The militarization of Iran is almost complete. The clerics are now running scared and have lost most of their power. A-jad has stated that there is more to war than bombs…there are the streets of America. (Wonder if that is a threst…hmmmm). Iran is the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism (more so than the Saudis or Syria combined.

    I am so glad that Iran is a peaceful country…with peaceful leaders…with nothing but peaceful intentions.

    Obama wants to negotitate and even his closests advisors are saying no…that Iran’s total objective is nuclear arming. But BO wants to talk. Probably the same sort of talks that Clinton had with China and sold and gave our computerization to the same country that is now being our biggest economic adversary. Great leadership.

    • September 21, 2010
      The Middle East Arms Race
      Steve McCann
      The lack of any coherent strategy by President Obama with regard to Iran has fostered yet another unintended consequence. By allowing that country to move ahead unabated with their nuclear weapons program, he has triggered an arms race in the tinder box that is the Middle East.

      Recently the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia ordered over $123 Billion worth of arms from the United States and additional armament from other countries in a direct response to the looming threat from Iran. Israel will be acquiring 20 new F-35 Stealth Fighters. Russia is shipping highly sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria and has previously sold a state-of-art anti- aircraft systems to Iran. In addition North Korea and China continue to sell military supplies to Iran and Syria.

      Out of this flood of arms into this volatile region, a significant percentage will, either intentionally or by accident, fall into the hands of terrorists such as Hezb’allah or Al Qaeda. The regime in Iran is motivated by extremism, hatred and a sense of destiny to conquer the countries around them.

      Fear of Iran and their about to be puppets in Syria and Lebanon (soon to be dominated by Iran’s creation, Hezb’allah) will put this region on a razor’s edge of tension. The arms build-up will continue unabated by all sides.

      With the cast of characters and historic animosity in this part of the world, as happened in Sarajevo in 1914, the slightest provocation, misunderstanding, or perceived aggressive act could trigger a devastating Middle-East war which will involve the United States.

      Unfortunately President Obama is a creature of the liberal mindset of those in the 20th Century directly responsible for the death of untold millions that believed they could, by sheer force of their will and glibness, reason with those determined to conquer others. Because of a lack of leadership and determination the world is witnessing yet again the coming together of the witch’s brew that will spell disaster.


    • (Wonder if that is a threst…hmmmm)

      I dunno.. sounds more like a threat to me…

      A-jad’s an asshat, nobody needs nukes. Period. Us included.

      But you tell me.. what would you have us do about it? Saber rattling doesn’t work, especially when you’re opponent knows you’re already overextended, broke, and that your populace is so war-weary you have no chance of actually following up.

      • Mostly humor on my part.

        • … mostly …

          • http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3975000/3975455.stm

            I keep reading and hearing Iran is the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism. I have no top secret security clearances, but wonder if there is proof? If so, then I think the above is a valid response. And it worked for Israel when Iraq was playing with nuc’s.

            • Biggest sponsor of terrorism: USA

              (depending on how you define terrorism…)

              • Somebody mixed the koolaide with your Red Bull this morning evidently…

              • I’m listening…

              • Matt,

                What terrorist activities were being conducted in the Twin Towers?

                Pan Am Flight 103?

                The marines in the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing, were on a peacekeeping mission, trying to protect the Lebanese.

                Who was the USS Cole attacking?

              • bump.. set..

                where’s black flag?

                Ok, well, while we’re waiting for his ship to drop anchor, ponder this:
                -How many guerrilla wars has the US backed? Who, if not us, is responsible for their atrocities?
                -Who financed Al Queda in the first place?
                -Who is the biggest exporter of small arms worldwide?
                -Who forces a “war on drugs” on Mexico and South America giving rise to violent drug cartels?

                But those are small potatoes.

                -Who killed tens of thousands of (some say upward of a hundred thousand) civilians with nuclear weapons?
                How is it different to crash a plane into a building of civilians than it is to nuke civilians? Both Al Queda and the US were “acting in self defense” and both were really just trying to make a point. But our act was orders of magnitude bigger.

                We’re not so innocent.

                • Hey there, Matt…..I tried your Red Bull the other day……it worked…I saw Elvis.

                  Now, I did not say anything at all about the United States and its issues….it is not relevant to the discussion…however, there is nothing to be done about Iran. It is not in our hemisphere. But when A-jad says that they are going to be the new world order….and they have the nukes….and they are not allowing anymore inspections….hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

                  • Oh, AND before you ask….no, I am not in favor of a military strike……not yet.

                  • What did Elvis say? That guy owes me 10 bucks if you see him again..


                    Nothing to be done.. nothing to be done…

                    I guess you’re right.. (quietly hands D13 a high powered sniper rifle and a ticket to Tehran).. nothing to do, alas, oh well

                    • D13…quietly takes it…:sip:….hmmmm…must resight it to shoot three inches high at 500 meters. (D13 admits he cannot hit anything over 800 meters with any degree of certainty).

                      Elvis is a little pissed at the way you treated Dread Pirate but I told him that you were really ok…he laughed…said to come get your 10 bucks.

                    • I “borrowed” this rifle from DPM.. it’s a rail gun rifle – ZERO drop at less than 10k meters, and it comes with a very good site. Happy hunting.

                      (this message will self destruct in 3.. 2.. )

                    • Mathius,

                      Unless you’re in space, it cannot have “Zero drop”.

                    • It fires bullets at precisely geosynchronous velocity (adjusted for drag over the distance to target)..

                      I hate you.

                    • Matt..you forgot about the specially designed Martian flat powder combined with the Venuvian salt peter that, with the geosynchronous velocity (adjusted for drag over the distance to the target)…renders said projectile at the speed of light….so…given that perspective…there will be minimal drop (if any) over the 800 meters….however, given the provable facts that this is yet untested on earth’s known gravity…three inches high at 500 meters is sufficient for a kill shot. Given the additional fact that the specialty weighted Mercurian titanium hollow point filled with Uranian gaseous cyanide and explodes upon contact, a dead center shot is not necessary.

                    • In other news, A-jad was winged by a sniper bullet yesterday. The bulled grazed his pinkie finger. Ordinarily this would not be fatal, but the bullet, traveling at .99c, exploded creating a 799m blast crater.

                      Stay tuned as the story develops..

      • Matt;

        Here are my ideas:

        – Bring every Military service person home and leave the Middle East alone. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t watch them like a hawk, we do. We have many ways to watch and monitor them without putting boots on the ground.
        – Publicly denounce Iran and others for what they are, stop funding their wars, buying their oil and letting thier people into our country without appropriate due process.
        – Close the boarders and treat anyone wanting to come to this country just like you would a stranger knocking at your door asking to visit.
        – Don’t discuss anything with them or enable them in any way.
        – Let the Middle East work it out among themselves.


        • When I was younger, my father always told me that the best way to get a bully to leave me alone was to ignore him and give him no cause to pick on you. Well, I happened to live with the bully in question, but I did my best for a while to follow this advise. My perceived meekness only encouraged him.

          You know when he started leaving me alone? Suspiciously close to the time that I started to seriously study Taekwondo. But not until I wiped the floor with him a few times.

          Draw your own parallels.

          • So are we the bully and we will now leave them alone? Or are they teh bully and we should kick them one good time right in the juju beans to make them realize that we will make them one big sheet of glass if they mess with us?

            I say we pull out of the middle east and watch. If they pull anything at all, we bring the hammer hard, to hell with international opinion. Then we back off and watch again.

            • We’re both the bully, don’t you see?

              We feed off of each other. They need us to be the boogyman, and we need them to be the boogyman. The difference is that we have the bigger stick.

              The problem is that if we leave them alone, they lose their boogyman. So they will do something to piss us off (maybe sponsor some terrorism, maybe attack one of our ships, some such) to draw a disproportionate response from us. Then they can have their boogyman back. If we don’t respond, or we respond meekly, they’ll just keep stepping it up until we have no choice.

              This is how bullies operate.

              What you suggest is great, but it doesn’t work. The only solutions are the status quo or a glow-in-the-dark Iran.

        • Way too obvious, the UN will never go for it.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – so what is the suggestion or answer? Proxy war through someone else? Who anymore is going to do that? Attacking Iran seems out of the question. If there is proof enough they are sponsoring terrorism then do we “make the case” and act on this?

      • Hi Ray….no sir. I propose to do nothing. Let Europe and Russia and China handle it. Russia, as of today, is no longer selling the new SA300 Anti aircraft missile and is no longer providing/selling spare parts to Iran. I do not support proxy wars. We have already made the case and have proven the money laundering and the front for the funding. We know the route the money is taking and whom the front man actually is….we have even traced the money to the business run by the Guard. So that is no problem…….but making the case…..no sir…it is a middle east problem. Let Egypt and the Saudis handle it. They are scared out of their minds, right now. If Israel DOES hit them (Iran…which I doubt)them trace the money….it will NOT be the US.

        • BTW, my friend, I was remiss in asking how you are doing and the little one that rules the roost…ok I assume?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Everything is well D13 – and thanks for asking. The little one delightfully consumes much of my free time – being a Dad is about the coolest thing I could ever have imagined. I oft wonder if my folks perceived the world as shitty back then (when I was young) as I perceive the world now.

            • Oh yes…..I recall my dad complaining…..but he is still alive at 92 and he thinks it is worse now…lol.

    • D13,

      <blockquoteThe IAEA is no longer allowed to inspect


      The IAEA has made no such claim. They have inspectors there.

      Further, the Russians wholly control all the fuel, not the Iranians.

      As usual, you take no notice of the only country that has denied IAEA, has prevented any inspections, has violated agreements and treaties regarding nukes and holds nukes in their possession.

      • Sorry sir but last week the IAEA has reported that all inspectors have been forced to leave not yet to return. There was a special on CNN ( I think last Wedensday ) that reported this. Also, the IAEA has NOT been allowed in the new online Plutonium reactor at all…according to this same report.

        Also, I know exaclty which countries are allowing and not allowing and paying no attention to the treaties and are not party to them. That was not my point….I am unaware that any of these others (Israel, USA, Pakistan) have made any such statements of “new world order”. However, I am patient and will be proven correct on the nuclear weapons.

        By the way, the SS300 can be nuclear tipped although the Russians were smart enough to not provide the guidance system for such weapons.

        • Forgot to add that the IEA also reported that several (cannot remember the number) of reports required have not been submitted for over 18 months and this is in violation of whatever rules that are supposed to be out there. I am not aware of the type of reports that are required nor do I care. I do not even care that the IAEA even has inspectors or have been required to leave….just that it happened and has been reported.

        • D13,

          Sorry sir, I will need a link to verify your claim.

          The report I read is that they have denied certain inspectors, but not one word about denying access to the IAEA.

          Yes, the IAEA complains it is creating a difficult, but that’s about all I’ve found.

          I am unaware that any of these others (Israel, USA, Pakistan) have made any such statements of “new world order”.

          You jest!

          How quickly and conveniently you forget the two Bush’s Presidential speeches!!

          And that ignorance is telling. It is Iran’s sarcastic response to the Bush doctrine by repeating back at the USA

          By the way, the SS300 can be nuclear tipped although the Russians were smart enough to not provide the guidance system for such weapons.

          I will not be surprised that Iran might become nuclear armed – it has been proven the defining difference between being invaded and not.

    • D13,

      I am so glad that Iran is a peaceful country…with peaceful leaders…with nothing but peaceful intentions.

      Utter self-blindness.

      The US has surrounded the country on all sides – an army in Iraq, and army in Afghanistan, 3 carrier fleets to the South, and bases in the North.

      And you would believe they should wave with nice flowers.

      • BF

        You, my friend, could justify just about anything when it comes to Iran and her noble intentions. IF you want to stick your head in the sand, feel free. Just don’t act so surprised when we don’t fall for Iran’s propaganda any more than you fall for the US government’s. That you can be so good a critical thinker in most arena’s and completely blind in the case of Iran and Israel issues is beyond me.

        I know you will respond with more rhetoric against the US and Israel. You don’t need to. I already know how bad they can be. I just also am able to see Iran for what it is as well. Your blinders somehow prevent you from seeing Iran with the same critical eye you use on the US and Israel.

        I just don’t understand it.


        • Maybe he his blinders contain a photo of the muslim woman he fell in love with and that is all he sees? Love IS blind, afterall….

          • Cyndi,

            She was Arabic.

            And yes, the exposure to that world was enlightening.

            They are in many ways far more civilized and cultured. Often I was embarrassed by Western Cultural norms – the differences between uncultured, uncouth and savage in comparison.

            But most importantly, it was seeing and knowing that they love life, love their kids, and cry when they bury their sons, children and husbands.

            • This is true and I found the exposure to that part of the world entertaining and educational. Western Culture is often seen as crude but….that is our culture. We are independent and we are confident (often confused with arrogance). I found no significant differences in the way their world was compared to ours…on an emotional sense. They are family loving for sure. But I did find that they are far more harsh to their poor than we are….but I have seen that all over the world and the difference between the classes is greater. But all in all…it was educational. Glad I am here…and Cyndi…you better be glad you are here as well.

              • I’m VERY glad I’m not there. I could probably double my salary if I went to the ME to work but I can’t be paid enough to live there.

                I never said they don’t have values common to ours. My point was that perhaps BF views all muslims as he views his former flame, and maybe that contributes to his inability to see the Islamic world’s imperfections.

                • Cyndi

                  I never said they don’t have values common to ours. My point was that perhaps BF views all muslims as he views his former flame, and maybe that contributes to his inability to see the Islamic world’s imperfections.

                  I am under no hypnotic trace.

                  They are screwed up in many ways, with similar bizarre contradictions like you hold.

                  But that does not make them a “special” evil more than you are.

                  In many ways, they are far more cultured and advanced then you.

                  As I said above, often I was embarrassed by the savage and uncouth actions of Western culture. We could learn a lot from them.

                  Equally, they could learn a lot from us, too.

                  D13 is right – the West is adventurist – risky – raw… and there is a lot of wonderful power there.

                  We do not have to change, nor do they have to change.

                  Each can love the brilliance of the other and share that with the other.

            • So, not muslim then?

              • Cyndi,

                Yes – but….

                Consider: She fell in love with an infidel (me), lived with me without a “formal Islamic marriage” (though I married her in the Black Flag ceremonial way, always obeyed me first in all things, and only when I ‘shrugged’ called upon her culture…

                yeah, then she was Muslim.

              • PS:

                Thanks for making me cry tonight.

        • USWep,

          I do not say Iran has noble intentions – but that is very different then provoking a nation.

          They are not stupid. They have maps. They see what is happening.

          You wish to believe they should smile while they are obliterated.

          • Are you making an assumption that we are going to attack? I can assure you we are not. We have no reason to attack Iran. We had no reason to attack Iraq or Afghanistan…We nor Israel will not attack Iran…there is no reason.

            But, yes, I would be nrevous if I looked up in Canada and saw and army..and the same one in Mexico and our shores threatened. I am not saying that Iran is wrong. I am merely stating that they are not peaceful and have intentions beyond their borders….not with us…but in their part of the world…and it is not secret about their involvement in Aftrica and the South China Seas.

            Soon to be a greater hegmony than anything the US has done.

            • D13,

              Whew! You forget 50 years of history.

              Iran was a cornerstone of US policy in the ME. The loss of that point was a critical blow to US strategic designs.

              US has been acting against Iran provoking a revolt that will lead back to US domination, from funding Iraqi invasions, Israeli provocations and now, two wars on both of her borders.

              • Nope…don’t forget much….but,,,,,last I looked, we are not attacking Iran, my friend. Nor will we….unless you are going to call provocation an attack, which I assume you will. But…thas’ ok. And you are, of course, making the further assumption that Iran is the cenral target simply because they had a revolution back in the 70’s. That is a stretch for even you but I expect that. Time will tell, sir, time will tell.

                My prediction will come true before yours does….steak dinner? Or do you enjoy steak?

                • Oops…forgot my prediction:

                  1) Iran will enrich its uranium beyond 20% before June 2011.
                  2) Iran will produce weapons grade plutonium before June 2011.
                  3) A-Jad will never be defeated (except by overthrow) and will consolidate his power. He controls the Guard…the Ayatollah’s do not and have not for over one year now. (Since the election).
                  4) A-Jad and the revolutionary Guard will have complete control of Iran over Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (etal) by June 2011. He will continue to jail the family of the clerics that oppose him openly.
                  5) Once weapons grade and weapon is produced, A-jad will declare himself the new Caliph over all of Islam by December 2011.
                  6) A-Jad’s political reign ends in 2013 anc cannot run again until 2017, however, I further predict, as Chavez has done, that the Iranian Parliament now controlled by A-Jad will change the rules and he will continue for life.
                  7) The most outspoken cleric is Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and he is 71 and in very poor health. With his death, there will be a full military takeover immediately. I predcit that Iran will be a full military dictatorship by the end of 2011 whether Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani dies or not.
                  8) I predict that by December 2011, Syria, Egypt, UAB, QATAR, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait will form an unholy allaince with Israel and that they will have a non aggression treaty among them as long as A-Jad is in power.
                  9) I predict that Hamas will be destroyed by Israel with the tacit approval of Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by the end of 2011.
                  10) Bloomberg reports that the Gulf States Ordered $123 Billion of U.S. Weaponry to Counter Iran. I further predict that this will double by the end of 2012 and that there will be a coalition of Oman, UAE, Kuwait, and the Saudis with over 400 upgraded jet fighters and bombers to go along with the treaty mentioned earlier.

                  So..that is my prediction. Pick the steakhouse of your choice and I will send you a gift certificate…you do the same for me….bet?

                • D13,

                  That is a stretch for even you but I expect that

                  I am, frankly, staggered at the apparent ignorance of the last 50 years, the self-inflicted blindness to the geography and assaults and invasions and the geopolitical history that extends back to WW1.

                  I do not know where you get your info, but it is so bad – it is, frankly, dangerous.

          • How exactly are they being obliterated?

      • In response to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear activities, issued last week, David Sanger and William Broad of The New York Times “reported” that “Three months after the United Nations Security Council enacted its harshest sanctions yet against Iran, global nuclear inspectors reported Monday that the country has dug in its heels, refusing to provide inspectors with the information and access they need to determine whether the real purpose of Tehran’s program is to produce weapons.” Sept 15, 2010.

        The report suggests that Iran is continuing to adopt an ultra-legalistic view of its safeguards obligations, complying with the letter but not the spirit of its agreement with the IAEA. The wisdom of this policy is questionable, since an ultra-legalistic approach encourages the inference that Iran has something to hide. But that inference is not necessarily correct. In this case ultra-legalism can equally well be seen as a consequence of Iran’s belief that IAEA reporting of Iran’s pre-2003 safeguards violations to the UN Security Council was unjust (and that the subsequent reaction of the Security Council to those violations has also been unjust)—as retaliation for injustice, in other words. And it is not in itself illegal for states under safeguards to restrict cooperation and access for inspectors to the letter of the standard NPT safeguards agreement.

        It continues to be the case that Iran refuses to apply or bring into force a “model additional protocol”. This too is something of an “own goal”, but is not illegal except in so far as the Security Council has required it of Iran under chapter VII of the UN Charter (see below). It is an “own goal” because the IAEA is only able to confirm the absence of undeclared nuclear material or activities in a state if that state has brought into force an additional protocol. Iran has not applied the additional protocol since the IAEA reported its pre-2003 safeguards breaches to the Security Council (March 2006).

        It is noteworthy that although both the present Director General and his predecessor have dwelled on the inadequacies of Iranian cooperation since 2006, on Iran’s failure to implement the modified Code 3.1 of the subsidiary arrangement to the safeguards agreement (early provision of design information), and on the difficulties Iran has made over the nomination of inspectors, neither Director General has so far characterised these failings as the sort of “non-compliance” that the Board of Governors might see fit to report to the Security Council under article XII.C of the statute. This could imply that they are not certain they would be justified in doing so, either because the legal rights and wrongs are murky or because the failings are not seen as grave enough to warrant a “non-compliance” report.

        The report makes clear that Iran is continuing to defy the will of the Security Council. That puts Iran on the wrong side of the law, since UN chapter VII resolutions are legally binding on UN member states. Iranian representatives would no doubt argue that legal obligations freely entered into (e.g. NPT obligations) are different in nature from legal obligations imposed on a state against its will, especially obligations imposed by an instance that Iranians may well think of as a “kangeroo court”. Iran could also point out that it is not the only UN member state to have defied the will of the Security Council. Some others (e.g. Israel) appear to have been able to do so with impunity.

        NOw, I am just a dumb old retired Colonel who knows nothing….but this tells me that there is not much cooperation here.

        • oops..you wanted a link…minute.

        • D13,

          Thus, my serious complaint about your reporting.

          You stated they were refused inspection. This is not the case by your own evidence.

          Iran has been provoked by USA et al and you expect them to submit.

          Again – Iran REACTS to hegemonic power

          • Yes, the story implies and the tv interview said the same thing.

            • D13,

              Yep, only to those whose mind is polluted and bent to start with….

              • Something that I do not understand about you, BF. You ask for links….but if they disagree with yours….yours is the only one right. If someone has an opininon other than yours, they are ignorant. You provide material and claim that yours is the only one that is sane…thus everyone is wrong.

                I am not blind to the past 50 years….nor the past 1,000 years and history and hegemony (sp) The trouble with you is that your are the one with blinders. You are stuck on the United States and only the United States. Your blinders are refusing to let you see what is currently happening. You wish to think that the world is only reacting to the US and that is a farce. You want everything that is wrong in this world to be the fault of US policy and that of Israel. You have made your point eloquently albeit slanted your way backed up by links that YOU agree with and all other links and suggestions otherwise are considered stupid if they do not agree with you. But that is ok. Welcome to the United States where you can have your opinion. Be glad that you are not in Iran where you would be jailed for your differing opinion.

                Someone sees an interview on TV and you want a link to the internet…which is dubious at best in its reporting and slants (as the TV is as well) and, where you are correct, every one has a slant. You are one of the best at it. But that is ok.

                I noticed you did not take me up on my predictions and steak dinner bet and that is ok. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in my predictions but that is the way that the wind is blowing right now and it is stronger than a simple breeze. My reasoning? By simple deduction and a great knowledge of that part of the world. I have the benefit of international intelligence, which I know you will say is slanted, and I have no emotional ties to it as you do, therefore, I am able to see it objectively.

                I am certainly not blind to the past 50 years and the policy of the United States…which I did not agree with but also have no problem being the big kid on the block with the biggest stick…..the responsibility comes with how to wield that stick.

                But I also know a belligerant itenerant leader when I see one. I also know what his policies are and where they are going. I also know that he is not reacting to the United States nor United States policies but because the US is the “Great Satan” and it is a convenient punching bag. I will make the certain statement that if the US were not the biggest kid on the block, it would be someone else and that is where his focus would be. This is the most dangerous man in the world right now….A-Jad.

                It is not the people of Iran…nor is it the Iranian culture. It is the leadership and the religious fervor… but the people of Iran will do nothing…they cannot for fear of dying and family imprisonment.

                But, you know all of this already. But, and mark my words carefully here…. if Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani dies within the next 6 months as is thought he will…there will be a takeover and blood bath within the borders of Iran that will make all other wars seem like a romper room reject and A-Jad and the gaurd will move quickly and decisively. I think it is already too late but I am willing to wait to be proven correct….but that is my opinion….and not based on internet news links.

                A-Jad and the Guard will end p being the power in the ME and it is not US policy that is driving it.

                Hope that you and yours are doing well.

  7. For Matt: (this is relation to a topic you mentioned several days ago.)

    Had lunch with a close friend that works high up in the IRS Special Procedures Branch in this area. We had an interesting conversation concerning the tax revenues. He says that they are dropping fast. He told me that he has read reports that more and more companies (that can) are splitting into divisions to get employee counts under the threshholds. He also confimred that there has been an incease of 18% in the independent contractor leases in this area. All of this reduces the employer contribution levels to the government. He further stated that new employee hires are down by the almost the same amount (18%).

    He also confirmed that more and more execs and owners have adjusted their TAXABLE income and that actually began right after BO’s election.

    Thought you would be interested.


    How are you sir?

    • I’m good.. having a bowl of the most bland oatmeal I’ve ever tasted in all my born days. Think I’ll follow it up with a tasty beverage..

      Tax receipts are down because the economy is in the dumps. People are trying so hard to get around the rules in order to save money – in good times, it’s not necessarily worth so much effort to avoid certain taxes, but in bad times, every little bit counts. Once the economy recovers let’s see where we stand. I think you’re ascribing motive without sufficient data.

      How goes your day? Your week? Your fortnight?

      • That may be true Matt, but the fact remains that increasing tax liability will only hasten that reaction and prevent the recovery that would increase revenue. Raising taxes kills revenue, so why would the government do that?

        • They’re trying to wring blood from a turnip.

          Good luck with that.

          • They can have my blood when they squeeze it from my cold, dead turnip.

            • On unrelated news, the government has just announced a new tax on turnip juice.

              The concept has unanimous support in congress, but the Republicans want 4c / pint, while the Democrats want 5c / pint. The Republicans have taken to calling the Democrats fascists for wanting such a high tax, saying the extra cent/pint will inevitably destroy the economy. The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of just trying to score political points in an election year.

      • I am actually not trying to subscribe anything….just passing on information from an IRS source in the Special Procedures Branch.

        I am just about through with the fire and smoke damage. I was self insured on 60% of contents….only covered the big ticket items. So, I have been cleaning my own stuff and doing a lot of throwing away. The fire restoration and contractors are now trying to make my place livable once again. It is amazing how much one accrues over the years in knick knacks and collectibles….sheesh.

        Other than that….it is a full time job just keeping the Raptor training program going. I have lots of requests from foreign sources for my new CRP (Clansdestine Raptor Program). Chavez has asked for some of them but I am doing the capitalist pig thing and holding out. I want to be the greatest supplier of Clandestine Raptors…..replacing the US as the worlds largest supplier of small arms.

        • The problem with raptor: small arms..

          Best o’ luck with the rest of your cleanup, I hope you didn’t lose anything irreplaceable.

          • Did not lose very much that I considered earth shattering…..except my exotic birds. I miss them.

            • RIP, birds.

              Never had birds, myself, but for what it’s worth, I hope they went quickly.

              • Thank you sir…they were buddies and could talk really well and they went very quickly and were not burned. Only takes a teaspoon of smoke (even cigarette smoke) to kill a bird..even one as big as Zasu, my blue and gold Macaw. I did not even hear them sqawking when I was fighting the fire. It was fast for them and I am glad of it.

                Thank you for the RIP..

          • So give em some decent ordinance instead of small arms. Oh, wait, you mean their actual ARMS. Nevermind…

  8. Ray, as promised.

    Matthews Scolds Obama:
    ‘Stop Saying Cutting Taxes Is Giving People Money – It’s Their Money!’

    By Noel Sheppard
    Mon, 09/20/2010 – 22:34 ET

    A truly shocking thing happened on Monday’s “Hardball”: Chris Matthews, the man who once proudly boasted about getting a thrill up his leg when Barack Obama speaks, actually scolded the President on national television.

    Maybe even more surprising, the MSNBCer told the object of his affection, “Stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money!”

    The unashamed liberal host continued, “A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

    CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have one small tweak to make to what the president said today — he should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money! A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction.

    He talked today, for example, about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut. That`s not the way it works. If tax rates are kept lower, it`s a matter of the check going to the government being smaller. Again, it`s an important distinction.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if others on the Left along with their media minions understood this basic principle?

    After all, the way Democrats and press members have been talking about extending the Bush tax cuts lately, it’s as if we all work for the government and any money it deigns to give us we should be thankful for.

    That an unapologetic liberal like Matthews not only gets this but is also willing to say it on national television makes you wonder why all so-called journalists don’t agree.

    Errr – maybe not.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/20/matthews-scolds-obama-stop-saying-cutting-taxes-giving-people-money-its-their-money#ixzz10GEq52c4

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I get equally infuriated when the Government tells us they have done something **positive** to save x$$$ from program “y” – only to “re-invest” it somewhere else. NO! That’s not the idea guys!

      • To me a big issue is how politicians and the media “frame” an things.
        Matthews called Obama on this, you are not “giving”, you are “taking”
        less. Politicians don’t want us thinking that way, that tax money is taken from us, against our will(try stopping it from being held out of your paycheck). They try to turn it around, and make it seem they are giving us something. Bulldookey! It’s our money to begin with! I should be grateful for getting to keep a little more of my money? That’s like if the school bully split your lunchmoney with you, instead of taking all of it.(Here kid, have a Redbull on me)

        BMI’s Seymour Tells Fox Biz Media Manipulating Tax Debate Terms
        By Matthew Philbin
        Tue, 09/21/2010 – 14:45 ET

        In the current federal tax debate, the media are “really helping out the liberals” just by choosing certain words over others, according to the Business & Media Institute.

        In an appearance on Fox Business Network Sept. 21, BMI’s Julia Seymour told host Charles Payne that the mainstream media – “particularly the cable primetime shows that we looked at,” had been framing “the debate as tax cuts, rather than tax increases.”

        Seymour was referring to BMI research showing that the media was using the language of the left and the Obama administration when reporting on the tax issue. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said on Sept. 13 that “Democrats want to cut everybody’s taxes,” despite the president’s stated intent to raise taxes on the rich. “It was 27 tax cut-framed stories, versus two tax increase stories,” Seymour told Payne. The media were thus 13 times more likely to put a positive spin on the Democrats’ intentions than to characterize the move as a tax increase.
        Story Continues Below Ad ↓

        “Is it the case really that the media perhaps – the mainstream media – has been trying to shape it in a way that makes it, ah, seem better for the Democrats rather than the Republicans,” asked Payne.

        “Certainly,” Seymour responded. “The Obama administration has made it clear they want to increase taxes on the people they deem wealthy. But that’s not the way you hear the stories – you hear that Obama wants to keep middle class tax cuts.” She cited the “complete distortion” of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann’s tax assertions, and included CNN among the outlets spinning tax increases into a question of tax cuts.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2010/09/21/bmi-s-seymour-tells-fox-biz-media-manipulating-tax-debate-terms#ixzz10GhSnLm9

    • I was pretty stoked to hear about this. Shocked also. Go Chris!

  9. “This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.

    Some of these statements were under oath.” (So what happens when the Dept. of Justice breaks the law?)


    September 21, 2010
    New records show DoJ lied about Black Panther Party case
    Rick Moran
    Former Department of Justice attorney in the Voting Rights section J. Christian Adams has been blowing the whistle on the department for months regarding their lax enforcement of voting rights for any case other than those involving blacks as victims.

    Today at PJ Media, he reports that Judicial Watch has unearthed a bombshell: Proof that it was political appointees and not career civil servants, as DoJ has been insisting, who scuttled the Black Panther Party voting rights case:

    Judicial Watch made an explosive announcement today about the Justice Department’s stonewalling in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case dismissal. Forced to bring a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request (so much for transparency), Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.

    It shows – in a rather dramatic way – that the DOJ has been untruthful about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.

    In July, I complied with a subpoena and provided testimony to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. I did so in part because inaccurate statements had been made about the case by DOJ officials. Some of these statements falsely claimed that ethical rules mandated the dismissal of the charges against the New Black Panthers. This was nonsense.

    But the real whopper? DOJ’s claim – repeated over and over again – that career civil servants were wholly responsible for the spiking of the case.

    Today we learn, from the Department’s own records, that this claim is demonstrably false.

    The privilege log produced in the FOIA litigation contains stunning entries. They show regular discussions and deliberations between the highest political officials inside the DOJ, including the deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general, about what to do with the case. This contradicts numerous statements made to Congress, the Civil Rights Commission, and to the public.

    Some of these statements were under oath.

    No doubt if the GOP regains control of the House, investigating DoJ’s actions in this case – and others – will be a top priority.

    • Buck the Wala says:
      • Buck,

        Devil in the details? MM references some emails, AT reference is(FOIA) lawsuit after DOJ rebuffed its public records request, Judicial Watch obtained a privilege log from the DOJ last week.

        And are statements made to congress, under oath, by DoJ employee’s nonsense? I thought it was perjury? Maybe we need an expert opinion, what does Bill Clinton think?

    • Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and B. H. Obama:
      1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration. Obama used the same Bible.
      2. Lincoln came from Illinois . Obama comes from Illinois .
      3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.
      4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President. Obama had very little experience before becoming President.
      5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration. Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
      6. Lincoln was a skinny lawyer. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      7. Lincoln was a Republican. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      8. Lincoln was in the United States military. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      9. Lincoln believed in everyone carrying their own weight. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      10. Lincoln did not waste taxpayers’ money on personal enjoyments. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      11. Lincoln was highly respected. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      12. Lincoln was born in the United States . Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      13. Lincoln was honest, so honest he was called Honest Abe.. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
      14. Lincoln saved the United States . Obama is a skinny lawyer.

  10. ACLU Sues New Jersey Town Over Pre-Meeting Prayer

    Published September 21, 2010

    POINT PLEASANT BEACH, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the shore town of Point Pleasant Beach for beginning its borough council meetings with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

    The group also asked a judge to issue an injunction barring the council from reciting the prayer publicly while the lawsuit is pending.

    Mayor Vincent Barrella says saying the prayer has been a tradition since the mid 1990s, but declined further comment because he’s named as a defendant in the suit.

    The ACLU acted on complaints by a former borough employee who is Jewish and says she was distressed for years by hearing the prayer before each meeting.

    The suit says the prayer violates the state constitution’s ban on government showing preference to a particular religion.


  11. A BRIT teen who sent an email to the White House calling President Obama a “p***k” has been banned from America FOR LIFE.

    The furious FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, his drunken insult was “unacceptable”. Luke yesterday admitted he fired off a single email criticising the US Government after seeing a TV programme about 9/11.

    He said: “I don’t remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k. It was silly – the sort of thing you do when you’re a teenager and have had a few.”

    Luke, of Silsoe, Beds, said it was “a bit extreme” for the FBI to act.

    He added: “The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don’t really care but my parents aren’t very happy.”

    A Beds Police spokesman said: “The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language. We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and went to see him. He said, ‘Oh dear, it was me’.”

    Officers will take no criminal action.

    Joanne Ferreira, of the US Department of Homeland Security, said there are about 60 reasons a person can be barred.

    She added: “We are prohibited from discussing specific cases.”


    • Bottom Line..Hide..Quick !!! 🙂

    • “Officers will take no criminal action”

      That’s because they just finished taking a criminal action, by banning a person for free speech. Before that criminal action, there was no crime, so they certainly could not press criminal charges. The only criminal charges that can be filed would be against the FBI for violating the principles of free speech in the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. And don’t give me crap about that only applying to citizens. Either mankind is created/born equal, or they are not. Seperating people based on citizenship and applying rights inconsistently on that basis is no different than seperating them on race.

      • Britain barred Michael Savage, but at least that is understandable, he said a lot worse to get barred. And still, people here make a fuss about it. I don’t know if the Brits have a clear document declaring all men equal and all speech free, but regardless we should be principled enough to not ban anyone based on speech alone. Some of the dignitaries we wine and dine say far worse things about this country. I guess tehy get a pass because they are part of the worldwide “ruling elite”. I am done with royalty concepts. Obama is not better than anyone else.

        Obama, you are a prick. Come get me.
        Jon Smith

    • Giggle, giggle

    • Three cheers for this lady! Notice how Obama laughed at her originally 👿

      His Obamacare that he’s touting is on the ropes along with it’s attached student loan program. Now what is it that he has to offer? Oh that’s right..credit card companies cant jack up your rates without you knowing! Big deal.

      Yes, ma’am.. this is the new reality!

  12. OMG, I overslept and I’ve got a terribly important meeting this morning. Of course, everything I do is important but I must remember to keep myself center stage as that loser Baracky is going down the tubes and I need to be ready and waiting to get MY Presidency.

    I don’t have time to wash my hair, but wait, I have one of those clippy things in my gymbag and I heard that Snooky girl wears these, so why not me. Hah! Fixed! I started that whole headband thing way back when, maybe this look will catch on.

    Now to what to wear? Didn’t get to the cleaners last night….hmmm, maybe Bill has a pantsuit in his closet for me. Wow! what’s this blue thing he’s got in here. It’s got a few spots on it, but this should work.

    Done! I must say, who wouldn’t be proud of me as their Secy of State-Soon to Be Pres?


    WTH? How can a grown, professional woman, even leave the house looking like this? Does she not have aides? Could Michelle not share one of her 25 handlers to help her out? Embarrassing!

  13. Summers out, now Emanuel too? Looks like the WH is taking Boehner’s advice?

  14. Just saw an interview with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, and United Health Care about the parts of the health care going into effect tomorrow. Each of them said to expect up to 22% increases in premiums as a result. It simply will cost more. Kathy Sebilius has said that the insurance companies report to her and should be ready to defend their positions…..each of the three told her to “bring it on”. Aetna has also said they will not offer single child coverage any longer….the cost is too great.

    • You know, aren’t these the types of discussions/debates that should’ve taken place before Obamacare was “deemed” passed?


  15. What ARE these pesky Republicans thinking? Imagine wanting to change the rules of the House to ensure that any new bill passes constitutionality PRIOR to being submitted. Wow….what a concept.

    • link please.. I love this concept..

      It might cause me an ulcer if I had to vote Republican, but I could do it for this.

      • Same here.

      • No link…it was on Fox News and again on CNN. Supposedly, this is one of three items that is going to be presented either tonight or tomorrow by the Repubs..part of their new agenda shuld they tke back the house…on of the other agendas was to scale back or revoke the health care bill…and I cannot remember the third.

        • I posted this righjt after I heard it….then switched to CNN and it was repeated again….it came out today.

        • Third it probably to open an investigation of the President’s birth certificate.

          … aaannnddd.. they lost me again. So close.

          • Naahhhhhh……even I know that the Pres was born in HI…..who else needs to know?

            • 100 bucks says there will be an investigation into his birth certificate or something similar once the Reps take over.

              Even odds say there will be an impeachment (attempt?) on some ridiculous charge.

              Any takers? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

              • Hmmmmmm….100 bucks….is that Mathius bucks? Raptor Bucks? D13 Bucks? Please don;t say it is devalued American Bucks….but….I will take you up on the impeachment…..if you are talking BO. That is dumb…

                On the Birth Certificate……ok….If you win, I will drink Red Bull for one week….If I win, you must drink Dr Pepper for one week. Fair?

          • Come on….you can hang…..try it….I tried a Red Bull and met Elvis….

        • Someone at MM’s blog had a one item contract or promise: “Protect and defend the
          Constitution”. I believe they swore an oath to do this. Most of the recent BS falls in this category. Just sayin’

          BTW Ray, I just got laid off, no work in the Gulf. That “Shit happens” has a way on coming around.

          • Wasabi,

            My I offer my sincere condolences on your receiving Hope-N-Change. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Wasabi – not sure what the call-out was for.

            Thoughts and prayers with you on the lay off – have a close family member laid off (along with 4-5 others of similar age (older) and experience level).

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Mathius, dont’ get so excited for the GOP — this proposal is only seeking to mandate Congress cites the authority within the bill itself (i.e., “subsection (5)(z)(1)(aaa): Constitutional authority for the provisions of this law comes from the Commerce Clause.”)

        This is already standard practice for all bills at the committee level.

        • Ah, well that’s not good enough.

          I want it to have to be approved by my high school social studies teacher. Mrs. Fullmer was one mean old bag, but she knew her Constitution backward and forward.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Now you’re just advocating usurping the role of the Supreme Court. It is not Congress’ job to decide what is and is not constitutional. And if it is, who’s judgment do you go by – Congress’ or the Court’s?

            Are you really advocating for having Congress (who makes and passes the laws) make the determination as to which laws they pass are constitutional??

            • Stop making sense.

            • Buck

              Its part of their job description.

              Ref: See the oath they take.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It most certainly is not part of their job description.

                True, part of their oath is to uphold the constitution but they should not/cannot be tasked with the job of deciding which of their own laws are constitutional. That must be left to another body.

                • Buck

                  Bull Shit.

                  A second body can give backup, but the primary responsibility lies with the hundreds of freakin lawyers who write the laws and who are charged with upholding the Constitution.

                  I never said they have the final say, even though they do and never use it. I said they have a responsibility to make determine if a new law is constitutional because it is inherent in their job.

                  How is it that the opinions of 9 lawyers is so much more enlightened than that of hundreds of lawyers?

                  We have seen that no real special intelligence or judicial brilliance is required to become one of the nine. Hell, why not cut it to three. It would save us some more tax money.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    Come on JAC – this whole thing is smoke and mirrors. Every single bill that comes through a committee has an indication as to the constitutional authority for that bill. Not everyone has such a narrow view of constitutional authority as you. My view is quite broad.

                    Out of the hundreds of lawyers there are going to be wildly different views on constitutional interpreation and authority. When the sponsors of a bill cite to constitutional authority, many will disagree, many others agree. Arguing that Congress should be deciding as part of their job what is constitutional is ridiculous — I’d be willing to bet that every single law that passes is thought of as constitutional by a majority of congress at the time it is passed. Hence an independent body to make that determination.

            • Actually, I would like to see a committee check for constitutionality. Not congress. I would be happy to have the Supreme Court check it, but that would be out of order and they could not handle the workload. Hell, I would like to see those bums actually check what we already have against the 10th amendment, if they were really doing their job the federal government would already be shrunk more than 50%.

              No, a separate group, perhaps still a judiciary committee, so still part of the judicial branch, not part of congress or the executive branch, but a filter that is handled by constitutional judges. Its not like there are only 9 decent judges in the world, the judiciary branch is bigger than that. So make a committee or review board from them, and precheck all bill before they hit the floor. If congress runs out of stuff to vote on because none of the bills pass muster, make them go back through the old laws and redo them, maybe we can get rid of some of the outdated foolish stuff.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Now we’re getting somewhere!

                • I was thinking more on this one, the committee would be a simple filter, a yes/no before it hit the floor. Congress would be responsible for changing it, thus no creation or writing of legislation would fall to the judicial committee. Also, if the bill, once on the floor of the house or senate changed, it would not have to go back through approval before being sent to the other congressional house. Thus, there would still be a job for the supreme court. Besides, the supreme court would have final say regardless. If a bill was approved by the committee and sent through congress, it could still be counted unconstitutional by the supreme court as they are a higher court.

                  Make sense?

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    That goes more towards my basic point — it would be foolish to have Congress make the final determination as to the constitutionality of a bill that they themselves are passing.

                    I like the idea of a filter, but would want it removed from Congress itself. It would have to be a part of the judicial branch, though not necessarily the Supreme Court itself, which would still be tasked with final say given a constitutional challenge to a bill once passed.

  16. Canine Weapon says:

    SUFA, please help.

    Normally, to come back from the kitchen, I go NORTH then EAST. However, I was eating a shoe and made a wrong turn somewhere. Next thing I know:

    > I am in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

    > I am carrying the following in my inventory:
    > One shoe (half eaten)
    > One Feline Weapon
    > One collar
    > One 1967 Shelby GT 500 (silver)

    What should I do?

    • Throw away the half eaten shoe….eat the cat…sell the collar….take the GT for a spin and pick up the prettiest companion you can find…(should not be hard with a Shelby…the ladies still dig the great cars)…go to inspiration point….have fun………then do it all over again. Enjoy.

      • D13: Throw away the half eaten shoe
        >Canine Weapon does not recognize the instruction “throw”.

        D13: Eat the cat
        >Canine Weapon has eaten the cat.
        >Canine Weapon feels somewhat full.

        D13: Sell the collar
        >Canine Weapon is unable to sell collar.
        >Sell to whom?

        D13: Take the GT for a spin
        >Canine Weapon does not know how to spin a GT

        D13: Pick up the prettiest companion you can find.
        >Canine Weapon cannot pick up companions.
        >He does not have the requisite musculature.

        D13: Go to inspiration point
        >Canine Weapon does not recognize this direction.
        >You can say “Go NORTH” “Go SOUTH” “Go EAST” or “Go WEST”.

        D13: Have fun
        >Canine Weapon destroys a local couch.
        >The couch has been destroyed.
        >In the couch, Canine Weapon finds A Blog.

        D13: Then do it all over again.
        >Canine Weapon chews on shoe again.

        D13: Enjoy.
        >Canine Weapon does not recognize this command.

        • Lesseee…what were the words youused to BF….something like

          I hate you.

          • D13: I hate you.
            >You speak the words “I hate you”
            >Canine Weapon responds by sniffing your crotch
            >Canine Weapon finds A Raptor

  17. JAC!

    Where were we last time? To be human, you must live. To live, you must think. To think, you must be free to think.

    Where we go from here, I leave up to you.

  18. Wow…..Fort Worth council voted on how to meet a 12 million budget shortfall…they did it without raising property or sales taxes…..

    Wait….they went to a fee basis….isn’t that a camouflaged tax?

    • Displaced Okie says:

      Well, it is better than in Dallas-they are raising taxes(county taxes as well) and laying people off. Makes me glad I live in Tarrant county.

    • email from a vet friend, I read the story when it happened.

      In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an
      > Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge
      > Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not
      > know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him
      > anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an
      > illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at
      > the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy
      > clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel
      > acted as lead prosecutor in the case.
      > The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow
      > at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin,
      > Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another
      > Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the “Texas Gunshow” that day, and
      > claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as
      > the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin
      > residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.
      > Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who
      > liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however,
      > he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both
      > English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in
      > English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial
      > Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally,
      > (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs
      > Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed
      > he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions,
      > Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence
      > at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting
      > violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the
      > City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the
      > country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was
      > allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has
      > not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the
      > handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.
      > “Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for
      > selling,” commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for
      > Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte
      > asked, “who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status,
      > the buyer or the seller?” He also said, “What happened to Paul Copeland
      > should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens
      > to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The
      > illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same
      > government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal
      > immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no
      > sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and
      > frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens.”
      > Velte pointed out that “There is no way for a citizen to know who is here
      > legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even
      > the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s
      > immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to
      > assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is
      > in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish.”
      > Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based
      > on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally
      > based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group
      > are outraged, and they want to know:
      > 1. Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr.,
      > still living in Austin?
      > 2. Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
      > 3. Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American
      > citizens?
      > 4. What has he been promised for his cooperation?
      > 5. Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes:
      > he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the
      > firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito
      > Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
      > 6. Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?
      > Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and
      > 24 months of probation, and called Copeland “a liar” for not admitting
      > guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated
      > forfeiture proceedings. Copeland was also fired from his job due to the
      > indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his
      > family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence.

  19. Message for CM:

    I was in Green Bay for the Packers game this past Sunday and it was alumni day. They had a bunch of “old” Packers there and then also mentioned those former players that had passed away this year. Your friend, Robert Kowalkowski was mentioned. I guess he played for the Pack one time. Thought you might want to know he was honored and remembered.

  20. (filling in for Black Flag)


    Me booty be worth 1,292.05 / oz… Record hi.. Y’ARGH!

    Sent from my iPad

  21. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

    A military plan in Afghanistan that avoids trying to produce victory, what is the point?
    Fighting a war where soldiers are just biding time?

    President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

    Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page “terms sheet” that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in “Obama’s Wars,” to be released on Monday.

    According to Woodward’s meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

    “This needs to be a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. “Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room.” . . .

    This is nuts. Stronger after the terrorist attack?

    Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

  22. Our Matt?

    • Alas, no. Sadly I have never been to most of these places.

      Also, I am like 1,000,000 times better looking than that guy.

      (Though I probably dance equally poorly)

      • I just thought this was a cool thing to do. To be able to create a flash mob of happiness over something as simple as dancing. It’s one thing that can unite the world. This guy has been at this for a few years and now has people begging him to come to their cities just to dance for the camera. Priceless!

  23. Do these guys read SUFA. This sounds good on paper but will it be practiced?

    America is more than a country.
    America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.
    America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.
    Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
    These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans. In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
    An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
    An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
    Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose. Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good. The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated. With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.
    We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity. We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.
    We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
    We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.
    We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.

    • As I feared.

      From the pot into the fire.

      • I don’t know about from pot to fire, but I seriously doubt their sincerity.

        Why do you say pot to fire?

        • From the progressive Dems to the “conservative” but really progressive Repubs.

          The boiling pot is bad enough. But you get burned worse when burned by those you think are your friends. Did you notice they included the “family values”, “traditional marriage” and “life” issues in the thing.

          Way to go ass clowns. You just alienated 35% of the population that was rooting for you.

          Cyndi….See below for a much better version, all on one page.

          • I did notice the usual ‘buzz words’. Its just more of the same GOP BS. They still don’t have a clue. If they get in, it’ll be meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

            I don’t know that it even matters. Things are so screwed up, I mean, really, even if we got some actual leaders with a workable plan, isn’t the whole system so damaged that a collapse is going to happen either way?

            • Cyndi P


              But it will be painful.

              I think that if real action started happening pressure would reduce from outside forces on the economy.

              Our economy is potentially so huge we can make it if we just balance the budget and then stop waging war on business and/or trying to pick the winners and losers.


              • You’re right about painful.

                Where are those leaders? I think that’s the hard part. The current bunch in charge don’t have the sense to just back off and let free enterprise take over.

    • Annnnddddddddd…….

      Wait for it…….

      Wait for it….

      ‘||”|. .|”’.|
      || || ||..
      ||”’|. ”|||.
      || || . ‘||
      .||…|’ |’….|’

  24. HERE IS A BETTER VERSION. NOT WHAT I WANT TOTALLY BUT MUCH BETTER. It came from a guy who criticized the real pledge. I understand Eric Erickson at Red State isn’t happy with it either. Going to check out his comments next.

    The GOP Pledge to America

    We pledge that every action we take will be gauged by the answer to a single question: Does it show fidelity to the Constitution, our highest law?

    With that as our guide, we solemnly pledge the following as our first actions:

    • We will repeal the Democrat health care bill and, if vetoed by the President, will de-fund every aspect of that bill until such time as the American people have input into a sensible health care reform process.
    • We will slash the size of the federal government bureaucracies (Commerce, Education, Energy, the EPA, Labor, etc.) by 20% in 2011 with a goal of reducing each by 50% over the next three years, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars.
    • We will secure the border with physical fencing suitable to repel drug smugglers, human smugglers, and terrorists, while encouraging legal immigration and enforcement of the law.
    • We will confront the entitlement crisis — Social Security and Medicare — by preserving benefits for those who depend upon them and moving to privatized options for younger workers. Anything less condemns future generations to mountains of debt and economic catastrophe.
    • We will strengthen our armed forces, space and missile defense programs to retain our unparalleled superpower status.
    • We will begin the process of paying down our debts, spending within our means every year.
    • We will ban public sector unions, which exist solely to wage war against the taxpayers who fund their operations.

    Put simply: we intend to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Faith, Family, and the Founding. That is our creed.

    And for your support and with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

    • I have to cheer this BS simply because they say they will dis-ban Freddie/Fannie. On the whole, Erickson makes the most sense. I think it may also be an effort to cement the Tea Party to the Republican Party.

  25. Here is Erickson’s take on the Repub Pledge. I would have used the word “crock” but then I’m old school.

    The House Republicans’ “Pledge to America” is out. A thrill will run up the leg of a few Chris Matthews’ types on the right. As Dan noted on Twitter, the Contract with America was 869 words and this is 21 pages. The Contract told you everything you needed to know about how a Republican Congress would be different from a Democrat Congress after 40 years of Democrat control.

    These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.

    I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.

    Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.

    It is dreck.

    The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.

    The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.

    There is a plan to cut Congress’s budget, which is pretty much what was promised in 1994. Seriously? In 4 years did the Democrats really blow up the Congressional budget? No — the GOP did that too.

    There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo and that ultimately the Senate GOP will even turn its nose up at.

    The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.

    This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy. All the good stuff in it is stuff we expect them to do. What is not in it is more than a little telling that the House GOP has not learned much of anything from 2006.

    I will vote Republican in November of 2010. But I will not carry their stagnant water.”

  26. D13,

    1) Iran will enrich its uranium beyond 20% before June 2011.

    (shrug) The USA/Britian/France/Canada/Spain/Korea/ and… a long list have all done so… so what?

    2) Iran will produce weapons grade plutonium before June 2011.

    The Russians control the fuel. Therefore, you are suggesting the Russians are the problem…true?

    3) A-Jad will never be defeated (except by overthrow) and will consolidate his power. He controls the Guard…the Ayatollah’s do not and have not for over one year now. (Since the election).


    Whatever source you have, it is dangerously out of touch.

    The Guard are wholly committed to the religious factions and not at all in his favor.

    He is in conflict with the religious faction – who are the extremists.

    As typical, you pick a fight with the man who is the closest to an ally – because any faction that promotes independence is against US interests!

    This sick doctrine has been the defining measure of US policy since Eisenhower.

    4) A-Jad and the revolutionary Guard will have complete control of Iran over Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (etal) by June 2011. He will continue to jail the family of the clerics that oppose him openly.

    The hope for Iran is that he does manage to restrain the Guard and the religious extremists.

    It will be a task because of the ignorance you demonstrate is the same as the administration and will frustrate any move to a moderate regime.

    5) Once weapons grade and weapon is produced, A-jad will declare himself the new Caliph over all of Islam by December 2011.

    The contradiction. He is attacking the religious center, then claims it.

    You are so out to lunch, I have to force myself to respond further.

    8) I predict that by December 2011, Syria, Egypt, UAB, QATAR, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait will form an unholy allaince with Israel and that they will have a non aggression treaty among them as long as A-Jad is in power.

    Not even a possibility.

    Israel has poisoned their own wells.

    They have no draw at all.

    They destroyed the relationship with their only real ally, Turkey – and the rest wait like cobra’s.

    Israel will not make it another 50 years without a sudden, severe reversal of their evil policies.

    I do not believe they will make such a reversal.

    9) I predict that Hamas will be destroyed by Israel with the tacit approval of Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by the end of 2011.

    Law (1) of hegemonic power: You cannot defeat that which refuses to surrender.

    10) Bloomberg reports that the Gulf States Ordered $123 Billion of U.S. Weaponry to Counter Iran. I further predict that this will double by the end of 2012 and that there will be a coalition of Oman, UAE, Kuwait, and the Saudis with over 400 upgraded jet fighters and bombers to go along with the treaty mentioned earlier.

    But the lesson of the region: a 5th rate power has defeated #1.

    USA has lost both Iraq and Afghanistan. This failure is very obvious to the tyrannies around the region.

    The other American despots in the region shake with fear.

    The entire might of America is impotent – and these criminals now know they are on their own. They are praying that more tanks, planes and bombs and slaughter of their own people will save their power.

    They will kill thousands, but lose.

    So..that is my prediction. Pick the steakhouse of your choice and I will send you a gift certificate…you do the same for me….bet?


    • see above, sir….as I said, I hope that I am wrong but I do not see A-JAd as a moderate at all…he wants the power and will get it.

  27. An article on the Federal Reserve and financial reforms.

    I found myself shaking my head all the way through this. It either contains some revelations or is a heavy attempt at revising history. Or, it could be both.

    My prior readings on the financial crisis of 07 was that the Treasury “forced” itself upon the bankers because of the fear that the private bankers showed they could control situation. Now the story goes they went to Treasury for a loan because they couldn’t handle it.

    Then the discussion makes it sound as if the Fed had little power until after 1929. There are many works claiming the Fed helped cause the crash with its loos monetary policy and then deliberately caused the crash by shutting down the cheap credit.

    Black Flag will hopefully have some other insights into this as might our other financial wizards.

    I am bothered by what appears to be a NEW STORYLINE developing on the left, and this article contains the first time I see a supposed knowledgeable person supporting it. Please note that he is claiming that the LACK OF GOVT control caused the 1920 depression and the boom after wards and that in turn CAUSED the Great Depression. Then he ties our current recession to 1920 alluding to eerie similarities. The message is of course, do not listen to the “we need less regulation to stimulate growth” crowd. Because that is what caused the Great Depression.

    Perhaps I am seeing wolves where they don’t exist. But it sure reeks of propaganda and mind tricks to me.

    Anyway, here it is.


  28. Here’s some bad news/good news. This site lists companies that have laid off but it also lists companies that are hiring. This is nationwide.

    JUDY are you listening?


  29. Mathius

    Let me know if you have more questions after reading the post at #12 of the Objectivist article.

    Hint: If your thinking hard you should have one more question.

    • Odd.. my reply seems to have posted as empty.. this makes me sad since it was lengthy and well articulated.

      Oh well.

      My comment was really to the effect of how did you get there from here?

      We had:
      (A)To exist, you must life
      (B)To live, you must think (some caveats, but we’ll ignore for now)
      (C)To think, you must be able to think

      And you concluded that this led to:
      (D)“every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others”.

      I don’t see how that follows. It seems a large jump.

      • Mathius

        Your original question was the source of Rights.

        That is included within the #12 paragraph. Didn’t mean for you to focus on the ethic/moral principle.

        But here is how it fits.

        First notice the operative in A-C is YOU. The individual. It is you that must think. Next comes taking action on your thoughts. And pulling this together, so……..

        (D) To live you must also act to carry out what you think.
        (E) To act, you must be able to act as you think is needed.
        (F) To be able to think and to act accordingly YOU must be FREE to think and act as you deem needed.
        (G) To be FREE the core moral principle, supported by A-F, is that you are an end unto yourself.

        It is YOUR life you want to extend, it is YOU who must use your mind and it is YOU who must act to assure that YOUR life is extended. YOU are the core moral value.

        (H) Rights are a concept that supports A-G. We invented them, but not in the normal inventing way. More like inventing the concept wood to describe the utility of a dead tree, as opposed to the dead tree itself, which we call “snag”. That is why BF and I say we “discovered” them. So we realized as thinking and acting humans that if we need to be free there are certain “rights” that must exist to support or further that freedom.

        And here is the HINT I gave earlier. We use the term God granted us certain unalienable rights. Setting God aside, the concept is that these rights come into existence as part of our nature as humans. The nature described in A-F. That is the essence of what is contained in paragraph #12. It describes this relationship and how it supports the concept of “Unalienable Rights”.

        Next question, why do we have or need rights? Because we have Govt. Rights are how we set out the limitations on govt that are needed to assure freedom and thus to assure our ability to identify, pursue and hopefully achieve the flourishing life we desire.

        Now it is your turn.

  30. Away for a few days!

    Play nice!

  31. Mathius said
    September 22, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Biggest sponsor of terrorism: USA (depending on how you define terrorism…)

    “I think the US usually supplies arms to governments. Consider Afghanistan, they were invaded by Russia, so I don’t see that as supporting terrorism. I am starting to wonder if Russia might be seeing profit in supplying drug lords and terrorists. And remember, China, France and Russia violated the food for oil program that contributed to the Iraq war.”

    ‘Merchant of Death’ Viktor Bout Will Never Be Extradited to U.S., Expert Says

    By Ed Barnes

    Published September 22, 2010


    EXCLUSIVE: When an appeals court in Thailand ruled late last month that Viktor Bout, the alleged illegal arms dealer dubbed the “Merchant of Death,” could be extradited to the United States to face charges, American diplomats and intelligence officers popped open the champagne.

    They hadn’t expected to win the last great spy battle of the Cold War, which pitted Russians looking to keep Bout’s secrets away from the Americans against the Americans who are seeking to shut down the vast illegal arms network he allegedly created and force him to reveal some of the Kremlin’s darkest secrets.

    But the celebration was premature, says Robert Amsterdam, an attorney deeply involved in both Russian and Thai politics. The extradition, he says, simply “isn’t going to happen.”

    Bout is accused by the Department of Justice of conspiring to provide material support or resources to a terrorist organization, conspiring to kill Americans, conspiring to kill U.S. officers or employees and conspiring to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missiles, as well as other charges. He’ll have his day in an American court — if the U.S. finally succeeds in getting him there.

    But Amsterdam says two elements virtually guarantee that the two-year battle to bring Bout to America will fail.

    One is Bout’s close connection to Igor Sechin, the Russian deputy prime minister who is widely regarded as the third most powerful man in the Kremlin, and who is a close ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, The other is the corruption that is rampant in Thailand.

    “The stakes are too big to have him extradited,” Amsterdam says.

    The U.S. and Russia have been angling to control Bout’s fate since an American “sting” operation led to his arrest two years ago in Thailand’s capital, Bangkok. In tapes made during a meeting with Drug Enforcement Agents posing as members of members of FARC, a Colombian guerrilla group, Bout allegedly promised to supply them with advanced surface-to-air missiles.

    The fact that Bout could get his hands on those missiles convinced American intelligence officials that the deal was sanctioned by the Russian government, that Bout worked for Russian intelligence operations and that the deal was payback for America’s sale of Stinger missiles to Afghanistan that forced their withdrawal in 1989. As the Moscow Times pointed out, those weapons are so devastating that it took only 200 Stingers to end the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

    Since then, the stakes have been huge. Russia has made Bout’s release a keystone of its foreign policy — Vladimir Kozin of the Russian Foreign Ministry has warned American officials that the “reset’ of Russian-American relations won’t happen if Bout is sent to America.

    The Russians also have tied the outcome of the case to their promises to send cheap oil and fighter jets to Thailand. In Russia, Bout has become a regular topic on TV, where he is depicted as a modern folk hero unjustly held by Russia’s old Cold War enemy.And tomorrow Bout’s wife will hold a press conference in Moscow claiming her husband is innocent and asking the Russian government to intervene directly in the case.

    The U.S., meanwhile, has played a similar game, matching Russia’s arms offers and pressuring the Thai government to make sure Bout’s extradition is approved.

    According to California Rep. Ed Royce, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Bout has funneled weapons to wars on three continents — but it was the discovery of one of his planes delivering weapons to Al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda-linked terror group in Somalia, that makes his capture and prosecution critically important. Al-Shabab is seen as one the most dangerous terror groups in the world.

    “His operation is still running, and if we can learn its details and shut it down it will eliminate an important source of weapons for terrorists,” Royce said.

    The Russians won the first round in their tug of war with the U.S. for Bout in August 2009, when a Thai lower court ordered Bout’s extradition halted. But as the deadline neared for a decision from Thailand’s Court of Appeals, American and Canadian diplomats mounted a broad effort to corner Thai diplomats around the world and impress upon them just what was at stake. According to American defense analysts, the Thai ambassador was called in for a special meeting in Washington that had only one topic — Bout — and the final sale of helicopters to the Thai military was hastily approved.

    As the Russians and the Americans squared off, Thai politicians also intervened. A Thai newspaper reported that a high ranking Thai official visited Bout days before the court’s decision and promised the case would go his way if he accused Thailand’s former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, of arms smuggling. The official admitted he met with Bout in prison, but he denied trying to make a deal. The government is locked in a struggle with Shinawatra, whose supporters staged protests in the streets in March that left 88 dead.

    No one is sure what influenced the appeals court’s decision to allow the extradition, but the success of the U.S. effort — the ruling cannot be challenged further — was met with a dire and surprising warning from Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov. He quickly announced that Russia would do “everything necessary to push for Bout’s return to the homeland,” and he charged that the case was “political and unlawful.”

    “The decision won’t stop the Russian efforts to get him back,’ said Jeff Abramson, deputy director of the Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan Washington-based group that studies arms proliferation around the world. “They will find a way to continue to let him go.”

    Beyond the scope of Bolt’s operations, American intelligence is eager to know just how available surface to air missiles are; the involvement of Bulgaria, an European Union member, in illicit arms sales; and the techniques Bolt used to circumvent restrictions of arms sales, says Matt Schroeder, a senior analyst with the Federation of American Scientists.

    But Amsterdam and intelligence sources say it is Bout’s connection to Sechin that ensures that the case is far from over — and that Bout ultimately may never be sent to the United States. Sechin, they say, has quietly led the old guard Kremlin faction whose base was the military and security services that was overshadowed by President Demitri Medvedev’s faction in the energy sector during the economic boom years. Now, they say, the man once called the “Richelieu of the Kremlin” is emerging from the shadows, challenging Medvedev’s influence and becoming a likely contender to become Putin’s heir. He is not about to show weakness or let Bout, his friend, down.

    According to a recent report by Stratfor, a private American intelligence analysis company, both Bout and Sechin have a long history together. Both studied Portuguese early in their careers, served as intelligence officers in Angola and Mozambique during the civil wars there in the 1980s, and it is widely believed that Sechin protected Bout’s operations and allowed him access to stockpiled Russian weapons.

    “He is not about to let the man who knows his secrets fall into American hands,” Amsterdam said.

  32. Teresa Ghilarducci

    Saw this ladies name the other day reading about 401k’s, so I did a little looking. I was shocked by her views. She has testified before Congress and apparently has others on board with her (in my opinion) radical ideas. She is nanny government all the way as we ordinary folks can not look after ourselves.


    • What a piece of work she is. Does she really think we’re stupid enough to trust her and her Marxist buddies with our money? Just look at what they’ve done to SS, and now they want the rest of our money so they can spend that too? We’ve been *required* to pay SS and now they want to require that we give them more money? Hey Teresa, fuck off!

  33. Bottom Line says:

    Anita, Everyone,

    Please check this site out and take the time to understand and review everything presented. If you had any doubt before, this will likely put it to rest.


  34. This was sent to the Executive Director of AARP.

    Dear Mr. Rand,

    Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

    While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

    Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

    We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years, and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities..

    This Presidential administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly, for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I h ave never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

    Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

    I DON’T choose to welcome them.

    I DON’T choose to support them. ;

    I DON’T choose to educate them.

    I DON’T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.

    American home invaders get arrested.

    Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

    Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

    We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it t han one which is power driven.

    We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

    I am disappointed as heck.
    I am scared as heck.

    I am MAD as heck, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!

    Walt & Cyndy
    Miller Farms Equine Transport

  35. MRC’s Worst of the Week: Media Ramp Up Anti-Tea Party Venom
    Rich Noyes
    Thu, 09/23/2010 – 11:15 ET

    Six weeks before what could be a doomsday election for Democrats, the liberal media are taking every opportunity to belittle and discredit the Tea Party movement that’s fueling voter energy this year.

    Media liberals with zero affection for the Republican establishment are suddenly acting like concerned parents. Ex-Clintonista George Stephanopoulos worried on ABC’s Good Morning America: “Is it a revolution that will bring the GOP to power, or a civil war that will bring them down?” Over on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric fretfully wondered if “moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species?”

    On Saturday’s Good Morning America, co-host Dan Harris suggested “complacency” was the only risk facing “gleeful” Democrats: “When it comes to the rise of the Tea Party…some of these people have said such extreme things in the past, that they’re gonna be easier to beat. Is there complacency, potentially, setting in?”

    On Monday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Nancy Cordes sought to paint all of this year’s Tea Party candidates as kooks. “Christine O’Donnell’s witchcraft comments may have spooked some Republican leaders,” Cordes opined, “but her fellow Tea Party Senate candidates are living proof that unusual assertions are not necessarily campaign killers.”

    Cordes regurgitated Democrats’ favorite anti-Tea Party talking points: “Take Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who questioned the historic Civil Rights Act but is still tied with the Democrat in a recent poll. Nevada’s Sharron Angle is neck and neck with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even after she advocated an armed insurrection against the government….And Utah attorney Mike Lee is crushing his Democratic rival even though Lee favors dismantling Social Security and eliminating unemployment benefits, priorities he shares with Alaska’s Joe Miller.”

    Ex-MSNBC pundit Craig Crawford, certainly no conservative, scolded the media’s biased approach on CNN’s Reliable Sources. “Sometimes we’re wrong when we listen too much to the Democratic message,” Crawford advised. “We’re playing into that Democratic message that these candidates are insane.”

    Sadly, the evidence suggests too many supposedly objective reporters don’t mind being tools for the Democratic Party this election year.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2010/09/23/mrcs-worst-week-media-ramp-anti-tea-party-venom#ixzz10NpekckV

  36. JUST this year????? It should say EVERY year……

%d bloggers like this: