JAC’s Blank Page

Sounded more interesting than open mic….


  1. 😐

  2. Thank you.

    I will take part blame for slowing the other one down. Tooooo many Boise State videos. 🙂

    Oh look, the italics are gone.

    Now Mathius, behave yourself.

  3. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Someone who has time (since I don’t right now), if any of you can dig up any articles or data whatsoever on the amount of mercury emitted by a typical CFL bulb production facility, I would LOVE to see how it compares to the mercury emissions of a current US coal-fired power plant.

    I strongly suspect that data on mercury emissions from CFL bulb production facilities either doesn’t exist or is purposely made EXTREMELY difficult to find…

    Good luck 🙂

    • I’m not gonna make that search 🙂 but I do remember reading in an article a while back-that a lot of people were getting sick in China from making these things. And something about computer production was also making them sick.

    • Bottom Line says:
      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Interestingly, when I clicked your Google Search Link, JAC’s Blank Page at standupforamerica.wordpress.com came up as the #2 result!!!


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The most interesting was the first thing listed. They claim incandescent bulbs last (on average) 8 months, CFLs last 2 years and LED bulbs last 10 years. However, I have NEVER had a CFL bulb last longer than a few months, although I only ever bought 2 of them. The first lasted about 6 weeks and went out, the second maybe 10 weeks. Either the 2 bulbs I bought were crap, or the claim that they last 25 months on average is crap….

        • Bottom Line says:

          CFL’s suck ass.

          They cost more, the light is a funny color ,and, as you mentioned, they don’t last.

    • Peter,

      Mercury emissions and CFL”s are easy to understand if you would just put aside all science and reality. When you have an agenda you believe in, what does all that crap really mean anyway? I’ve had some CFL’s for about three years now and only had one of about ten fail. Not a big fan of them, but haven’t switched back yet. Blame it on laziness.
      I think LED’s will render the whole issue mute in a few more years. The tech is here now, just a matter of the cost coming inline. On agenda’s…..

      Groundwork Somerville was funded to persuade suburban Bostonians to replace their incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient — and more expensive – compact fluorescent bulbs.

      In December 2011, Congress overturned a planned government-mandated phase-out of the older Thomas Edison-style bulbs.

      West Harlem Environmental Action received taxpayer dollars to educate New Yorkers about the “local challenges posed by climate change (i.e., sea-level rise and extreme weather events).”

      Federal dollars also paid a Utah dance company to teach children in 10 elementary schools how to dance for environmental justice. “Kinesthetic learning,” the EPA reports, “will be used to examine air quality issues and encourage youth and their families to adopt healthy living practices.”

      The EPA funds “green jobs” projects in Hawaii, summer initiatives to teach middle-schoolers about global warming, and at least one push to create an “urban wetland” on Florida’s Gulf Coast.

      Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, a community organizing non-profit, received federal money to push for “anti-idling” policies affecting diesel truck drivers.

      Like several other grant recipients identified on the EPA’s website, Greenaction subscribes to a 1991 “Principles of Environmental Justice” manifesto that affirms “the sacredness of our Mother Earth” and the “political, economic and cultural liberation that has been denied for over 500 years of colonization and oppression, resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples.”

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/modern-dancers-bed-bug-battlers-earth-worshipers-get-epa-environmental-justice-grants/#ixzz1iggTB4m9

  4. 8)

  5. Are we fixin to go to war? Will this increase that possibility or limit the possibility? And why did Obama decide not to build the missile defense system?

    January 5, 2012
    Iran building missile base in Venezuela
    Lee DeCovnick

    Iran and Venezuela are feverishly building ICBM bases on the Paraguana Peninsula, a thumbnail shaped spit of arid land around a thousand square miles in size, 250 miles northwest of Caracas. These bases are designed to house missiles with nuclear tipped warheads capable of reaching large portions of the United States. From the Jerusalem Post, in May of 2011, and noted at the time by American Thinker, we read about these stunning developments that the Obama Administration and their socialist enablers in the media want to bury before the 2012 election.
    Iran is building intermediate-range missile launch pads on the Paraguaná Peninsula, and engineers from a construction firm – Khatam al-Anbia – owned by the Revolutionary Guards. The rocket bases are to include measures to prevent air attacks on Venezuela as well as commando and control stations.
    The Iranian military involvement in the project extends to bunker, barracks and watch tower construction. Twenty-meter deep rocket silos are planned. The cost of the Venezuelan military project is being paid for with Iranian oil revenue. The Iranians paid in cash for the preliminary phase of the project, which amounted to “dozens of millions” of dollars…
    … the clandestine agreement between Venezuela and Iran would mean the Chavez government would fire rocket at Iran’s enemies should the Islamic Republic face military strikes.
    Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the Stonegate Institute website wrote the following in December of 2010. Read the entire article, it’s terrific.
    At a moment when NATO members found an agreement, in the recent Lisbon summit (19-20 November 2010), to develop a Missile Defence capability to protect NATO’s populations and territories in Europe against ballistic missile attacks from the East (namely, Iran), Iran’s counter-move consists in establishing a strategic base in the South American continent – in the United States’s soft underbelly.
    The situation that is unfolding in Venezuela has some resemblance to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. At that time, Cuba was acting on behalf of the USSR; now Venezuela is acting on behalf of Iran. At present, the geopolitical situation is very different: the world is no longer ruled by two superpowers; new nations, often with questionable leaders and the ambition of acquiring global status, are appearing on the international scene. Their danger to the free world will be greater if the process of nuclear proliferation is not stopped. Among the nations that aspire to become world powers, Iran has certainly the best capabilities of posing a challenge to the West.
    Back in the 1962, thanks to the stern stance adopted by the then Kennedy administration, the crisis was defused.
    Nowadays, however, we do not see the same firmness from the present administration. On the contrary, we see a lax attitude, both in language and in deeds, that results in extending hands when our adversaries have no intention of shaking hands with us. Iran is soon going to have a nuclear weapon, and there are no signs that UN sanctions will in any way deter the Ayatollah’s regime from completing its nuclear program. We know that Iran already has missiles that can carry an atomic warhead over Israel and over the Arabian Peninsula. Now we learn that Iran is planning to build a missile base close to the US borders. How longer do we have to wait before the Obama administration begins to understand threats?
    Ms. Mahjar-Barducci, the answer to your eloquent question is simple. This Administration will finally begin to understand the threats just a couple of minutes after the first nuclear detonations over Miami, Atlanta, Houston and the Naval Shipyards in Portsmouth, Virginia…. and not a second sooner.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/iran_building_missile_base_in_venezuela.html#ixzz1icVFw0to

  6. Odds we’re going to war? Will this increase the odds or diminish them? And why didn’t Obama build the missile defense system? And is it really a good idea to cut out ground troops?


    • V.H.

      Given the tone of the article, and the nature of the comments that follow, combined with the rhetoric coming from the leading Republican candidates….I would say the odds are increasing.

      If we go to war it will not be the result of any actual attack by Iran or Venezuela. It will by at our OWN choosing for reasons that do NOT require war.

  7. This has got to be one of the crappiest jobs out there. Get up in front of the American people every day and blow smoke up their collective backsides.


    • Carney, like all press Secretaries, is the daily face of the administration. As much as I dislike most Press Secy’s, he holds his own.

      And really, they have to be somewhat creative in their thinking to pass off all the manure they do with straight faces.

      To me it is the worst job in the White House after the Presidency itself.

  8. Kim Jung Un

    I am really concerned about North Korea’s appointment of the “dear leader”, Kim Jung Ill’s youngest son to be the new leader of North Korea — a nuclear power!

    After all, Kim Jung Un (pronounced Kim’s young-un?) had NO military experience whatsoever before daddy made him a four-star general in the military. This is a snot-nose twerp who has never accomplished anything in his life that that would even come close to military leadership: he hasn’t even so much as led a cub scout troop, let alone coached a sports team or commanded a military platoon. So, setting that aside, next they make him the “beloved leader” of the country. Terrific!!!

    Oh, crap! I’m sorry. I just remembered that we did the same thing here, We took a community organizer who has never worn a uniform and made him Commander-in-Chief; a guy who has never led anything more than an ACORN demonstration and made him the leader of this country. Never mind.

    • Ok then let’s try this…Red Dawn..the remake..I have been waiting for the release of this movie for a while. It was filmed in Detroit and my brother was a body guard on set for months which is why I am a little more than interested. Anyway the original movie had the USA invaded by Russia…the remake has the USA invaded by N Korea! It was supposed to be released in Nov ’11..now posponed til Nov ’12. I wonder if it will even be released now!

      • The US invaded by N Korea???? Aren’t movies supposed to be somewhat believable? Now China could be portrayed in that role, but who would buy N. Korea??? One I do plan to see provokes many thoughts. Consider this proven fact, “they were recruited by the KGB while students at the university in the late 1930s and early 1940s.”

        True Spy Story behind Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
        By Bernie Reeves

        Most movie-goers do not know the story behind the acclaimed new film Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, opening nationally this weekend. Adapted from the 1974 John Le Carré book, and the 1982 sequel Smiley’s People, both were dramatized on BBC TV and PBS and can be found on Netflix and other sites.

        Le Carré, the pen name for David Cornwell — who served in MI6, Britain’s secret intelligence service — penned the two books (and the Honorable School Boy, the third installment in this trilogy), drawing on the real-life drama that tore apart the British spy demi-monde in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s: the discovery that the Soviet KGB had recruited upper-class British subjects to penetrate U.K. intelligence agencies.

        Their infamous careers as spies are legends in Europe, but not as well-known in the U.S., which says volumes about the American culture. Yet three of the five penetrated U.S. secret services and diplomatic departments, setting off one of the most dramatic spy-hunts in U.S. history by James Angleton, the chief of counterintelligence for the CIA. The manic hunt for a mysterious additional hidden Soviet spy in the CIA was considered the most damaging episode in the spy agency’s history by former director William Colby.

        The KGB called them the Magnificent Five for their great successes, after the film The Magnificent Seven. But history remembers them as the Cambridge Spies since they were recruited by the KGB while students at the university in the late 1930s and early 1940s. In 1951, two of the moles — Donald McLean and Anthony Burgess — fled to Moscow after a tip stating that the secret service was hot on their heels.

        In 1963, the suave and debonair Kim Philby, considered the ringleader — and responsible for transferring U.S. atomic secrets to his handlers while posted as a liaison to Washington — showed up in Moscow and held a press conference in a KGB colonel’s uniform. His defection was an international sensation, but MI5 and MI6 knew that there were two more moles. In 1978, Anthony Blunt — Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures and director of the Courtauld Gallery — was exposed as the Fourth Man.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/true_spy_story_behind_tinker_tailor_soldier_spy.html#ixzz1igcZDcV0

      • Displaced Okie says:

        According to the stuff I’ve looked up, one of the reasons the Red Dawn remake has been postponed is because they originally had China invading, but when the economy took a dump they decided they were going to need more investors and many of the new investors were foreign and wanted a more internationally marketable film. Since China has money and North Korea is such a “rogue” state, they decided to lose the “somewhat” believable aspect and go with the more marketable one .. and they have been digitally changing the Chinese emblems and flags into North Korean ones ever since.

        • Ah..good job Okie! I didn’t research that far but when I went looking for a new release date I noticed it said N Korea and it stumped me too but I just went with it. The original was a good movie..here’s hoping the remake is good too.

  9. Should the Internet Really Be Considered a Human Right?
    By Torie Bosch | Posted Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012, at 12:50 PM ET


    Egyptian radio presenter and divorcee Mahassen Saber works on the website of her Internet-based radio station
    Photo by VICTORIA HAZOU/AFP/Getty Images

    In 2011, a U.N. report from a special rapporteur came close to declaring Internet access a human right. Though it did not say that all citizens are entitled to Web access, it did say that the act of a government shutting off the Internet was a violation.

    In the New York Times today, Vinton G. Cerf, who worked on the DARPA project that gave rise to the Internet, explains that he doesn’t consider Internet access a human right. More than a century ago, a horse could have been considered critical for economic success, but that did not mean it should have been labeled a human right, says Cerf: “Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.” He is, however, more swayed by the position that Internet access is a civil right.

    Cerf would prefer that we spend less time on such “philosophical arguments,” which he thinks “overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights.”

    The teasing out the ethical and moral responsibilities of technology creators is vital, but is it really an either/or proposition? How does the debate over the Internet as human or civil right diminish the other discussion?

    The far-sighted Cerf has point that declaring the Internet a human right could someday seem quaint. But declaring it so could make a difference now—which is not to be discounted.


  10. Oops, she did it again
    Mark J. Fitzgibbons

    Nancy Pelosi is “glad” that President Obama ignored the Advice and Consent requirement of the Constitution on his recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the new bureaucratic beast, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Ms. Pelosi has shown her contempt for the Constitution before. When asked where in the Constitution she found the power to pass Obamacare, Pelosi said, “Are you serious?” President Obama shows a similar contempt about whether the Constitution constrains him.

    As reported at The Daily Caller, even “Obama’s Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said before the Supreme Court, ‘The recess appointment power can work in – in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days [to make an appointment].'”

    Libertarian constitutional expert Roger Pilon of Cato called the appointments “illegal.”

    Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that these appointments are “extra-constitutional” actions and “clearly lawless . . . if you regard the Constitution as law.”

    That’s not tough enough. The Constitution is law. In fact, it’s our paramount law.

    Citizens do things every day that are “extra-constitutional,” if by that one means “beyond” the Constitution. But that’s because the Constitution isn’t the law that was written to constrain citizens. It is the law written to govern government.

    There are laws written in accordance with the Constitution that we must obey. But if I were to rob a bank, surely the prosecutor would not say that I was acting in an “extra-bank-robbing law” way.

    If conservatives are really serious about dealing with the Obama/Pelosi world view, then we can’t just say that political leaders act “lawlessly” or “extra-constitutionally” when they violate the Constitution.

    The remedies for constitutional lawbreaking are not the same as remedies for breaking society’s other laws. However, we cannot adequately address the tyranny that comes with constitutional lawbreaking unless we start by calling elected officials who act with contempt for the Constitution what they are: lawbreakers. That’s a starting point.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/oops_she_did_it_again.html#ixzz1ignKIrTK

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’m glad Obama took this action as well.

      The President has constitutional authority to make recess appointments — there is no time requirement. The only issue here is that the Senate was in a pro forma session; a tactic used specifically to make the argument that Obama could not make such an appointment — he called their bluff. Several years ago, the Dems tried this tactic to block Bush from making recess appointments; Bush didn’t call the bluff, but I do believe he had the constitutional right to do so.

      • Mathius™ says:

        The fact is that there was a law passed to establish a position. And they refused to allow anyone to fill it until they had changed the law and weakened the position – they have been direct about this fact. If their objection had been to the candidate, I don’t know that I would agree with the President’s decision to use a “recess” appointment, but because they were simply not going to allow anyone to fill the role, he was justified.

        My reasoning isn’t legal – I am not a lawyer – but it is simply a question of intent. The Congress has the right to approve appointments – sneaking around them because they aren’t in session circumvents this authority. I certainly understand in ye olden tymes when Congressmen were incommunicado for weeks on end and the President had to just fill the role without them, but that logic no longer applies. If Congress doesn’t vote on something, it is because they don’t want to vote on it and that, itself, is a declaration of their unwillingness to approve the candidate.

        Whether legal or not, recess appointments are wrong to do – in general. I disapproved when Bush used it, it would be hypocritical of me not to feel the same way about Obama’s recess appointments. However, when this power is being used as a political tool rather than as a judgment of the candidate, it seems to me that they have abdicated their authority – this authority was not granted as a political bargaining chip but as a means to ensure that the positions were filled with qualified individuals rather than cronies. I would only add that I don’t know/remember if there were similar mitigating circumstances for any/many/all/some of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan recess appointments

        That said, two observations.

        Observation one: Obama has used this FAR less than Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan by this time in office. Graph.

        Observation two: Is Congress “in at recess” overnight? Do they end at 4 and pick up the next day at 9 AM noon? If so, could the President use this same logic as applied to the current “recess” and just wait until 5 o’clock and make his appointments, thus removing the check entirely?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Fact of the matter is I did disapprove of SOME of Bush’s recess appointments — not because of the tactic, but because he used it in certain cases to appoint unqualified individuals to the posts in question. Here, Cordrey is more than qualified – the Republicans even readily admit this.

          Observation one: very interesting.

          Observation two: no; that is not a recess by any stretch of the imagination. Here, even though the Senate was technically in session, they really weren’t – substance over form. It was a shell game and the GOP lost. Great political move by Obama in my opinion.

          • Hear! Hear! Buck the Wala, (Almighty?) decides who is qualified and who is not, thereby declaring this action by his Messiah to be just fine!

          • Buck

            Yes, pure politics. And here you stand cheering. Form over substance for the sake of re-election.

            Lets use YOUR interpretation of “living document” theory. Please show me the ambiguity in the following:

            “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

            This clearly states the Pres. can fill Vacancies that ONLY occur during a Senate recess. The vacancies in question did NOT occur during a recess. They occurred previously.

            The wording is plain and straight forward. There is NO ambiguity in the phrase. “May happen DURING the Recess….”

            The Senate establishes the rules for its conduct, including when and when not they are in “Recess”. The President has no authority to DECIDE whether the Senate is REALLY in recess or not. So the real question on this moot point is whether the Senate has “declared” in an official approved motion, according to it’s rules, that it is in fact in RECESS.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Of course I stand here cheering — I enjoy politics; its fun!

              Lets see, shall we:

              Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess — So long as there is a vacancy during a recess, the President can fill that vacancy. Presidents from both parties have done this since the days of yore.

              Next…during a recess — This is the only issue to be discussed; was there a recess? I say yes given the context; you say no given the Senate’s declaration of a pro forma session. This is a debate worth having, but it really is inconsequential — its a question that will never be answered. No Court in their right mind would take up this case; its a pure political question.

              • Buck

                “So long as there is a vacancy during a recess, the President can fill that vacancy.” That is NOT what the very clear, concise and specific words say.

                Yet now you change the meaning of those words based on what?

                In fairness, you are not the first to make this claim as evidenced by long standing debate and action. However, it is NOT what the words say. And from my reading the intent is clearly stated.

                They wanted the President to be able to fill any KEY seat that became vacant while the Senate was in recess. Not to use this as a ploy to avoid Senate confirmation for a year.

              • Buck

                Re: RECESS

                I did not say No. I said that only the Senate can determine if they are in recess.

                I don’t have their rules or the vote they took prior to leaving for Christmas.

                What the Courts may have to deal with is the explicit language in Dodd/Frank that the head of the agency “must be approved by the Senate” before the agency may act.

                A Recess Appointment is NOT “approved by the Senate”.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

                Going back to that first point about vacancies that happen during the recess, that is actually not so clear at all. It depends on where you put the emphasis. Does the President have the power to fill ALL VACANCIES during a Recess? Or, in a much more limited reading (which has never been the case), does the President only have the power to fill up VacanciesTHAT OCCUR DURING A RECESS?

              • Buck,

                Please point the the paragraph in the Constitution that gives such authority to the President.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 3

              • Buck,

                (Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

                Sorry, Buck – I can’t find the word “President” in here at all….

                So, one more time – can you please reference where in the Constitution such authority is given to the President.

              • Buck the Wala says:


                Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3 — I believe you were looking at Article II Section 1 Para 3.

              • Yep, clear as day.

                Obama may have breached decorum established by tradition, but that is the worse he may have done – he has not breached the Constitution in this matter.

              • Might I ask how you reached this conclusion reading only this section of the Constitution-isn’t it prudent to actually look at the parts of the Constitution which covers the powers of Congress too? I see where the executive has the right to make recess appointments but I don’t see where the executive branch has the authority to define when Congress is in a recess.

                And if the executive branch believes Congress is actually following rules which are un-Constitutional-aren’t there legal avenues they must follow to prove it.

                Does anyone believe that the intent was for one man, even if he is the President to make these decisions solely by his self. One may question the tactics used by Congress, but in the end, it is Congress fighting it out as the representatives of the people, instead of ONE Man making these decisions. I will take the Congressional fighting over the one man, dictator scenario -any day.

        • Matt,

          It is great seeing you use the same standards for Obama as you would Bush. I think that next term, if a non-Democrat holds office, the media will be outraged if the established standards are not followed. I also think that former Sen. Obama’s view should mean something, wrong for Bush, but right for him??? Another matter, the senate did vote, and that is their legal, binding decision. It would be different if they had not voted or refused to consider it, but having voted and then not agreeing with the results??? That is a direct attack on our laws and traditions. Is he president or king? Is he above the law? This is such an important issue, America’s foundation is built on laws that apply equally to ALL!!

          the vote….

          “Senate Republicans blocked the nomination Thursday of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

          By a vote of 53 to 45, the Senate failed to clear the necessary 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown was the only GOP senator to vote in favor of Cordray.

          Senate Democrats and President Obama denounced the blockage of the nomination.

          “This is the first time in Senate history a party has blocked a qualified candidate solely because they disagree with the existence of the agency that’s being created by law,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.”

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/08/senate-republicans-block-cordray-nomination-obama-says-recess-appointment-on-the-table/#ixzz1ih5Kdr21

          • Buck the Wala says:

            By a vote of 53 to 45…

            That really irks me. Cordray obtained a majority approval. If you want to filibuster, then do it. Get up on the floor and read the encyclopedia for hours on end. Otherwise, sit down and hold a vote – majority wins.

            The other issue that irks me is that the GOP did not refuse to confirm Cordray due to his qualifications for the position – they tried to hold the appointment hostage to change the law governing the CFPB to weaken (gut?) the agency.

            • Buck

              Why should that irk you? Both sides have used what ever tool they had available to block “laws” already passed for decades.

              Do you remember when the Republicans wanted to KILL the Filibuster when the Dems were using it like butter on everything? The Dems and the Reps like McCain prevented it.

              I have no problem with making them actually hold the floor, but then again I think they should ALL be in their seats when others are speaking about legislation to be voted on. Not leaving it up to C-Span to record the testimony for their later viewing.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                It irked me when the Dems did it; it irks me when the GOP does it now. Why shouldn’t it irk me?

      • The Living Constitution of the Left
        Mike Razar

        It is amusing to see how the left can pick and choose among constitutional requirements. The part of the Constitution authorizing “recess appointments” absent Senate confirmation is alive. The word “recess,” though, no longer has its original meaning if the President determines that a sparsely attended but not adjourned session is actually a recess as specified in the Constitution. This new evolving interpretation was only noticed recently after the Democrats tried to use such non-recess recesses to block President Bush’s appointments.

        But wait, there is more. The “living” Constitution is supposed to adapt the intent of the Founders to modern circumstances which may have “evolved.” The Second Amendment is a good example. So are the penumbras which protect the right to kill pre-born babies.

        Now it is clear that the whole concept of recess appointments was designed for a time when Congress could not easily be called into session at a moment’s notice. Today, that is no longer the case. Why doesn’t that render the whole practice of recess appointments obsolete just like, say the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Oh no! I hope I haven’t given Harry Reid an idea for the 113th Congress.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/the_living_constitution_of_the_left.html#ixzz1ih3eoEn8

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You misapply the theory behind the living constitution. It does not allow one to obviate the plain language of the text but allows for reinterpretation where there is ambiguity.

          Returning to the recess appointment issue — the President has the authority to make recess appointments. That is clear and understood. The only issue in this instance is: Was Congress on a recess?

          • Buck, as documented by THIS administration before the Supreme Court, no, they were not on recess.

            “Obama’s own lawyers publicly stated in a 2010 exchange with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that the president doesn’t consider a congressional recess official — meaning he can’t legally exercise his recess appointment power — until Congress has been gone for three full days. ‘The recess appointment power can work in — in a recess,’ Obama’s Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said. ‘I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days [to make an appointment].’ The Senate entered a recess on Tuesday, after having held a pro forma session to keep Obama from making any recess appointments. Another was planned for Friday. By making the appointments just one day after the Senate went into a recess, Obama appears to breaking his own administration’s rules and, as scores of Republicans are quick to point out, decades of executive precedent.”

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/thedc-morning-goodbye-constitution-hello-obamastitution/#ixzz1ihABN1Pu

            • Buck the Wala says:

              True, Obama’s own team made that argument, and there is a certain amount of flack that he should take for abandoning his own position. But the fact of the matter is that is not what the law says – there is no 3-day time requirement.

              Call him a hypocrite for this, but that doesn’t change the fact that this appointment was constitutional.

              • Not according to this very administration! I think the ethics displayed here are very telling.
                We see a supposed Constitutional Scholar’s lawyers tell THE Chief Justice how they view this, and then act opposite their earlier position. I might want such a lawyer defending me, win at all costs, if it’s legal, it’s ethical, but not as a prosecutor. “there is a certain amount of flack that he should take for abandoning his own position.” No sir, it is not abandoning a position, it is changing how a law is viewed by breaking it! The senate was in their view, “in secession”. This was a deliberate act being done to prevent appointments. The senate thought they were legally using their authority. Obama’s administration had agreed this was/is the law as understood today.

                “But the fact of the matter is that is not what the law says – there is no 3-day time requirement.” Slippery slope! When does the requirement become they have a majority 24/7 or the president can do whatever he wants after 5pm? Checks and balance is only during 9-5?

              • I will have to agree with Buck….constitutional, yes. Ethical…no. It stinks..it is partisan….and it I were the GOP….I would defund the NLRB..they can do that if they have the balls.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Woot! The Colonel agrees!

          • Buck

            You misrepresent the fact that YOUR interpretation of living document differs from that of the hard Progressives who established the theory during the FDR reign.

            There are TWO theories. You claim the one of interpreting ambiguity or determining how broad authorities apply to new issues.

            The other is that the vast majority of the document is general enough to “modernize” it according to new Social Norms without amendment.

            Yet even in your previous defense, you slop back and forth between these two concepts while always claiming it is the first you defend.

            There is no ambiguity in the Second amendment, YET…………..?

            There is no ambiguity in the First amendment, YET………….?

            There is no ambiguity in the fact that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce but not “force commerce”, YET…………?

            I am not trying to start a fight with you on this and I do value and respect your opinions. You have caused me to do more research and to actually make some modifications in my thinking. But you do fall into that mode from time to time that we laymen make fun of when we talk about lawyers. That is this tendency to find ambiguity and “exception” in virtually anything written.

            Now this may come in handy when working on contracts and estates, but it should not be the practice of dealing with a Constitution. That is a document by the People for the purpose of restricting Govt’s authority, and as such should be plain to The People who are ultimately responsible for its ENFORCEMENT.

            I am becoming more certain everyday that Lawyers should NOT be allowed to hold Legislative, Primary Executive, or Supreme Court positions. They should be relegated to their proper role as STAFF. OK, maybe that was a little sarcastic.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              To be clear, when I use the term ‘living document theory’ or make an argument on constitutional interpretation, you know precisely where I stand on this issue and which interpretation theory I apply.

              Now, regarding no ambiguity to the 1st and 2d Amendment — sure there is ambiguity (at least with the 2d Amendment) and, for the 1st Amendment, its not so much ambiguity coming into play, but the need for reasonable restrictions (i.e., you can’t yell fire in a theater because it puts others in danger). You know the saying: your rights end where mine begin.

              And if us lawyers weren’t permitted to hold these positions, what else would we do!? At least us lawyers have some background in constitutional law and theory, unlike certain others in government.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Slightly off topic, but here’s a thought. Why does Congress get “recesses”?

          I don’t get recesses.

          I ended last year with TWENTY unused vacation days (including unused comp days and unused days carried over from the previous year which I ended with 15 or so days). If I get a solid week off, it is a major event for me. Why does Congress get to work on and off as if it were just sort of part-time gig. And, for that matter, I work 8-6 (eating lunch at my desk), minimum – why does congress work noon-ish to 4-ish?

          BAH HUMBUG!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            So run for Congress.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Oh, hell no.

              Beside being completely unelectable, I would never subject myself to that kind of public scrutiny.


              Also, I don’t possess the requisite sociopathic narcissism to be believe that I should be in charge of everyone.


              Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I do!

      • Buck,

        So Obama can break the rules because the republicans are purposely trying to not fill the position-they don’t per you have the right to use legal tactics to stop him. But the Wisconsin 14 have a right to run away and use illegal tactics to shut down everything.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          1) On Obama, he is not breaking the rules – I believe this to be a valid use of his constitutional authority to fill vacancies during a recess.

          2) On WI dems fleeing the state — I do support them in this endeavor because I agree with then politically. That being said, they should face the consequences of their actions.

          • It’s one thing to support their opinion on currant legislation-it is another to support illegal or unethical actions. I suppose we all need to take some time and think about how much of this crap is our fault for supporting it as long as it helps our side. But seriously now-you support their endeavor but you think they should suffer the consequences-they’re suppose to be your representatives-not your personal, illegal, little gang of martyrs.

            I posted a report down below on recess appointments-would like your opinion-if you have time to read it. 🙂 I found the information about “concurrent resolution of adjournment” and the 3 day rule interesting.

  11. Talk about an issue with parasites! In the water? The air? Or just a lot of women emotionally disconnected?


    • Mathius™ says:

      Sounds like an argument for better birth control.

      Inevitabilities in life:
      -People having sex

      They’re going to do it. It doesn’t matter who, why, where, when, how. They will rut like pigs. And when they do, they will either be safe or not. But if the choice is no sex verse unsafe sex, they will take unsafe 9 times out of 10.

      • Mathius

        Birth control is cheap and readily available anywhere.

        So what is next??? A govt agent hanging out in the closet or under every bed, to help put on your raincoat?

        Maybe anyone having two should be sterilized?

        • Mathius™ says:

          There are a few problems.

          First, you don’t always have a condom when you want one. Second, they’re not THAT cheap. They’re cheap, but if you’re poor, it makes a difference (especially considering that the poor are hugely more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy). Secondly, they feel like having sex wearing a plastic shopping bag. Third, they’re not always there when you want them. I could tell you stories but, well, this is a family-friendly blog..

          IUDs and vasectomies don’t do anything to help with disease, but they are extremely effective against parasites, they’re always ready when you want them, they’re reversible, don’t diminish feeling, etc.

          Subsidize these and watch the abortion rate plummet.

          • Matt,

            They are free! Our tax money at work, every Dept. of Health give out condoms. World health do so as well, trying to fight AIDS. The problem is men don’t want to wear them and some women don’t insist.

            • Mathius™ says:

              The problem is men don’t want to wear them and some women don’t insist.


              So that’s half the battle – convince women to insist (because the men won’t do it on their own).

              But I still contend that IUDs and vasectomies are the only real solution.

              • Mathius

                Interesting. You give women the choice of birth control but the men must be sterilized.

                Is this a SoCal thing?

              • Mathius™ says:

                A vasectomy can be reversible depending on which type you opt for. It isn’t so easy to do (and, yes, there are risks), but the safety of not making unwanted progeny and the freedom to have sex where you can actually feel things may outweigh it – it would be a personal decision. I’d add though that a major increase in the number of people having this surgery would render it more routine and successful, more like an appendectomy.

                The thing I like is that it’s a NEGATIVE mechanism. That is, you won’t get pregnant unless you take action to get pregnant (reverse the vasectomy / remove the IUD). Conversely, condoms and birth control are POSITIVE mechanisms. That is, you will get pregnant unless you take action.

                It is my opinion that at puberty, everyone should have a vasectomy (net of medical considerations) and every woman should get a IUD (also net of medical considerations). If/when they want children, they can have these reversed and then put back in place afterward. Having children should never be an accident – it should be a choice. And it should be a thought-out decision, not something lightly undertaken.

                I’m not suggesting any of this should be mandatory – it should just be something we as a society do.

              • Mathius,

                Objection – you’re statements on the reversal of vasectomies is incomplete. First, last time I looked into getting mine reversed the cost estimate was several thousand and up tp 10-20 thousand dollars – depending on the type of vasectomy. It required a hospital stay with full surgical procedure to accomplish the reversal. Second, the rate of success are not guaranteed, based in part on the number of years since having the vasectomy in the first place:

                Years Between Vasectomy Sperm Return Pregnancy Rate
                Under 3 years 97% 76%
                3-8 years 88% 53%
                9-14 years 79% 44%
                Greater than 15 years 71% 30%

                ( http://www.vasectomymedical.com/vasectomy-reversal-success-rates.html )

                So a 15 year old getting one and wanting it reversed at 30 in order to have a family is not looking at greats odds for getting his spouse pregnant.

                We won’t even get into who pays the freight for your program idea.

              • IUD’s aren’t particularly safe either-especially if you happen to get pregnant-or heck just lose the string.

                Good grief, Matt, listening to you-you would think people are like dogs in heat.

              • Mathius™ says:


                People ARE like dogs in heat. Why do you think there are more than 7 billion of us? Why do you think there are so many abortions? Because people can’t keep it in their pants.

                But it makes perfect sense. Evolution screams at us to mate and breed and spread our DNA far and wide – to be fruitful and multiply, as it were.


                I admit that I’m not a doctor and I wasn’t aware just how bad it is – still this is nothing that can’t be remedied with more science and throwing more money at the problem. Given what you point out (this would fall under the “net of medical considerations”), I would have to agree the with present medical technology, vasectomies at puberty seem like a bad idea. However, I’m sure science could figure something out if the incentive were there. As for the cost/difficulty, I stand by my assertion that if people were having this procedure en masse, we would be able to make it far safer and cheaper.

                Eventually, it will be cheap, easy, quick, painless, safe, and 99.999% reversible. It might take 50 years, but we’ll get there.

                Let me ask you though, if – IF – it were presently safe, cheap, quick, painless, and 99.999% reversible, would you have you child undergo the procedure at puberty so as to avoid an, err, accidents? So that, he doesn’t make a child he doesn’t want. So that he doesn’t get stuck with some woman he doesn’t love? So that, when it’s time, he can only make a child as a matter of conscious choice after serious consideration?

              • Matt,

                We are not like dogs in heat-for a person who puts so much stock in the importance of our brains and our ability to reason-you totally dismiss all that and declare that we are incapable of taking a moment before we get all hot and bothered-to think about the consequences of our actions. HOw might I ask do you manage to stay faithful to your wife when you two are apart-if you were like a dog-you wouldn’t even try. When was the last time you rapped someone because they said NO. Never, right-because you aren’t a dog-controlled totally by your biological needs.

                When I was a teenager-just the thought that I might get pregnant-made NO come pretty damn easy from my lips-whether I was hot and bothered or not.

                And I have no idea-the whole thing seems wayyyyy extreme. I don’t think I can get past all the IFS in the question-in order to give an answer I’m sure of-but I doubt I would put my child through unnecessary surgery.


    • Buck the Wala says:

      And this is why I strongly believe we should move the debate from whether to allow/outlaw abortion to how to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies…

      • Buck

        Do you think if Plan B was not available that more might remember to use Plan A?

        WE can not stop or even reduce the number of “unwanted” pregnancies, without IMPOSING ourselves upon others. Which will in turn give others the ability to IMPOSE themselves upon us.

      • “And this is why I strongly believe we should move the debate from whether to allow/outlaw abortion to how to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies…”

        Damn Buck, total agreement!!!! How about we stop allowing tax dollars to pay for it? Sorry but I think there should be a “cost” to one’s actions, a personal cost. When you remove cost/consequences, people act differently when everything’s free.

        Planned Parenthood: Government-Funded Religion
        Jeannie DeAngelis

        The First Church of Planned Parenthood, one of Barack Obama’s favorite government-funded religious organizations, released its annual report for fiscal year 2009-2010. Compliments of the American taxpayer, the President’s beloved charity received $487.4 million in tax monies and used a portion of that money to legally deny 329,455 human beings the right to be born.

        The report states that Planned Parenthood received “government health services grants and reimbursements” totaling $487.4 million. In 2010, that is equivalent to 308,745,538 American citizens contributing $1.58 apiece to subsidize the running of a left-wing slaughterhouse.

        What exactly does that $1.58 pay for? In “2006, Planned Parenthood did 289,750 abortions; in 2007, it did 305,210; in 2009, it did 221,796; and in 2010, it did 329,4445.” Thus, the latest annual report indicates a five-year growth of 14% in the number of the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics across America.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/planned_parenthood_government-funded_religion.html#ixzz1ihMf2fgI

      • You want to lessen the number of abortions-make them illegal-or support some of the new laws that actually lesson them.


        Very small part of article:
        ” Michael New, a soft-spoken political science professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, is a leading pro-life thinker. He has studied the effect of state-enacted restrictions on abortion over the past decade and found they reduce the number of abortions. New (Dartmouth B.A., Stanford Ph.D.) hasn’t promoted his evidence through normal pro-life channels. Instead, he followed academic practice and submitted them for peer review.

        That took three years, plus another year before his conclusions were published. He tested the impact of three restrictions: no public funding, parental involvement, and informed consent. He determined that all three reduced the abortion rate, particularly parental participation in the case of a minor. His article, “Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era,” was published in the March issue of State Politics and Policy Quarterly.”

  12. Buck…this is down your alley……Texas is seriously considering elevating DWI with injury and or death to that equal of aggravated assault and first degree murder……eliminating involuntary manslaughter in DWI cases.

    • I forgot to add that they are also considering changing the text from DWI to any vehicle and said vehicle being defined as a weapon.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Texas sure is a strange place…

        • It’s Texas.

          Warning: Extreme Exaggeration Begins:

          Just kill em all and let God sort them out. 😉

          End of Exaggeration – Begin Sarcasm:

          Oops, wait – that would be government depending upon religion. Can’t have that now, can we?

          End of Sarcasm.


        • Here is why. In Texas, DWI accounted for 47% of all fatalities in 2009, non vehicular and guns included. That is down from 67% in the 80’s. Of the DWI fatalities 87% were from repeat offenders. Texas has a very lax penalty currently. There are some that have as many as 9 DWI convictions on their record and are still driving. Of the repeat offenders, 77% caused death or injury. But I was mistaken on one thing…..it is second degree murder for repeat offenders and involuntary manslaughter for first offenders that is being asked for with permanent revocation of driving license for repeat offenders. There is also an alternative on the table called vehicular manslaughter calling for a minimum of ten years.

          If it is put to referendum, I will vote for it. No penalty is too severe for drunk driving. You do not drive drunk by accident….you do it on purpose. Want to get drunk? Cool…..have a designated driver. We shall see how far this gets……many of our legislators have more than one conviction.


    Not actually my cup of tea but I couldn’t resist. Click on the image and stranger things will happen 🙂


  14. http://www.dodd-frank-act.us/Dodd_Frank_Act_Text_Section_1011.html

    APPOINTMENT.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

    How do you reconcile this with Obama’s actions?

    • Obama referred his two Democratic nominees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, to the Senate on Dec. 15. The Senate adjourned for the year – but did not go into an official recess — on the following day.

      WhiteHouse.gov tracks the status of all of Obama’s appointments and nominations. Block and Griffin do not appear on that list — a sign that the administration rushed the recess appointments through too quickly for the Senate to even consider them.

      “It’s hard to argue that the Senate was obstructing these Democratic nominees when they don’t even appear on the administration’s own list of nominations and appointments,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce labor policy specialist Glenn Spencer told The Daily Caller.

      The Republican member Obama recess-appointed to the NLRB, Terence F. Flynn, does show up on the White House list. His nomination was referred to the Senate months ago.

      Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi’s office has pointed out that Block and Griffin were referred to the Senate so quickly that they didn’t pass basic criminal and civil background checks. A statement from Enzi, the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said that the background checks ensure that no criminal investigations are pending against potential nominees, and that they have paid their income taxes. The checks also ensure nominees don’t have conflicts of interest.

      When a reporter asked White House press secretary Jay Carney about the scant amount of time between the nominations and the recess appointments, he balked. Instead of addressing the constitutional requirement of allowing the Senate advice and consent on presidential nominations, Carney attacked Congress.

      “Any doubt about the Senate’s intention, or the Republicans in the Senate’s intention of allowing any nominee to come forward can be,” Carney said Thursday, ”was demonstrated by the fact that they wouldn’t even allow the Republican nominee to get to a committee vote so — who had been there for almost a year.”

      Carney added that though Obama did not give Congress a chance to act, Obama wanted to pre-empt the Senate. Carney said the president was asuming, based on senators’ past statements, that they would stall additional nominations.

      “So the President acted because Congress wouldn’t, and it was clear that Congress wouldn’t — and numerous senators have made clear they won’t,” Carney said. “And we have to have that: These independent agencies exist for a reason, and the president believed that it was essential to make sure that that agency could function.”

      Block was the deputy assistant secretary for congressional affairs inside Obama’s Department of Labor, and once worked for the late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy. Griffin was a lawyer for labor unions including the AFL-CIO and the International Union of Operating Engineers.

      Flynn is a Republican lawyer specializing in the National Labor Relations Act, the law the NLRB is tasked with enforcing.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/dem-nlrb-recess-appointments-rushed-dont-appear-on-white-house-nominee-list/#ixzz1iiBWBtiS

  15. missingtexas says:

    After reading the back and forth about a Senate recess…check out these two articles…..and IF the Senate was in recess, how did the Payroll Tax extension bill get passed and sent to the President for his signature? This didn’t happen BEFORE the Senate left town, it was Dec 23rd.

    I don’t think any of these should be allowed to stand. Congress has the advise and consent responsibility of presidental appointments; if you don’t like the way it works out when your “shirts” are not in power…you don’t get to yell “NO FAIR/DO OVER” as if you are 5 year olds.
    (Don’t know if I posted the web addresses correctly)

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/05/even-obama-agrees-that-the-senate-was-not-in-recess/ and

    • Missing,

      Great point! The question is will those with the authority and responsibility call him on this or let it slide so they can use the same ploy next time they have power…..

      on December 17, the Senate agreed to an order instituting “pro forma” sessions, of the kind the President now claims are actually recess. But it was at one of those sessions, on December 23, that the Senate passed the payroll tax cut extension that the President signed into law later that day. (Again, see the Congressional Record entry.)

      Of course, if the Senate was actually on recess that day, it couldn’t have passed the bill, and the President couldn’t have signed it into law. (The President has not claimed—at least, not yet—that he can enact laws that have not passed Congress.) But in that case, the President chose to respect the Senate’s own view as to whether it was open for business.

      It is little surprise that an Administration which finds the Constitution flexible enough to support an individual mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance would also argue that its seemingly clear text is sufficiently pliable to empower the President to overrule Congress’s decision that it’s actually in session.

      But to make that argument less than two weeks after embracing the very opposite position, that takes chutzpah!

  16. the EPA failed to properly submit the regulations to a blue ribbon panel called the Science Advisory Board, as is required. The SAB is a group of top scientists who’ve been empowered by federal law to review new regulations that the EPA proposes to issue under the Clean Air Act.

    “The government has to comply with the law just like the rest of us do, and when the government’s rule making creates these kinds of economic dislocations for small business, we’re going to make sure we hold EPA’s feet to the fire,” said McClernon’s lawyer, Ted Hadzi-Antich with the Pacific Legal Foundation.

    The EPA argues it posted all relevant information on its website, providing access for scientific and peer review. But critics say that’s not good enough, and contend the new greenhouse gas rules are less about clean air, and more about the big trucking fleets pushing smaller operators out of the way.

    “This is using the government as a bully pulpit to put me out of business so they can take over and get more market share,” says McClernon.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/06/california-truckers-take-epa-to-court-over-fuel-efficiency-rules/#ixzz1iiX7K49W

  17. The SAGE assumes you all miss me. I’m in Northern New Hampshire at an MFA retreat. It is wonderful here … snow, mountains, absolutely picturesque.

    Just saw the Disavower had to disavor campaign ad grossly out of line about Huntsmen.

    Welcome to the monkey house …

    Go socialist party!

  18. Should be handed out and required reading for every high schooler and college student:


    Big-government policies put young Americans deeply in debt

    • “Young people will be stuck paying for government debt they had no part in creating. They’ll have to do it with less discretionary income than ever before as they struggle with record high levels of student loan debt.”

      But being good little socialists they shouldn’t be complaining because everyone’s standard of living is going up! /sarcasm

  19. Since we touched on abortion once again on this thread, here’s some interesting perspective along with good comments. I like the, “I want the government out of my uterus, but want the government to pay for what I want to rid my uterus of”.


    • Couldn’t watch the video-but this is the same drug that they wanted to give out over the internet with the girl just talking to the doctor right?

      This article is interesting-haven’t heard about this before!

      Unborn child just a ‘parasite’? Cutting edge science shows fetal cells heal mother for life
      Wed Jan 04, 2012 16:08 ESTComments (35)

      January 4, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A standard pro-abortion argument hinges on the premise that a baby inside his mom’s womb attacks her bodily integrity. The developing baby is seen in this light as an intruder, a parasite, a threat to the woman’s autonomy. From this perspective the pregnant woman is viewed as being occupied. The only way she can continue to exercise her interest in bodily integrity, the argument goes, is to be liberated through the termination and expulsion of the invader.

      But science paints a vastly different picture about the actual relationship between a baby in utero and his or her mother, showing that, far from being a parasite, the unborn child can help heal his mother for the rest of her life, as beneficial cells from the child pass into the mother’s body during pregnancy

      Far from being a parasite, the unborn child can help heal his mother for the rest of her life.
      Science writer Jena Pinctott explores this relationship in her October 2011 book “Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?: The Surprising Science of Pregnancy.”

      Join a Facebook page to end abortion here.

      Science has been studying the phenomena of fetal cell microchimerism for more than 30 years, after researchers at Stanford University were shocked in 1979 to discover a pregnant mother’s blood containing cells with Y sex chromosomes. Since women only have X chromosomes, they concluded that the cells must have entered into her body from the male baby she carried within her.

      Drawing on studies in biology, reproductive genetics, and epigenetics, Pincott outlined in her book what science has learned since the Stanford discovery.

      “During pregnancy,” she wrote, “cells sneak across the placenta in both directions. The fetus’s cells enter his mother, and the mother’s cells enter the fetus.”

      Scientists have discovered, she said, that a baby’s fetal cells show up more often in a mother’s healthy breast tissue and less often in a woman who has breast cancer (43 versus 14 percent).

      Pinctott pointed out that as the quantity of fetal cells in a mother’s body increase the activity of autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis decreases. She called the evidence “tantalizing” that fetal cells may offer the mother increased resistance to certain diseases.

      One kind of fetal cells that enter into the mother’s body is the baby’s stem cells. Stem cells have what Pinctott calls “magical properties” in that they can “morph” into other types of cells through a process called differentiation. The baby’s fetal stem cells can actually become the mother’s own cells that make up her liver, heart, or brain.

      In what any ethicist might declare to be legitimate ‘embryonic stem cell therapy,’ the baby’s fetal stem cells migrate to the mother’s injured sites and offer themselves as a healing remedy, becoming part of the mother’s very body. Pinctott writes that such cells have been found in “diseased thyroid and liver tissue and have turned themselves into thyroid and liver cells respectively.”

      Pinctott calls the evidence “striking” that a baby’s fetal cells “repair and rejuvenate moms.”

      Genetics specialist Dr. Kirby Johnson of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and professor Carol Artlett, a researcher at Philadelphia’s Thomas Jefferson University, back up Pinctott’s ideas. Their research shows that when a woman becomes pregnant she acquires an army of protective cells – what might be called a gift from her child – that remains with her for decades, perhaps till the end of her life.

      Johnson and Artlett spoke to NPR’s Robert Krulwich in a 2006 interview. In their research, Johnson found that a teaspoon of blood from a pregnant mother contained “dozens, perhaps even hundreds of cells… from the baby.” Science has shown that at the end of a mother’s pregnancy, up to 6 percent of the DNA in her blood plasma comes from her baby.

      “One would expect them [the fetal cells in the mother’s body] to be attacked fairly rapidly. You would expect them to be cleared within hours, if not days. What we found is that that is not the case, not anywhere near the case,” Johnson said.

      Artlett pointed out that even if a woman miscarries or deliberately aborts her child, the cells of the unborn child nonetheless remain with the mother, even for decades.

      Both Johnson and Artlett defend the hypothesis that the baby’s fetal cells have a beneficent purpose, not to hurt the mother, but to protect, defend, and repair her for the rest of her life, especially when she becomes seriously ill.

      “There’s a lot of evidence now starting to come out that these cells may actually be repairing tissue,” said Artlett.

      During the interview, Johnson told the story of one woman who was admitted into a Boston hospital with symptoms of hepatitis. She was an intravenous drug user with five pregnancies on record: one birth, two miscarriages, and two abortions. Johnson speculated that she would be carrying a lot of fetal cells.

      In the process of examining her, the medical team performed a liver biopsy. A sample of her liver was sent to a lab to see if any fetal cells had congregated in the diseased area of her liver. What they found surprised them.

      “We found hundreds… and hundreds of fetal cells,” said Johnson, adding that they saw “literally sheets of cells, whole areas that seemed to be normal.”

      Scientists are still trying to determine what causes the baby’s cells to work with the mother’s body in such a synergetic fashion.

      Pinctott wonders how many people have left their DNA in a mother’s body. “Any baby we’ve ever conceived,” she concludes.

      Pinctott sees something “beautiful” in this. “Long post postpartum, we mothers continue to carry our children, at least in a sense. Our babies become part of us, just as we are a part of them. The barriers have broken down; the lines are no longer fixed.”

      Perhaps it is not at all poetic to say along with Pinctott that a baby lives a lifetime in a mother’s heart and mind.


    • VH broke SUFA..why is this post staying here at the bottom?

      • whoa! it wouldn’t even accept my reply! 🙂

      • I may well have broken it-it was supposed to be attached to another post farther up 😦

        But I certainly hope you aren’t expecting me to be able to fix it 🙂 Heck I do well just to post the things.

  20. I’ve made a new posting over at G-Man’s. Guaranteed to give Anita indigestion or elevated blood pressure – sorry Anita.


  21. “The agency has the power to regulate any practices it deems “unfair” — primarily the practices of institutions and businesses that had nothing whatsoever to do with the financial crisis.
    Indeed, it has blank-check power to write the rules it wants to enforce. Worse, it cannot be reined in by Congress, because Dodd-Frank gave it a self-funding mechanism. It can simply take up to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses to do whatever it wants. The power of Congress is ultimately the power of the purse. But in their finite wisdom, Democratic lawmakers gelded themselves. They also insulated the rogue agency from the courts, requiring that judges defer to the CFPB’s legal theories.”

    Good grief does anyone think an agency should have this kind of power?

    JANUARY 6, 2012 12:00 A.M.
    An Imperial Sham
    Senator Reid endorses the imperial presidency.
    By Jonah Goldberg

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a man whose political success is largely attributable to the aura of befuddled incompetence he uses to disarm his adversaries, was a failed Watergate baby.

    In 1974, a slew of often sanctimonious and very liberal Democratic politicians rode the tide of understandable national disgust with Richard Nixon to Congress. Then the lieutenant governor of Nevada, Reid ran for the U.S. Senate, hoping to tie his opponent to the “imperial presidency” that had allegedly sprung up ex nihilo under Nixon.

    Given Nevada’s inherent conservatism (at least back then), Reid cast himself as an incorruptible champion of limited government and political honor. The New York Times reported on Oct. 24, 1974, that Reid “would cut government spending by reducing the maze of federal agencies, a bureaucracy that controls much of Nevada life and that, according to Mr. Reid, has become a dangerous fourth branch of government.”

    Reid has made some adjustments since he lost that election. Last year, he insisted that Congress had cut the federal government to the bone and could not cut any further lest we hit such vital arteries of the body politic as the federally subsidized cowboy-poetry festival in northern Nevada.
    But let’s get back to the imperial presidency for a moment. Nixon’s was indeed a good example. But, for liberals, presidencies are imperial only when Republicans are at the helm. Nixon’s error was to continue the inexorable growth of the executive branch hatched by Woodrow Wilson and set loose by Franklin Roosevelt. During the height of the Watergate hearings, liberal Democratic senator Alan Cranston observed, “Those who tried to warn us back at the beginning of the New Deal of the dangers of one-man rule that lay ahead on the path we were taking toward strong, centralized government may not have been so wrong.”

    Reid is as incapable of such honest introspection as he is of cracking a smile that doesn’t make its recipients feel unsafe.

    In 2007, the Democrats controlling the Senate were fed up with George W. Bush’s recess appointments. Majority Leader Reid, feigning great sadness over the sorry state of our republic, resorted to the extraordinary tactic of keeping the Senate in pro-forma session so as to prevent the imperial Bush from doing an end-run around the confirmation process. The move was celebrated by liberal commentators as a brave and necessary assertion of congressional power and was supported by then-senator Barack Obama.

    Fast-forward to this week. The Senate has once again been in pro-forma session in order to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. Reid agreed to the tactic as part of negotiations with Republicans last year.

    Arguing that the maneuver is nothing more than a gimmick, Obama ignored the Senate’s authority and appointed Richard Cordray to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by the Dodd-Frank legislation allegedly to prevent the excesses that led to the financial crisis. If it wasn’t clear enough that the appointment was nakedly political, Obama made the announcement at a campaign rally in the swing state of Ohio, Cordray’s home state.
    With the alacrity one normally associates with court jesters and royal spittoon cleaners, Reid immediately endorsed the president’s decision, accepting the logic that calls a maneuver he invented a sham.

    But the spectacle is so much more sordid than that. The CFPB is a constitutional affront, the crowning achievement of this White House’s mantra of never letting a crisis go to waste.

    The agency has the power to regulate any practices it deems “unfair” — primarily the practices of institutions and businesses that had nothing whatsoever to do with the financial crisis.
    Indeed, it has blank-check power to write the rules it wants to enforce. Worse, it cannot be reined in by Congress, because Dodd-Frank gave it a self-funding mechanism. It can simply take up to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses to do whatever it wants. The power of Congress is ultimately the power of the purse. But in their finite wisdom, Democratic lawmakers gelded themselves. They also insulated the rogue agency from the courts, requiring that judges defer to the CFPB’s legal theories.

    So here we have Reid, a man who tried to enter the national stage by promising to be an honorable foe of the imperial presidency and the metastasizing growth of federal bureaucracies, thriving on the national stage by enabling exactly those trends when it suits his party. And all it cost was his honor.


    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      There is an interesting question here, Constitutionally, can congress voluntarily abdicate it’s responsibilities? I tend to think that they cannot without a change in the constitution. Should a new congress try to rein in one of these wild card agencies and the courts rule against the congress then there would and should be a showdown.

      Assuming Congress can abdicate its responsibilities then, in effect, the nation is finished, the constitution as worthless as pages 697 through 797 of the 1959 Manhattan telephone directory. This I think is my real fear over the “living constitution”. You either have rules or you don’t. If there were not a mechanism within the document itself to change it then I might be more willing to accept flexibility in interpretation. However, since there is, the problem seems to become that the people who want, CHANGE NOW! are unwilling to go through the long and convoluted process of modernizing the document. I daresay the founders did this on purpose. The death of the ERA amendment and the devilment that was in it is an excellent example. Yes, it was time for change but that change came naturally without standing the constitution on its head and giving the courts yet another field day. The Woman’s suffrage amendment guaranteed that eventually there would be full equality. Should have happened sooner but part of that problem was the lack of a groundswell of support until the 1970’s .

      As an aside, thanks V.H. for the prior posting of the link to Victor David Hansen article. Made me dig out the copy of “Mexifornia” I bought years ago and finally start reading it. About 1/3rd through, an excellent book by someone, not wearing his academic hat (though he has one) but rather his helmet from being in the trenches on the front lines. If the Colonel has not read it, he should. Some very interesting stats which some here at SUFA might find enlightening.

      • From my reading Congress isn’t just abdicating their responsibilities, which I don’t believe they have the right to do-but they are taking away the rights of the courts too.

        Your welcome-but you know SR. you can’t speak the truth about these situations without being prejudiced or endangering someones life. So I reckon we are supposed to just shut up and ignore the problems. Unless of course you don’t fit into any of the accepted PC definitions of a mistreated minority-then pure venom is okay,

        • Sorry-left something out. If Congress abdicates their rights and/or the courts rights-they are in reality abdicating the rights of “WE the People” , which means they are changing the Constitution, without Amending the Constitution.

          • No, that’s not happening – you’re over-reacting. Just sit back and relax, the government will not do anything to deny you the protections of the US Constitution……………….or so I am being repeatedly told when I argue otherwise.

            • 🙂 Neither of us are overreacting, if the above article is true and I have no reason to think it isn’t-they aren’t just abdicating some power-they are outlawing the Constitution and ALL our rights with it.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Well, you know, it’s just a whole lot easier to let Caesar do it.

              • But who knew Caesar’s real name is- so-called “independent governmental agencies.”

              • You know it is really scary when you start to see the whole picture. They always, always interpret the Constitution with the broadest meaning they can get away with and then use the courts to broaden that power even more, which limits the power of the people.

                And then with the other hand they create independent agencies under the premise that they are trying to limit the power of the government but what they are really doing is limiting the power of the Constitution, not the government, which further limits the power of the people.

      • constitutionally, can congress voluntarily abdicate it’s responsibilities


        The separation of powers is absolute – for a reason – to prevent the accumulation of power into one office, whether by voluntary will or by force.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Just an opinion here but I see a Constitutional show-down in the offing in the not too distant future. Trends would indicate that Congress is not doing it’s job, the Imperial presidency is getting stronger (regardless of party) and the courts seem to think that they can knock down anything they damn well please.

          Life will certainly be interesting for my children.

          • SK,
            Your children do not have to wait.

            You will experience all of this yourself first.

            • I agree.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              So, trying to depress me even more, huh? I found it interesting that my eldest, a resident of DC is trying to talk me out of a little carbine I’ve owned for an awfully long time. He’s willing to go through the rigamarole necessary to make it legal down there. He’s never shown the slightest interest before but now that he’s a married dad, I guess it makes it easier to put 2 plus 2 together.

              I told him it’s a hell of a lot more important to get out of there. Push comes to shove, that carbine is not going to get you up I-95 any more successfully than not having one. Not unless you have a lot of warning.

              • No, not to depress you.
                To make you aware.

                Awareness leads to preparedness.
                Preparedness leads to prevailing.

                Definition of regret: Knowing what should have been done and not doing it.

                I am trying to ensure you do not have regret.

  22. Re: Obama’s recess appointments and other similar actions. Like Obama Care.

    Remember this; Progressives, who fathered fascism, are notoriously “pragmatic”.

    There are two key aspects to pragmatism. One I have discussed before. That is that there is always a need to act. Because any problem to the pragmatist requires some form of intervention.

    But the second is the more dangerous and where it seems their muddled ideology meets the primary need to act in ways that can be harmful at best and immoral at worst.

    That is their standard of what is Good. In short, their ethical or moral standard.

    This primary ethical principle is this: Those things are GOOD that accomplish the “intended” goal or objective.

    So actions are not judged against a moral standard that is separated from the action. They are judged according to their “EFFECTIVENESS” or their “EFFICIENCY” in achieving the desired outcome.

    Now reconsider the POTUS’ and Dem. Party actions in light of this understanding.

    And yes, this boils down to “the ends justify the means”. At this time I would like to thank Adolph and Joseph for showing us the logical end result of applying such an ethic.

  23. I’m wondering what the differences are in Libertarian thought this guy is alluding too. How does Hayek and the Mises institute differ?

    What Is “Austrian Economics”?
    And why is Ron Paul obsessed with it?
    By Matthew Yglesias|Posted Friday, Jan. 6, 2012, at 4:16 PM ET

    Ron Paul
    Photograph by Justin Sullivan
    As he declared quasi-victory in Iowa following a third-place finish, Ron Paul puzzled cable news watchers across the country by proudly proclaiming, “We are all Austrians now.” The average Republican presidential candidate would sooner officiate a gay marriage than praise Europe, yet here was Paul pledging allegiance to Vienna. What did he mean? Why would we all be Austrians?
    Paul’s statement was crystal clear to those familiar with the internecine controversies of the libertarian movement. He was referring to so-called “Austrian economics,” an idiosyncratic passion of his and a set of beliefs that put him at odds with the vast majority of well-known economists of all ideological inclinations.
    For starters, it’s important to note that the term has something of a double meaning. The Austrian school originally referred to a set of classical liberal thinkers with diverse interests who came out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Many of these thinkers are obscure today, but the most distinguished member of the group, Friedrich Hayek, is anything but. By the same token, an appreciation for Hayek’s work by no means makes you an “Austrian.” Hayek, who died in 1992, won the Nobel Prize, and mainstream economists thoroughly embraced his important work explicating the role of the price system in conveying information. His ideas undergird everything from carbon taxes to wireless spectrum auctions and thoroughly permeate policy throughout the Western world.

    But “Austrians” in Paul’s sense refers to something narrower, specifically the thought of Ludwig Von Mises and his student Murray Rothbard. It is a form of capitalism that is even more libertarian and anarchic than that espoused by many libertarians. Rothbard‘s followers, most prominently longtime Paul associate and founder of the Mises Institute Lew Rockwell, have been waging a decades-long war against the Koch brothers and the more mainstream form of libertarianism the Kochs represent.
    “Austrian economics,” in this sense, goes beyond standard-issue free market thinking in a number of ways. Most notably, it seeks to build a strong ethical case for strict libertarianism without admitting that this would lead to any practical problems whatsoever. Therefore, along with rejecting the legitimacy of any intervention to protect the poor or regulate anything (a position much more extreme than even the Hayek of Road to Serfdom), Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations. This, to be clear, is different from the mainstream Republican view that the stimulus bill enacted by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Obama was wasteful or ineffective. Austrians also believe that cutting taxes to boost economic activity doesn’t work either. And they disagree with Milton Friedman that appropriate monetary stimulus by the Federal Reserve could have prevented the Great Depression. Indeed, they disagree with even the least controversial of all stabilization measures, the ordinary tweaking of short-term interest rates that all modern central banks use to try to prevent either inflation or deflation. In the view of the Austrians, practically every economic policy pursued by the federal government and Federal Reserve is a mistake that distorts markets. Rather than curing recessions, claim Austrians, stimulative policies cause them by producing unsustainable bubbles.
    The way this works, according to the Austrians, is that artificially low interest rates spur “malinvestment” in unworkable enterprises that inevitably crash when the stimulus is withdrawn. This is an emotionally appealing idea, positing that the suffering of a bust is a kind of cosmic payback for the boom. But it doesn’t make much logical sense. For one thing, as George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan, who’s ideologically sympathetic to the Austrians, points out, it’s hard to understand why businesspeople would be so easily duped in this way. If Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises know that cheap money can’t last forever, why don’t private investors? Why wouldn’t firms avoid making the supposedly dumb investments? Ironically, the Austrians have replicated an error from the crudest forms of postwar Keynesianism—the failure to consider the role of expectations feedback in macroeconomic policy.
    More broadly, the Austrian story of investment booms and busts doesn’t actually explain recessions and unemployment. Spending patterns shift all the time without sparking a recession. People stop buying BlackBerrys and they buy iPhones instead. Or people stop buying boot-cut jeans and buy skinny jeans instead. Across sectors, maybe people go see fewer movies and with the money they save they eat out at nicer restaurants. A business that curtails its investment spending should have extra money to pay out as dividends. Or if they want to horde the cash, it sits in a bank for someone else to lend out.
    It may seem “obvious” that the decline in housing activity caused the current recession, in line with the Austrian view, but in fact fixed residential investment turned negative in 2006. It stayed negative for more than a year before the recession began, and then continued negative for a couple more quarters before it turned severe. People spent less on home-building and renovation and more on other things. If investment spending in general declines, you would expect spending on consumer goods to rise to offset it. In practice, this doesn’t always happen and you get a recession. It’s this anomalous collapse in overall spending that needs explaining, and describing some of the past spending as “malinvestment” doesn’t help you understand it.
    The interesting question is what to do about it. Many of the original Austrians found their business cycle ideas discredited by the Great Depression, in which the bust was clearly not self-correcting and country after country stimulated real output by abandoning the gold standard and engaging in deficit spending. Then for a long time after World War II, policy elites more or less agreed on a combination of “automatic” fiscal stabilizers (the deficit naturally goes up during recessions as tax revenues fall and social service outlays rise) and interest rate cuts. And it worked, so nobody much cared about Austrian economics outside of crank circles. But when short-term rates hit zero and the Fed couldn’t push them any lower despite high unemployment, political consensus broke down.
    Ever since, we’ve been fighting about fiscal stimulus and quantitative easing, and unusual economic theories have been coming to the fore. Some of them offer useful suggestions about possible fixes. Unfortunately, however, it’s the Austrian school, which preaches despair and demands no action at all, that has the most effective political champion and the most dedicated followers. If I’m wrong, and the economy doesn’t recover in 2012, then these faddish views may gain more steam and perhaps we really all will be Austrians someday soon. But let’s hope not. The developed countries that have done best in the recession—places like Israel and Sweden—are the ones that have pursued the least “Austrian” courses of action, while the European Central Bank’s insistence on pursuing a somewhat Austrian-style course in Spain and Italy is creating a deepening crisis.


    • This guy is an idiot.

      Comments from the blog:

      Bryan Caplan:

      “If Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises know that cheap money can’t last forever, why don’t private investors? Why wouldn’t firms avoid making the supposedly dumb investments?”

      For the same reason:

      – that most private investors and businessmen believe that taxes are “the price we pay for civilization” (how the U.S. managed to grow exponentially for the first 135 years without personal income taxes is never a thought that occurs to most private investors and businessmen),

      -that we need the Fed to control inflation and stabilize the economy,

      -that war is good for an economy, that the New Deal ended the Depression, that minimum wage laws help the poor,

      – that wage and price controls are good,

      -that fractional reserve banking/fiat currency is more progressive than a 100% gold-backed currency:

      Because most private investors and businessmen who earned college degrees in business, which generally include courses in economics, got the Rockefeller/Rothschild school of “economics” version of economics rather than real economics.

      Because most of them are clueless about real (i.e., “Austrian”) economics.

      All that most private investors and businessmen know is that when interest rates are [artificially] low, it means it’s time to get in on the cheap money before interest rates rise again. Moral hazard at its finest.”

      Also, most investors, both public and private, don’t even know that the New York Stock Exchange is a scam—and you don’t have to know any Austrian economics or even be a conspiracy theorist to understand the basic logic as to why that is so.

      “It’s also worth noting that thousands of economically illiterate private investors ruined themselves piling into the recently deceased housing market to develop millions of speculative housing units, many of which still remain unsold. Those private investors schooled in the Austrian business cycle theory understood that the housing market, fueled by cheap credit, was a bubble in search of a pin and acted accordingly.”

      • I personally thought that was a rather weak argument-but I was more curious about the differences between the people mentioned-Hayek, Mises, and the Koch brothers.

      • Part Two

        The way this works, according to the Austrians, is that artificially low interest rates spur “malinvestment” in unworkable enterprises that inevitably crash when the stimulus is withdrawn. This is an emotionally appealing idea, positing that the suffering of a bust is a kind of cosmic payback for the boom. But it doesn’t make much logical sense.

        …it makes no sense to the economically illiterate nor the idiotic … which he suffers badly from both…

        It isn’t “cosmic” as if some karma is accumulated and the God’s become annoyed and flick a finger.

        It is based on economic law – supply and demand and Say’s Law – that it is product that buy products and producers buy goods of producers with their own products.

        When producers find that no such production has occurred, there is nothing to trade for … they stop producing, close their shops, and fire their workers.

        This is not cosmic, but economic sense.

        For one thing, as George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan, who’s ideologically sympathetic to the Austrians, points out, it’s hard to understand why businesspeople would be so easily duped in this way.

        Because Bryan does not understand the concept of Market Pricing Mechanisms

        The price of money, know as interest, measures the supply and demand of the money — like all economic goods.

        If interest rates are low, that means there is an abundance of savings
        Savings is the net of production over consumption – it is what is left over from your work minus what you spent.

        Most people spend to fill their needs, and then some of their desires.
        To have an abundance of savings means the people are massively more productive then the demand of the desires

        This means, there is a large capacity to increase the satisfaction of even more desires – that is, there is goods wanted.

        So a business man thinks “What can I make to satisfy those desires?” and makes more goods and more innovations.

        As more goods are bought, savings drops, interest rates rise, the business men reads this as “slow down making more goods, the people are spending, not saving, and their spending is coming close to matching their production”

        But when government lies to the business man by forcing low interests rates where there is little production everyone is screwed up because they are messing with 1/2 of every transaction in the nation … the money.

        You cannot believe that messing with the economic good that is exists in every transaction of the day for everyone has no influence! That is why they muck with it, because it has such a dominate influence!

        For an economic professor to be dumbfounded by this is shocking.

        . Spending patterns shift all the time without sparking a recession. People stop buying BlackBerrys and they buy iPhones instead. Or people stop buying boot-cut jeans and buy skinny jeans instead. Across sectors, maybe people go see fewer movies and with the money they save they eat out at nicer restaurants. A business that curtails its investment spending should have extra money to pay out as dividends. Or if they want to horde the cash, it sits in a bank for someone else to lend out.

        Correct, and the Austrians say so, too.

        But this does NOT happen in ALL segments at the SAME TIME in a free market – such a thing is inconceivable. That is the Austrian position – that there is something else at work that creates the systemic economic crack-up….

        The interesting question is what to do about it. Many of the original Austrians found their business cycle ideas discredited by the Great Depression,

        Utter bull.
        Making up stories does nothing to improve his argument.

        Unfortunately, however, it’s the Austrian school, which preaches despair

        So, a man lies to you by preaching “good times ahead”, this is a man of good, and truth.

        A man, who says continuing to walk along a path will toss you over a cliff, is a man “preaching” despair and should be ignored.

        Believe such things at your peril.

        while the European Central Bank’s insistence on pursuing a somewhat Austrian-style course in Spain and Italy is creating a deepening crisis.

        So the ECB – who is not Austrian at all, but 100% Keynesian, is doing something, that this moron then labels “somewhat, but not, but I think it might be, but I can’t tell close to Austrian-esk course for a couple of badly managed economies” … must -obviously- refute the entirety of the Austrian economic theory.

        As I said, he is an idiot.

    • Wasting my time refuting point by point, but what the heck…. I do that to you guys at SUFA, I should be fair, and rip apart those more “mainstream”, right???

      Austrians reject the idea that there is anything at all the government can do to stabilize macroeconomic fluctuations.

      Hayek pointed out the Conceit that men can know more about all other men, then all other men can know, individually, about themselves.

      The Pretense of Knowledge – Pretense, means “Pretending”… the “pretending that they know more than they really know”, and then action on such a fantasy as if they held truth and fact is an great act of dangerous proportions

      Mark Twain:
      It ain’t what we don’t know that is dangerous, it is the stuff we do know that just ain’t so

      Austrians also believe that cutting taxes to boost economic activity doesn’t work either.


      Cutting taxes WITHOUT EQUAL BUDGET CUTS is the only way to boost economic activity

      Without the budget cut, the shortfall from tax is made up of government debt – which leads to some process that manufacturers money out of thin air, which leads to inflation, which leads to price confusion, and erosion of savings — which is economically destructive

      Austrians do not fall for the slight of hand of short-term gains ignoring long term costs and negative consequences. They review the whole thread right to the spool and needle and review those consequences.

      Tax cuts without budget cuts solves nothing.

      And they disagree with Milton Friedman that appropriate monetary stimulus by the Federal Reserve could have prevented the Great Depression.

      No, they disagree with Friedman upon the cause of the Depression.

      Friedman posits that it was NOT the easy credit and artificially low interest rates imposed by the FED that created the boom/crack-up business cycle.

      Friedman errs by beginning his review at the crack-up, proclaims that the business cycle which in a free market system applies to singular segments but never systemically indeed is not true – that it must apply systemically throughout the entire economy at the same time throughout all segments

      But he fails to provide any explanation or reason why all businessmen in all segments of the economy make the same fundamental errors all at the same time! — how is this even remotely possible?

      It can ONLY be possible by government interference within the economy and as Mises demonstrated, by the fraudulent manipulation of the money and interest – essentially by manipulating the interest rates artificially low, the government lied to the business men by saying there was more productivity in the economy then actually existed.

      When businesses found out that there was no productivity, the crack-up – closing of businesses that were built on the lie – happened.

      Friedman starts here – assuming that this is the premise of economics – and then makes his review … the FED retracting all the artificial money it created back out of the economy whilst the economy was already contracting

      Friedman says that if the FED thrust more money into the economy the depression would not have occurred

      BUT IT WAS THE INFUSION OF MONEY that created the problem in the first place … the artificial BOOM that preceded the crack-up

      While MORE infusion would have merely DEFERRED the depression to sometime in the future, and ensured it would be deep and darker, as more businesses built upon the lie would fail, with even more unemployment and more suffering which has been the policy ever since 1935!.

      And here we are today, Friedman’s failure of understanding now has become the expression of Mises’ nightmare – where no longer an infusion of massive manufactured money makes any difference at all, and the depression – with massive layoffs, business closures, economic collapse threatening the edges …. rolls on unabated.

      …that’s enough for one post….

  24. Good morning SUFA…….Interesting commentary last night on NFL Live after the Broncos game. ESPN analyst Eric Allen and Sports Center commentator John Anderson ripped the Broncos and Tim Tebow for doing their little “Te-bow”. When asked why Tebow’s kneeling is such an issue and no one brings up the numerous players that cross themselves when they make a touchdown or when there are four NFL kickers that always cross themselves before a field goal…..John Anderson said that because Tebow is white and he is a quarterback. Ex Cowboy Michael Irvin also blasted Tebow for copying the “blackman” saying it will always be ok for the black man to show praise but not a white quarterback. He went on to say that Tebow needs to find another way….like praising the players that catch his passes and the line for giving him the time instead of praising “his” God for his ability.

    ::::heavy sigh::::

    Dallas Cowboy fans have all rallied behind Denver for the first time ever. I have never been a Denver fan and now hope they go all the way. Denver does not have the team to do it, I know……but would it not be cool to see Denver and nice guy Tebow and New Orleans and nice guy Brees play? I do not think it will happen..but would it not be cool.

    That said…..I think it would also be cool to see the Houston Texans go all the way……not probable but Houston has never been to the dance before.

    Like I was a fan of the Jamaican Bobsled team……I am now a Denver fan.

    • Tebow’s kneeling is such an issue because they are making it an issue. If the announcers would ignore it and concentrate on the game, no issue. They want to make it an issue. Not sure why but any controversy can be used to promote interest.
      ” Nothing draws a crowd like a crowd”(Soul Asylum)

      “Michael Irvin also blasted Tebow for copying the “blackman” saying it will always be ok for the black man to show praise but not a white quarterback.”
      What a racist idiot! Is he still on drugs? Was a hell of a receiver though.

  25. At DPM:……..nice touch yesterday. Passed by Thor’s Hammer and all the crew was standing on the deck dressed in all white jump suits with long dark black hair strumming guitars….singing….”Yo Ho…….Thank you very much”. Then I realized it was Elvis’ birthday.

    (Side Note: Elvis did NOT swill grog)

    • Mathius™ says:

      Have you been hitting the Red Bull again?

      My mother came to visit the other day – whatever her other failings (and there are plenty), she brought a case of Dad’s Root Beer. I have only seen this on the east coast a handful of times. That, I will tell you, is the finest beverage in existence.

      I’m unwilling to risk wasting a single drop by experimenting, but I’d love to know how to turn it into an adult beverage. Any theories, oh Great Texan?

      • Rum would have been my first guess.


        • LOI…….root beer and rum….that should make you “kiss the gunner’s daughter”….

          • Mathius™ says:

            I was thinking of good scotch, actually.

            I will attempt both and report back tomorrow. If I am able.

            • Scotch and Root Beer?……do you realize that made even Buck “the Walla-man” pass out?

              • Mathius™ says:

                The Wala is a wine snob.

                He’d probably suggest a nice Cabernet to go with my Root Beer.

                East Coast liberals, you know.. they’re all wine snobs.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I wouldn’t dare ruin a nice Cabernet by mixing it with Root Beer, not matter how good said root bear is. I’d go with the fine scotch.

                Us East Cost liberals aren’t just wine snobs you know — we appreciate a good scotch as well!

              • Scotch tastes horrible with a capital H. Yuck-I need a yucky smiley face 🙂

          • D13,

            I don’t see why, have enjoyed my share of rum and Coke without once being bent over and whipped. And where the ‘ell did you come across that term? You’ve been hanging out with a bad crowd again…..

            • Mathius™ says:

              We have a verdict on Dad’s Root Beer + Rum. I used 151 in a generous measure. The problem is that the thing I really like about Dad’s is how sharp it is, and the rum was so sweet that it cut it down until it tasted almost like Barq’s. Meh.

              Next up, Macallan 30.

      • OH YEAH…..Dad’s Root Beer……available in Texas and it is a close race with IBC root beer..however, Dad;s is superb. As to adult beverage status……..why waste a good Dad’s. Try putting it into a frosty mug……but careful how fast you drink it. Frosty mugs and Dad’s root beer has that nasty little “brain freeze” enzyme that will cross your eyes and make you slap “yo mama”……

  26. U.S. – US
    Georgia Parents Reportedly Outraged Over School Math Assignment That Used Questions About Slavery

    NORCROSS, Ga. – Angry parents called for an apology after a Georgia elementary school set a math assignment that used questions about slavery and beatings, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

    Parents of third grade students at Beaver Ridge Elementary School, Norcross, were outraged after their children brought home a math worksheet featuring questions such as “Each tree had 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?”

    They were also asked, “If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?”

    Christopher Braxton, whose 8-year-old son was given the worksheet, told WSB-TV he was “furious” when he read the homework.

    “Something like this shouldn’t be embedded into a kid of the third, fourth, fifth, any grade,” another parent, Terrance Barnett, added. “I’m having to explain to my 8 year old why slavery or slaves or beatings are in a math problem. That hurts.”

    School district officials said teachers who wrote the paper were not trying to offend anyone but were just trying to incorporate history into the math lesson.

    “Clearly, they did not do as good of a job as they should have done,” district spokeswoman Sloan Roach told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “It was just a poorly written question.”

    Beaver Ridge’s principal Jose DeJesus promised to offer more training for staff and help teachers come up with more appropriate questions.

    But parents said the school has not gone far enough and are calling for an apology and diversity training for teachers and officials.

    “I think the teachers should be reprimanded for using that poor judgment, and an apology should be made,” community activist Jennifer Falk said. “But the bigger question is how could something like this happen?”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/08/georgia-parents-reportedly-outraged-over-school-math-assignment-that-used/?test=latestnews#ixzz1iyF0nvAZ

  27. Congratulations to North Dakota State. National Champions

  28. Hmmmm-I’m sure many will disagree-but I rather like this move.

    January 9, 2012
    U.S. Army to Deploy to Israel for Huge Missile Exercise
    Kerry Patton

    On January 19, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the United States sent Patriot Missiles and a contingent of U.S. service members into Israel on temporary assignment. This was the least we could do for Israel, which vowed not to respond to Saddam’s Scud attacks that reached deep inside Tel Aviv. Yet U.S. forces never found a permanent home inside the Holy Land — until today.
    Twenty years later, the United States has committed to a permanent presence in Israel. According to Defense News, as of September 21, 2011, the United States deployed a high-powered, high-frequency, transportable X-band radar system to Israel along with a small contingent of support personnel. Designed to detect and track ballistic missiles soon after launch, the AN/TPY-2 Transportable Radar Surveillance/Forward Based X-band Transportable (FBX-T), its ancillary components, and some 120 EUCOM personnel are prepared to defeat any Iranian missile attack. Today, these service members make home at Israel’s Nevatim Air Base.
    In an attempt to comfort those who may feel alarmed by this news, rest assured that a U.S. military presence in Israel has been planned for some time now. In fact, since 2007, the U.S. Army solicited contractual opportunities for Nevatim. Solicitation number W912GB-07-R-0013 was released in April 2007, specifically designed for the new construction of two aircraft hangars, hazardous material storage buildings, hangar annex buildings, a dining facility, a utility building, a boom treatment station, part-washing and storage facilities, and a laboratory and workshop building, as well as site development to include roads, parking, taxiways, and landscaping.
    In mid-December, Lt.Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the U.S.’s Third Air Force based in Germany, visited Israel to finalize plans for the world’s largest missile defense exercise, expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel. Normally, after an exercise, everyone goes home. But that is unlikely for our U.S. forces, considering today’s Middle East crisis.
    In the coming weeks, thousands of U.S. troops are expected to deploy to Israel, possibly putting Nevatim AFB to the test. They are reportedly bringing with them the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) and a fleet of naval components which will include ship-based Aegis ballistic missile systems. The cost of this exercise would be in the billions.
    With Iran beefing up its military might, bolstering its defense in the Strait of Hormuz, and recently threatening the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, not only are U.S. forces headed to Israel, but some Israeli forces are forecasted to take permanent residence in Stuttgart, Germany — home of United States European Command (EUCOM).
    President Obama recently announced that a closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be unacceptable and vowed to take whatever measures are necessary to keep the vital shipping lane open. While U.S. forces are expected to deploy to Israel for an “exercise,” could this deployment turn into something else altogether? Time will tell, but considering President Obama’s vow, it’s not looking good.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/us_army_to_deploy_to_israel_for_huge_missile_exercise.html#ixzz1iybvAxg8

  29. @ BF…..interesting findings here. I have been researching quite earnestly, the trends of global currencies and inflation rates. I have talked to some pretty smart economists from SMU School of Business, TCU School of Business, the University of Texas School of Business and a recent Wharton graduate (who made no sense what-so-ever). Since we are cash flush with USD and have ample hard metals, I was trying to make heads or tails out of certain economies to determine the amount of cash to keep and whether to invest abroad or here or wherever. What I have been finding is very interesting. (1) No two economists think alike and, (2) Keynes theory is idiocy. It is very interesting to see how the major currencies manipulate their worth using CPI vs GDP, which ever fits their pistol at the time, thereby, rendering any worthwhile evaluations of future worthless. I also noted the inflation rates of controlled economies (China, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, to name a few) and the relationship to their currencies. In addition, I noticed that the true measure of inflation, in my opinion, is NOT the pricing of housing, TV sets, cars, computers, x boxes, or what have you…..but in one staple and that is food.

    For example, in China, where the government subsidizes housing, transportation, and energy, the average income ranges from $400 per month (USD) to $1100 per month (USD) except for airline pilots with a flat tax of 8%. However, it takes upwards of 85 % of their income to put food on the table. But China, claims record growth in GDP and, consequently, their inflation rate that is published is on GDP this year around 4.4%. But the TRUE inflation rate is measured in food prices….and the spendable income of the average Chinese is decimated by rising food prices that are NOT subsidized and that inflation rate last year was 34%. China allows the food prices to rise, decimating the family income to where the average family spends more than 80% of their income on food. The CPI is not a worthwhile measure as the economy is not consumer based. It is also a great weapon to keep the population “in line”.

    Venezuela is another great example where the median income is $13,500 but the food prices are allowed to rise to a level that the average family spends 77% of their income on food alone which rose over 22% last year.

    All this to say, that the global governments manipulate their policies that affect their currencies in ways that makes stability impossible but the so called subsidized countries keep everything in check except food. Wages are kept purposely low and the price of food allowed to rise unchecked, whether by purpose or free market. When wages are kept artificially low, food price is the only measure of inflation, in my opinion. Austria, thet everyone seems to like, measures its inflation by what is called the HICP (Harmonized Index Consumer Prices), Austria is reporting inflation of 2.4-3%….but food prices are doubling. Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark……all those countries with a higher per capita have been decimated by taxes and rising food prices to where spendable income is being lowered.

    The United States, with all its faults, has a quasi free market system. The inflation rates are also determined by the measure of GDP AND CPI combined but even then, the true inflation is measured on food prices.

    Conclusion…….that we are making……no foreign investments at this time…no more metal investments at this time….we are staying with USD’s. It is still the most sought after currency and is still the basis for global economies…including China. Instead of bars and ingots, we will invest in gold coins as the Krugs….but limited. The Panda Silver series, the Ballerina Russian series….etc. But even then, the price is driven by collectors.Still cannot spend them in food stores or consumer markets…….yet. It is a dice roll.

    • D13,

      What I have been finding is very interesting. (1) No two economists think alike and, (2) Keynes theory is idiocy.

      Yep, except the Austrians.

      No two economist think alike is because they are Keynesian – and Keynesianism is totally incomprehensible.

      When something can’t be comprehended, anything that tries to explain it will be wrong, but there is no way to say this is more wrong then that.

      So any two fools can same different things, point to the same incomprehensible mess as their proof, and be right!

      But the Austrians, ask them. They will almost always give the same, straight, answer.

      It helps a lot to have a consistent theory.

      . Conclusion…….that we are making……no foreign investments at this time…no more metal investments at this time….we are staying with USD’s. It is still the most sought after currency and is still the basis for global economies

      Well, you fit right in line with the same thinking as Jim Rogers – which is a pretty good line to be standing in.

    • D13

      Good morning Colonel. Hope your weekend went well. Condolences to Sam Houston State.

      Be careful sir, for this is not necessarily what you think:

      “The inflation rates are also determined by the measure of GDP AND CPI combined but even then, the true inflation is measured on food prices. ”

      The “FOOD PRICES” used in the USA are not a constant basket of goods. That is to say it does not represent the price of steak from month to month or year to year.

      It represents the “basket” of goods being purchased by Americans. So it can seriously under represent food price increases if consumers change buying habits. Such as more hamburger and less steak.

      There are efforts to make adjustments, and data collectors go to stores across the country to price certain goods. But the whole thing is not as straight forward as it should be. You know, comparing apples to apples.

      Buy FARM LAND with WATER RIGHTS. Very old and court protected water rights.
      Buy oil and gas RIGHTS.
      Buy Copper RIGHTS or futures and roll over (2 to 5 year play).
      Buy Gravel pits.
      Buy Timberland with healthy second growth.

      As you say, for now the dollar is still King because everyone is in a race to the bottom, but they all use dollars to buy oil.

      I do not see any good reason to buy foreign gold/silver coins. Why pay the huge premiums. You can play the currency market with paper at less cost. Besides, if all hell breaks loose, I doubt the Russians will care whose picture is on the gold coin.

      Just a few thoughts from this side of the country this morning.

      • Hey JAC…..I was not referring to spot prices but to the over all efect on the individual family, whether they decide to buy steak or hamburger….but in all my study over the last three months…I have found only one constant. Food. I found that even with farm and ranch subsidy in the US, it is still the constant.

        YOur suggestions are good provided you buy them in the US…..no problems. I would not buy outside the US right now because it is too unpredictable and subject to the whims of governments and not world courts.

        Never…Never…Never buy coins from a retailer. We know how to buy coins direct from governments without retail premium prices…and by pure. But they are only as good as the collector that wants them….except for ounce weight of pure metal….whatever it is.

        Food for thought. Timberland is not for sale. It is government controlled unless you can find a ranch that has timber that is privatley owned. Not very many of them. We have looked for such.

        As to futures…..we have decided to stay completely away from them. Totally. Futures are too volatile and subject to the whims of traders, in my opinon.

        Enjoy your day, my friend.

  30. For the guys on this fine Monday 🙂


  31. “Mr. Gun Control.” Press asked the audience if 18-year-old Oklahoma mom Sarah McKinley was right to shoot a home invader armed with a knife to protect her little boy? He said “damn right” — and explained how he also favors banning all handguns and “assault rifles.” So, um, how would Knife-Threatened Teen Mom defend herself in Bill Press’s ideal America?

    “I gotta tell you I am Mr. Gun Control, okay?I think there are too many guns. They’re too easy to get. Most people don’t need them,” Press declared. “For hunting only I would say as long as they’re licensed and you know how to use them, that’s okay. But for any other reason, I would ban all handguns. I would ban all assault rifles. I’m as strong as you can get.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/01/06/both-ways-bill-press-ban-all-guns-hurray-teen-mom-who-shot-home-invader#ixzz1iypu4JpG

    So he praises her courage, calmness, bravery, but if he had his way, she would not have been allowed to own the guns she used to defend herself?????

  32. Any Utah-ans on SUFA? Looks like you might have a winner here:


  33. Dread Pirate Mathius says:


    That is all.

  34. D13, Flag & JAC were talking economy. I wonder what it would be like if Ron Paul were elected?


    • The first two years would be very tough.
      The next 6 years would be very good.

    • You can’t argue with his economic know-how and vision.

      I notice his foreign policy isn’t included on this restore plan.

      I also worry about his electability. The “swooning” types won’t give him a look. His plan will PO many that will lose jobs because of it. The denial and/or burial of the severity of our economic situation is still huge amongst many so they believe his message.

      Why are his followers so cult-like and do some pretty stupid things?

      • that would be….

        won’t believe his message.

      • I’m not a big fan of him on foreign policy, but have to give him credit on Iran. He has been as near 100% accurate as I can see in how he views it and the US role in causing the hostility. And to me it comes down to trust in those we elect. We cannot know how they will react to a future event, so have to judge them based on their past actions and words. Ron Paul has a history of saying what he thinks and damned the consequences. I don’t think we can say that about Mitt. He reminds me of….
        I was for the invasion before I was against the invasionandthenweinvadedandnowI’magainsttheinvasionbutforthetroopsbutagainsttorture or something to that effect…..

        I’ve written an article on it, hope US will publish or give me the OK….

      • Kathy,

        . I notice his foreign policy isn’t included on this restore plan.

        ..unless you take account that he cut the defense budget.

        I also worry about his electability.

        Elected 11 times in a row to Congress – he knows how to get elected.

        Why are his followers so cult-like and do some pretty stupid things?

        Radical ideas attract radicals – whether you like it or not 😉

  35. “Predatory capitalists” … is it possible the party espousing “free men” is admitting that people can be victims/slaves to capitalism?

    The SAGE wonders how they walk that one back. Imagine having so much financial power you get to exercise power over others (owning the government immediately comes to mind)?

    Workers of the world unite!

    and Go anybody in the AFC besides the Cheatriots.

    Admit it, yous missed me.

    here was my week: http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/01/congrats-to-graduates-winter-residency.html

  36. Why are we having all this talk about attacking Iran? If this happens, will Russia get involved? I wonder who will be the first SUFAite to be detained indefinately by our wonderful government? Thoughts to ponder 🙂

  37. Daley stepping down now and not waiting ’til election as previously announced. Hmmm….

    • All three of President Barack Obama’s chiefs of staff earned millions of dollars after passing through the revolving doors that lie between the Democratic Party and Wall Street.

      Yet Obama is positioning himself as Wall Street’s foe in the 2012 election, aided by millions of dollars in political donations from Wall Street companies, including Goldman Sachs.

      Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley, and now Jacob Lew, are all career Democrats who have taken lucrative trips through those revolving doors, eliciting jeers from Republicans who say Obama is running an administration of crony capitalists.

      Obama’s self-portrayal as defender of the common man was displayed Jan. 3, for example, when he used a campaign-style speech in the swing-state of Ohio to announce that he planned to install Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

      “Does anyone think the reason we got in such a financial mess [in 2007] was because of too much oversight? Of course not,” Obama said at a high school in a tony suburb of Cleveland. “Financial firms have armies of lobbyists in Washington looking out for their interests. … Every day that Richard waited to be confirmed was another day when millions of Americans are left unprotected.”

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/10/obamas-third-chief-of-staff-like-first-two-got-rich-on-wall-street/#ixzz1j488fgSA

  38. I was able to watch most of the NH debate, spousal unit leader reading a book. I thought I came in in the middle of a question, could not understand the point or thought behind Stephie’s question to Romney, “is it legal for a state to ban contraception?” Mitt did a decent job of answering an off the wall gotcha question, that “contraception is working, don’t mess with it.” I was left wondering why that was a question at all, with the economy, jobs, foreign tensions, a book’s worth of pressing concerns. And in the end, it seemed Newt gave the best answer, that they were asking the wrong questions………..

    George Stephanopoulos wasted seven questions on contraception. The former Democratic operative began by noting Rick Santorum’s belief that there is no constitutional “right to privacy.” He added, “And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception.” The co-moderator repeated, “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

    The bias grew so bad that Newt Gingrich, again, spoke out, slamming the moderators. In relation to the focus on gay rights, he ripped:

    NEWT GINGRICH: I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

    Shouldn’t the point of a Republican debate be to inform Republican voters who is the authentic conservative? All Stephanopoulos and Sawyer did was badger the candidates with liberal talking points.

    NBC’s debate on Sunday featured liberal questions by an eight-to-one margin.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/01/09/abcs-gop-debate-questions-6-1-liberal-25-contraception-gay-rights#ixzz1izoxo89a

  39. Did someone say “Austrian”? I think that means it’s time for another economics joke!!

  40. D13, JAC and the rest

    The source of the Iran/US saber rattling:


    War with Iran may indeed entangle Russia

    • Maybe but do not think that it is a major development…but a great lesson in trade agreements and bartering. I think it is a great wake up call, however, to Europe Canada and the United States. I think it is a better wake up call to Japan, who will not leave the US dollar in my estimation.

      The currencies of Russia and Iran have no value to anyone other than Russian and Iran at the moment. Russia and Iran and China cannot exist upon their own…they need the Western world…..especially China.

      Now, interesting question…..does Europe have the resolve to economically fight Russia with our backing? But, even so, I am not scared of a bartering system…perhaps that is what is needed. Maybe the US needs to take a lesson and make all trade even with no trade deficits. Engage in our own bartering system….we still have bartering resources and countrol quite a few. China and Russia and Iran need one thing in major proportions and that is food. China’s farm industry is in shambles and Russia imports over 60% of their staples……from Western resources. Their wheat crops fail every other year. It is interesting…….so in a bartering system…food becomes a major item. As good as, if not better, than nukes.I would suggest we use it.

  41. A guy walks into his favorite bar and orders a beer from the bartender, a good friend of his. The bartender says “you look kind of down in the dumps. What’s wrong?”

    After a heavy sigh, he says, “Well, I’ve never really talked about this here, but I’m an Austrian. I believe in individualism in interpreting economic developments and emphasize the spontaneous order guided by the price mechanism. I advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action. Testing or modeling this is virtually impossible because of the complexity of human behavior and the difficulty of placing human actors a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. I’m a strong advocate of laissez faire capitalism and libertarianism. But lately, it just seems like no one listens to me…”

    The bartender looks kind of confused for a minute. Finally he says “I thought you were from Indiana?”


    • LOL

      Good one because it is too close to true.

    • Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even.

      All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.

      An economist’s guess is liable to be as good as anybody else’s.

      Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?

      Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.

      Buy land. They ain’t making any more of the stuff.
      Will Rogers

    • Don’t worry about the US debt and it will go away
      Ethel C. Fenig

      While the US worries whether Tebowing is a religious imposition and other deep issues the “Size of U.S. debt is now the same as its entire economy: $15.23 TRILLION” says a headline in the UK Daily Mail.

      America’s national debt has reached a worrying milestone – it is now as big as the whole of its economy.

      The amount owed by the federal government to its creditors, combined with IOUs to government retirement and other schemes, now stands at $15.23 trillion.

      The government estimated the value of goods and services produced by the economy in a year at $15.17trillion as of September.

      However not to worry as

      Many economists, such as the Brookings Institution’s William Gale, say a better measure of the nation’s debt is how much the government owes creditors, not counting $4.7trillion owed to future Social Security recipients and other government beneficiaries.

      By that measure, the debt is roughly a third less: $10.5 trillion, or nearly 70 per cent the size of the economy. By historic standards, that is still high.

      Oh, what a relief.

      Uh oh, start worrying.

      According to long-term forecasts, debt will carry on growing faster than the economy, which would need to expand by at least 6 per year to keep pace.

      President Obama’s 2012 budget shows the debt passing $26trillion ten years from now.

      But then, as Alfred E. Neumann of Mad Magazine famously asks “What, me worry?” And then he grins his gap toothed grin. What does he know that we don’t?

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/dont_worry_about_the_us_debt_and_it_will_go_away.html#ixzz1j4a7Um00

  42. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I got this link from an American thinker article. It shows Ron Paul’s predictions from 2002.

  43. Why men shouldn’t write advice columns….

    Dear John,
    I hope you can help me. The other day, I set off for work, leaving my husband in the house watching TV. My car stalled, and then it broke down about a mile down the road and I had to walk back to get my husband’s help. When I got home, I couldn’t believe my eyes. He was in our bedroom with the neighbor’s daughter!
    I am 32, my husband is 34 and the neighbor’s daughter is 19. We have been married for 10 years. When I confronted him, he broke down and admitted they had been having an affair for the past six months. He won’t go to counseling, and I’m afraid I am a wreck and need advice urgently. Can you please help? Sincerely, Sheila

    Dear Sheila,
    A car stalling after being driven a short distance can be caused by a variety of faults with the engine. Start by checking that there is no debris in the fuel line. If it is clear, check the vacuum pipes and hoses on the intake manifold and also check all grounding wires. If none of these approaches solves the problem, it could be that the fuel pump itself is faulty, causing low delivery pressure to the injectors. I hope this helps. John

  44. Just for you Charlie. Eat your heart out!!!

    Apple CEO Tim Cook could top pay list in 2011


    • Yes, Kathy, it’s a GREAT country America!

      Just think, the government you so hate can now be totally influenced by salaries like the one that tickles you pink! How cool is that? A government for the rich, by the rich.

      And here’s the best part. Tim Cook will eventually die, just like some homeless guy or cab driver or, dare I say it, a teacher making $40K a year … all that money and he’s still going to die … but he’ll leave the bulk of it to his kid (or kids) probably and then they can own the government you so hate.

      You go girl! Your logic is remarkable.

      • “So for a secret keeping of this White House Halloween party with Hollywood celebs, not so secret. Maybe it wasn’t a secret at all, Ms. Kantor,” O’Brien scoffed. “You might want to ‘Get Real’ on that.”

        First of all, O’Brien didn’t include Kantor’s full report. As the New York Post stated Sunday, Kantor acknowledged reports on the public Halloween party, but added that “Then the Obamas went inside, where an invitation-only affair for children of military personnel and White House administrators unfolded in the East Room. Unbeknownst to reporters, the State Dining Room had also been transformed into a secretive White House Wonderland.”

        It was this party that Kantor claimed was the “Alice in Wonderland” party — and here the networks simply reported it as a reception for military families and White House staffers. The CNN reports that O’Brien cited lacked the key details that Kantor claims the administration would not want reported – such as the lavish “Alice in Wonderland theme” and the presence of Hollywood director Tim Burton and actor Johnny Depp.

        In fact, a Nexis search revealed that in nine separate CNN reports on the White House’s Halloween celebration, none of them even approached a description of an “Alice in Wonderland” party with Hollywood celebrities. CNN, like the other outlets O’Brien mentioned, described the evening’s event as a reception for military families.

        The 2 p.m. CNN Newsroom report from October 31 stated that the White House was “throwing a party for Washington area students and military families”.

        And, according to the blog Verum Serum, the other news outlets that O’Brien cited reported the same narrative – that the White House welcomed trick-or-treaters and later hosted a reception for military families and White House staffers. None of them recorded a lavish tea party attended by celebrity guests.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/01/09/cnns-obrien-refuted-her-own-networks-reports#ixzz1j3wTlKoK

        • If memory serves me, the Obama’s at the time were being criticized for having weekly parties-flying in the best for their elite friends-which I found worthy of criticism. I might not have disapproved of this one-if they weren’t doing so much extravagant partying on the tax payers dollar. So I really don’t find it surprising they would want to play down the extravagance.

  45. For all you doubters, we came ,we played and we shut them out.

    • Congrats, but it proves the BCS is a scam, if you can justify having a team in the National Championship that didn’t win their conference, then surely you can justify a playoff where this scenario could play.

      • I have always supported a playoff. It was proposed by the SEC commissioner years ago but the other “more important” conferences shut it down.

        “Offense sells tickets; Defense wins championships”

    • Congrats Bama!

  46. If we keep ignoring each little attack on our freedoms, it will be too late. then again, it may already be too late.

    Government Homeland Security Given Green Light to Monitor American Journalists

    Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that emerged from the Department of Homeland Security in November, Washington has written permission to collect and retain personal information from journalists, news anchors, reporters or anyone who uses “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

    According to DHS, the definition of personal identifiable information can consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.”


    • Nothing like preparing to censer people whenever there is a crisis too good to go to waste.

  47. So property owners are building a house and the EPA steps in and says stop now because that is wetlands.

    Assuming that the property owners are correct in saying they “asked the EPA for a hearing on the matter. The agency denied their request”

    So they sue the EPA and for a defense the EPA is saying “The EPA has argued that the agency is equipped to handle complaints like the Sacketts through administrative procedures, and that landowners have no constitutional right to proceed from a compliance order directly into federal court”

    What a joke the EPA is, I totally believe the property owners because of what my parents township had to go through recently with the EPA. The township was told by the EPA that they had to put in a sewer because of all the bad septic systems. So when the township caved to the pressure, individuals stepped up to challenge the EPA. They proved the EPA’s report was flawed and the EPA basically said they didn’t care, the township had to put in a sewer system and they take no responsibility for the accuracy of their report.


    • They aren’t independent to limit the power of the elite running the government but to limit the power and reach of the Constitutionally protected rights of the people.

  48. Obama’s war on energy continues…..


    • It seems the environmentals don’t like any type of energy, even stuff labeled as green. And I am about out of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt-maybe he does want to destroy this country.

    • Can you imagine being fined for something that isn’t available!

      A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist
      David Eggen for The New York Times

      Refiners are required to blend motor fuel with cellulosic biofuel made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corn cobs.

      Published: January 9, 2012

      WASHINGTON — When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

      Fermentation tanks at a demonstration-scale cellulosic plant in Scotland, S.D., built by Poet, an ethanol producer that is planning a commercial-scale plant in Iowa.
      Enlarge This Image
      David Eggen for The New York Times

      At the South Dakota plant, Poet is testing its technology and the economics of producing ethanol from plant waste.

      But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

      In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

      “It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

      Penalizing the fuel suppliers demonstrates what happens when the federal government really, really wants something that technology is not ready to provide. In fact, while it may seem harsh that the Environmental Protection Agency is penalizing them for failing to do the impossible, the agency is being lenient by the standards of the law, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

      The law, aimed at reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, its reliance on oil imported from hostile places and the export of dollars to pay for it, includes provisions to increase the efficiency of vehicles as well as incorporate renewable energy sources into gasoline and diesel.

      It requires the use of three alternative fuels: car and truck fuel made from cellulose, diesel fuel made from biomass and fuel made from biological materials but with a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases. Only the cellulosic fuel is commercially unavailable. As for meeting the quotas in the other categories, the refiners will not close their books until February and are not sure what will happen.

      The goal set by the law for vehicle fuel from cellulose was 250 million gallons for 2011 and 500 million gallons for 2012. (These are small numbers relative to the American fuel market; the E.P.A. estimates that gasoline sales in 2012 will amount to about 135 billion gallons, and highway diesel, about 51 billion gallons.)

      Even advocates of renewable fuel acknowledge that the refiners are at least partly correct in complaining about the penalties.

      “From a taxpayer/consumer standpoint, it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense that we would require blenders to pay fines or fees or whatever for stuff that literally isn’t available,” said Dennis V. McGinn, a retired vice admiral who serves on the American Council on Renewable Energy.

      The standards for cellulosic fuel are part of an overall goal of having 36 billion gallons of biofuels incorporated annually by 2022. But substantial technical progress would be needed to meet that — and lately it has been hard to come by.

      Michael J. McAdams, executive director of the Advanced Biofuels Association, said the state of the technology for turning biological material like wood chips or nonfood plants straight into hydrocarbons — instead of relying on conversion by nature over millions of years, which is how crude oil originates — was advancing but was not yet ready for commercial introduction.

      Of the technologies that are being tried out, he added, “There are some that are closer to the beaker and some that are closer to the barrel.”

      The Texas renewable fuels company KiOR, for example, has broken ground on a plant in Columbus, Miss., that plans to start turning Southern yellow pine chips into gasoline and diesel components in the fourth quarter of 2012 at an annual rate of 11 million gallons, although Matthew Hargarten, a spokesman, said the quantity to be produced this year might be adjusted.

      Mr. McGinn of the council on renewable energy, defends the overall energy statute. Even if the standards for 2011 and 2012 are not met, he said, “I am absolutely convinced from a national security perspective and an economic perspective that the renewable fuel standard, writ large, is the right thing to do.” With oil insecurity and climate change related to greenhouse gas emissions as worrisome as ever, advocates say, there is strong reason to press forward.

      The oil industry does not agree.

      Mr. Drevna of the refiners association argued that in contrast to 2007, when Congress passed the law, “all of a sudden we’re starting to find tremendous resources of our own, oil and natural gas, here in the United States, because of fracking,” referring to a drilling process that involves injecting chemicals and water into underground rock to release gas and oil.

      What is more, the industry expects the 1,700-mile Keystone Pipeline, which would run from oil sands deposits in Canada to the Gulf Coast, to provide more fuel for refineries, he said.

      But Cathy Milbourn, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, said that her agency still believed that the 8.65-million-gallon quota for cellulosic ethanol for 2012 was “reasonably attainable.” By setting a quota, she added, “we avoid a situation where real cellulosic biofuel production exceeds the mandated volume,” which would weaken demand.

      The underlying problem is that Congress legislated changes that laboratories and factories have not succeeded in producing. This is not for want of trying, and efforts continue.

      One possible early source is the energy company Poet, a large producer of ethanol from corn kernels. The company is doing early work now on a site in Emmetsburg, Iowa, that is supposed to produce up to 25 million gallons a year of fuel alcohol beginning in 2013 from corn cobs.

      And Mascoma, a company partly owned by General Motors, announced last month that it would get up to $80 million from the Energy Department to help build a plant in Kinross, Mich., that is supposed to make fuel alcohol from wood waste. Valero Energy, the oil company, and the State of Michigan are also providing funds.

      Yet other cellulosic fuel efforts have faltered. A year ago, after it was offered more than $150 million in government grants, Range Fuels closed a commercial factory in Soperton, Ga., where pine chips were to be turned into fuel alcohols, because it ran into technological problems.

      Airlines have had marginally more success with renewable fuels, but mostly because they have been willing to pay huge sums for sample quantities. Alaska Airlines said recently it had paid $17 a gallon. Lufthansa plans to fly a Boeing 747 from Frankfurt to Dulles International Airport near Washington using 40 tons of a biofuel mix.

      This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

      Correction: January 10, 2012

      An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to targets for a plant being built in Mississippi by the renewable fuels company KiOR. When a company spokesman said that “timelines change,” he was referring to the amount of fuel that will be produced by the plant, not to the plant’s planned startup in the fourth quarter of 2012.


  49. Canine Weapon says:

    I don’t think this is true…

  50. Cast your vote on Drudge today…let’s see what happens.. I went with Ron Paul.

  51. Bamadad..from my Bama friends here in the north….

    BREAKING NEWS: LSU players are stuck in New Orleans! Someone drew a 50 yard line in front of their bus….

  52. Posting for comments.

    The To The Point 10/14/11 article by Dr. Jack Wheeler:

    I’ve been asked by friends of a particular candidate to provide him with a private briefing on the most critical foreign policy issues America faces. What follows is not the usual HFR but a condensed summary of that briefing, which contains much of my Map of the Future talk at Rendezvous XI last weekend.

    Russia. Putin is an ersatz macho-man, all hat and no karovi. Russia’s navy is made of rust. Russia’s ill-trained army of drunkards couldn’t conquer Romania. Russian male life expectancy is lower than that of Bangladesh. Russia is a mafiacracy with a doomed economy dependent on oil & gas exports that fracking in Europe & the US will make uncompetitive. Dos vidanya.

    China. No wives, no water, no banks – and a hyper-dangerous military. Much of China is uninhabited – deserts, mountains, and wastelands. Habitable China is about the size of the US east of the Mississippi, with over a billion people squeezed into it. Northern China is turning into a waterless dust bowl. Scores of millions of Chinese men will never get married due to the Chicom’s idiotic one-child policy and resultant mass female infanticide.

    100 million bachelors are explosively dangerous. Chinese state banks are insolvent after going on a post-2008 loan binge with debt and credit in China now (according to the IMF) above 200% of GDP. A sharp economic contraction (increasingly likely) plus all those angry unmarried men equals war, the history-honored scapegoat diversion of tyrants.

    The obvious Chicom choice for war would be Taiwan. But the Formosa Strait is 100 miles wide and China has no amphibious capacity. Taiwan is on the northern rim of the South China Sea, rapidly becoming one of the most jeopardous flash points in the world. Bordered by Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and China, over 50% by value of the world’s shipping traverses it – and China claims all of it, the entire South China Sea, as its own territorial waters.

    This cannot stand. China must be publicly informed by the next president that the South China Sea is international waters, period, there will be no discussion or negotiation. What is to be negotiated is the cooperative exploitation of what resources, such as oil, it may contain. No amount of Chicom bullying and saber-rattling will do any good. Every other country on the sea will join the US in this – and so will India and Japan.

    Further, the Chicoms need to grasp that any aggression of theirs in the South China Sea will be naval only, and thus does nothing to occupy all their angry young bachelors. They need to go some place, a place with lots of water and lots of room for them, a place where the women prefer them to the local men who are drunks and beat up their wives, ideally a place once belonging to China but stolen by a foreign aggressor – so to get it back would give them a mission. Maybe even a wife.

    There is such a place. It’s called Siberia – specifically what China called its Maritime Provinces and Russia, after it seized them in 1860, calls the Russian Far East.

    It’s only a matter of time, at most a decade or two, before Beijing converts most all of eastern Siberia into Chinese Siberia. There is simply no way a dying Russia can hold on to it. Might as well divert the Chicoms toward it and away from Taiwan and the South China Sea.

    North Korea. The Norks have no nukes. The half-kiloton yield in their tests means they failed to make weapons-grade plutonium. So they are no threat to us. They are a threat to South Korea with 11,000 artillery tubes aimed at the 17 million people of Greater Seoul. There is no need for American soldiers to be hostages to this. South Korea is a rich country with a powerful military capable of taking care of itself. We do not need to be there any longer.

    India. The world’s largest democracy is prickly, but the only country in Asia capable of standing up to China. The Chicoms are building naval bases in India’s Indian Ocean neighbors such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Burma, which they call their “String of Pearls” around India’s neck. India is countering with a growing alliance with China’s ancient neighbor enemy, Vietnam.

    The next president should build on President Bush’s initiative for military and economic ties between the US and India. That could include a joint India-US naval base in Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam on the South China Sea. The Vietnamese would welcome us. Among nations, there are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

    The Great Game of the 19th century was between the Russian and British Empires colliding in Asia. The 21st century players of this game are China and India. It’s in our interests to be on India’s side.

    Pakistan/Afghanistan. Both are make-believe countries with no legitimate rationale for sovereignty. The key problem in both is Pakistan’s “government within a government” spy agency, the ISI – Inter-Services Intelligence. It is radical, hate-America, jihadi, Islamist. It created and is in the heroin business with the Taliban.

    The first necessary condition towards any solution in this region is its dismantlement.

    The other key problem is our State Department’s anaphylactic allergy to regime and border changes. The best solution for Afghanistan would be for it to cease to exist as presently constituted. Actually, the same is true for Pakistan.

    The Baluchis of southern Afghanistan and southwest Pakistan want their own Baluchistan (they have a marvelous harbor and the biggest gold deposits in the world according to BHP Biliton). They’d be joined by the Baluchis of southeast Iran and most likely by the Sindhis of adjoining Sind in southern Pakistan with the big city of Karachi.

    The Tajiks of northern Afghanistan do not want their lives run by Pushtuns. They’d much rather secede and join Tajikistan – which wants our help to stabilize and protect it from Russia. The Pushtuns straddle the Af-Pak border. They dream of being united in a separate Pushtunistan. Pakistan’s ruling group, the Punjabis, would retain the Punjab.

    But basically, as with the Koreas, this no longer should be our problem to solve. Af-Pak should be India’s problem to solve – Pak nukes, after all, are aimed at India, not us. There is no real nation to build in Afghanistan, and our troops have no purpose dying for it. Terrorist threats are the business of the CIA and spec-ops teams, not the Marines or Army.

    Again, we need to ally with India and assist them in what is their problem, not ours, to solve.

    Iran. We recently learned that Iran’s government planned an act of war against us in our own capital. It is hard to overestimate the number of problems in the world that would be solved with this government gone. And that’s the solution: regime change. Apply a straightforward Reagan Doctrine strategy to overthrow Iran’s mullah regime by sponsoring – with money and weapons – insurrections throughout the country.

    Of Iran’s 78 million, over 20 million are ethnic Azeri – almost three times the number of Azeris in Azerbaijan next door, whom they would love to join in a Greater Azerbaijan. There are at least eight million Kurds, who would fight tooth and nail against their Tehran oppressors if we gave them support. There are three million Ahwazi Arabs who populate Iran’s oil patch, Kuhzestan, across the border from southern Iraq.

    And of course there are the Persians themselves, some 33 million, whose mass street protests have been so brutally suppressed (and which the current president did not lift a finger or say a word to support).

    A president determined to effect regime change in Iran would succeed quickly. The world’s main state sponsor of Islamic terrorism would be no more. Iraq would be free to flourish, Syria would be quickly liberated, the threat to the Saudi and Gulf oil fields would be removed, and of course, Iran’s nuclear program would be destroyed in the process (Israeli spec-ops would see to that).

    It’s a long list of positives and few if any negatives. All it needs is a president with the courage of Ronald Reagan.

    Israel. The pre-1967 demarcations our current president demands Israel return to were not borders – they were cease-fire lines where Israel was able to stop the Arab invasions after declaring its independence in 1948. The Six-Day War recaptured Israel’s legitimate territory, and that territory, including Golan and Judea-Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”) should remain so.

    The Palestinians need to be told to STFU, that they no longer will be coddled and treated like spoiled children. They will recognize the state of Israel as legitimate and Jewish, or they can move to the Sinai, where Egypt will give them a Palestinian State since the Egyptians love Palestinians so much (the dirty secret is that the rest of the Arab world despises Palestinians and calls them rafida, Arabic for the N-word). Arabs and Euroweenies who object can shove their Nazi Anti-Semitism up their noses.

    That’s the way a pro-American pro-Israel president would deal with Israel and the Arabs.

    Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (air-doh-wan) is an Islamist megalomaniac fantasizing about recreating the Ottoman Caliphate. He is constantly threatening Israel, pretending his high school navy is a match for Israel’s NFL navy. Yet he has gutted the Turkish officer corps and filled it with incompetent stooges.

    Erdogan needs a US president to explain to him that any duke-out between Turkey and Israel will result in his total humiliation, causing his overthrow and Turkey’s expulsion from NATO.

    Islam. In addition to the above re: Israel and Iran, the next president should make a clear and public distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism the political ideology masquerading as a religion. That Islamism will no longer be accorded the respect due an actual religion but treated with the contempt due any fascist ideology such as Communism or Nazism.

    The next president should draw a distinct line between all variants of Islamism, such as Wahhabis, Deobandis, Khomeini Shias, and other forms of Jihadi and Sharia Islam, with peaceful and tolerant forms of Islam such as practiced by Sufis and Ismailis. It is with the latter that the future of Islam lies.

    And for any Muslim in the US who agitates for Sharia law, he is welcome to do so – in a country that practices it, not in America. As for Islamic terrorism, its practitioners should receive a drone strike – a policy of the current president that should be continued.

    The current president has, however, utterly failed to champion the rights and religious freedom of Christians in the Moslem world. A truly American foreign policy would do so.

    Europe. It’s Old Europe, now known as the Eurozone, serving as an object lesson of the scam of the welfare state versus New Europe, the liberated former colonies of the Soviet Union who learned the hard way the evils of socialism and the virtues of capitalism.

    A new president would focus attention on the Baltics, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Croatia, and Slovenia. And he would politely educate the lands of Old Europe on welfare state socialism as a religion of envy. Ireland is already figuring this out and is recovering thereby.

    Mexico. As Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty significantly helped bring freedom to Soviet Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, the next president could institute a Radio Free Mexico (including satellite television and web sites) teaching free market and small business economics to Mexicans.

    Mexico is the land of crony corrupt corporate fascist capitalism. As a result, most Mexicans live in medieval poverty while the richest man in the world is a Mexican – Carlos Slim – whose wealth was gained with state-protected monopolies. A true free market economy would enable Mexicans to become prosperous in their own country.

    The only real solution to the US illegal alien problem is for those aliens to want to stay in or go back to their own country where they are free to prosper.

    In the meantime, the next president can use the National Guard, seriously armed, to secure our borders. And if drone strikes are so good at killing terrorists, they should be equally good at killing leaders of the Mexican drug cartels.

    America and the World. The next president’s foreign policy should be based on the opposite of the current president.

    The current president is embarrassed to be an American. The next president should be bursting with pride to be an American. The current president has a compulsion to apologize for America, a compulsion to appease those who envy America and her historically unparalleled success. The next president should feel America has nothing whatever to apologize for, and could not care less about those who envy her.

    The next president, as opposed to the current one, should have no qualms in laughing at the lunacy of Warmism, the theory of human CO2 production causing global doom. Warmism is the Fascist Left’s replacement for Marxism as a rationale for their seizure of power over our lives.

    CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas (95% of the world’s atmospheric greenhouse gases is water vapor), and our human production is a trace of that. One tenth of one percent of greenhouse gases are made by man. Humans do not cause global warming, period.

    Explaining and rejecting this removes the obstacles to the world’s most game-changing technology today – hydraulic fracturing or fracking of shale gas and shale oil deposits. Once the political shackles on this technology are removed, America will not only be fully energy independent, but a major energy exporter to the world. The crony capitalist scam of “renewable energy” will be dead -no more Solyndras, wind farm boondoggles, and ethanol subsidies.

    Oh, Russia’s energy stranglehold on Europe will disappear and Israel will be an energy exporter. Exposing the Fascist Left’s hoax of Warmism and fully utilizing fracking technology will enable America and much of the world to live in an era of cheap and abundant energy – providing the material foundation for an ever-growing widespread prosperity.

    Lastly, the next president needs to explain that America really does need to be the world’s policeman. As America apologizes and retreats from the world, the wolves emerge from the forest, from China to Iran. Only America can keep the world’s wolves at bay.

    We do not need to nation-build. We do not need our soldiers in Afghanistan. We do not need our soldiers in South Korea. We do not need our soldiers in Europe – Russian tanks (however many can still run) are not going to charge through the Fulda Gap. Once we effect regime change in Iran, we will not need our soldiers in Iraq.

    We do need a strong, well-equipped and trained military, an army, an air force, and coast guard. But what we need most of all is an immensely strong navy, along with special forces – Marines, Rangers, SEALs, Delta, et al. Without that, the world’s wolf packs run wild and unchecked.

    The American Economy and Foreign Policy. A strong America obviously requires a strong and flourishing economy. This can only be achieved by getting the government out of the way of it.

    This cannot be done by a smooth-talking sophist who believes in Warmism (thus renewable energy crony capitalist scams), and whose health care program served as the model for the abomination of Obamacare.

    This cannot be done by a Johnny One Note who can only talk about his tax reform plan that will take years to implement (if ever), and thus will do absolutely nothing to immediately revive the economy and create massive job growth.

    This cannot be done by anyone pretending his business experience can be applied to running a government. Governments and their bureaucracies are the opposite of a for-profit business and cannot be run on business principles. Governments, the federal government in particular, can only be run on Constitutional principles, which means eliminating all federal activities, programs, agencies, and departments not specifically authorized by the Constitution. (Not all at once but in an orderly manner – Rome wasn’t torn down in a day.)

    This can be done only by someone with successful executive government experience who is committed to those Constitutional restrictions, most particularly those embodied in the 10th Amendment.

    I wish that person well in the debate next Tuesday and in the months of campaigning to come. The 2012 GOP nomination campaign will be a test of endurance. It will not and mathematically cannot be won quickly.

    30 states hold their GOP primaries before April, which are by new RNC rules proportional. A candidate who wins a majority or plurality of votes in these primaries only gets his proportion of the delegates – it’s not winner-take-all. 55% of the votes, say, gets you 55% of the delegates, no more.

    Further, because they are in violation of RNC rules for insisting on ridiculously early primaries, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan will be penalized with a loss of half of their delegates. Iowa is a non-binding caucus so it’s just a PR show.

    The race will not be won until deep into April – and thus will be won by the best funded, best organized, and most determined never-give-up persistent candidate. For America’s sake, let that candidate be also the most Constitutionally principled.

    • Geez…..

      Russia’s ill-trained army of drunkards couldn’t conquer Romania.

      It is folly to assume the Russian army is incompetent.

      The Georgian Campaign … though minor.. demonstrated that the Russians could move, supply and field a viable force within 48 hours at any point on their borders.

      This is not incompetence.

      China. No wives, no water, no banks – and a hyper-dangerous military.

      This guy has a geography problem… I guess the South China Sea does not register.

      But the “no wives” … yep, very serious problem. Millions of men with no sexual outlet and no family possibilities… major major problems.

      100 million bachelors are explosively dangerous.

      Totally scary.

      The obvious Chicom choice for war would be Taiwan. But the Formosa Strait is 100 miles wide and China has no amphibious capacity.

      Then, not Taiwan — but more inland…

      This cannot stand. China must be publicly informed by the next president that the South China Sea is international waters, period, there will be no discussion or negotiation.

      Good luck with that.

      What is to be negotiated is the cooperative exploitation of what resources, such as oil, it may contain.

      The USA does not abide by this, but demand China abide by this.

      Good luck with that.

      No amount of Chicom bullying and saber-rattling will do any good. Every other country on the sea will join the US in this – and so will India and Japan.

      So the author believes that China will not risk covering the whole world with flames for merely exercising its own desires.

      Good luck with that.

      There is such a place. It’s called Siberia

      China and Russia have fought over this for 300 years.

      What was, still is, and will still be in the future.

      Both sides will place large forces there to advertise their desire.

      Neither will engage the other – for it will risk everything….for what? Snow?

      There is simply no way a dying Russia can hold on to it.

      Pure speculation.

      Certainly the Chinese can attack and win.
      Then a dozen nukes eliminate their offensive.

      Massive geopolitical reorganization at the nation-state level simply is not possible.

      Any pundit that claims otherwise is merely idiotic.

      I am bored with the rest of this missive.

      If others find a point that they feel may be valid – repost it… other than that… (snore)

      . For America’s sake, let that candidate be also the most Constitutionally principled.

      …except for this.

      And the thread of salvation …Ron Paul
      But he will not win.
      If he wins, he will not live.

      They killed Kennedy for less ….

      • Geez? That is the only word you can come up with? I wonder if this guy is on the President’s Intelligence staff….he certainly is not exhibiting very much here. He might be close on the China and no wives thingy and 100 million bachelors with nothing more to do that say hello to Su Lin and her five sisters……but wait….even that is considered a punishable offense in China……..

        Russia is indeed dying………………………..as a country. But is alive and well in its Mafia organization that pretends to be a country…..in charge of nukes. !00 billion invading Chinese will be reduced to a manageable size within 10 minutes after crossing into Russian territory.

        Taiwan is safe.

        The South China Sea, which has been in conflict with China’s claim for….oh……a zillion years is safe.

        Pakistan and Afghanistan will stay with pretend leaders and war lords despite all the intrusion by other countries.

        This author is pretty close with Mexico….it is NOT about Capitalism, however…it is about state owned and supported monopolies. Radio’s and Satellites are already controlled in Mexico……(case in point….American news media is already blocked in Mexico) Even with Sirius and Satellite TV……the communications are blocked.

        The whole scenario in the ME is being played out exactly as predicted…..Iran is a threat but not to the US. It is more of a threat to China and Russia who know how to pull Iranian strings well.


      I think he is that guy who is in the Dos Equis commercials.

      “Dr. Wheeler has had two parallel careers for many years: one in the field of adventure and exploration as the owner of Jack Wheeler Expeditions; the other in the field of political freedom and human rights as President of the Freedom Research Foundation. Regarding the first, at age 12 he was honored in the White House by President Eisenhower as the youngest Eagle Scout in the history of the Boy Scouts. He climbed the Matterhorn at age 14, swam the Hellespont (Life Magazine 12/12/60) and lived with Amazon headhunters at 16, hunted a man-eating tiger in Vietnam at 17, started an export business in Vietnam at 19, and wrote The Adventurer’s Guide (New York: McKay, 1975), described by Merv Griffin as “the definitive book for anyone wishing to lead a more adventurous and exciting life.” He has three “first contacts” with tribes never before contacted by the outside world: a clan of Aushiri Aucas in the Amazon, the Wali-ali-fo in New Guinea, and a band of Bushmen in the Kalahari. He has retraced Hannibal’s route over the Alps with elephants; led numerous expeditions in Central Asia, Tibet, Africa, and elsewhere, including 16 expeditions to the North Pole; and has been listed in The Guinness Book of World Records for the first free fall sky-dive in history at the North Pole.

      Regarding his second career, Dr. Wheeler received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Southern California, where he has lectured on Aristotelian ethics. Author of numerous articles in political philosophy and geopolitics, he began in the early ’80s a series of extensive visits to anti-Soviet guerrilla insurgencies in Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Laos, and Afghanistan, and to democracy movements in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, becoming an unofficial liaison between them and the Reagan White House. Based on this, he developed the strategy for dismantling the Soviet Empire, adopted by the White House, known as the “Reagan Doctrine.” It worked. The Freedom Research Foundation, founded by Dr. Wheeler in 1984, continues to provide information to a number of Congressional offices on issues regarding political and economic freedom throughout the world and in the United States. As Contributing Editor to Strategic Investment, one of the world’s most influential investment publications, his column “Behind The Lines” has developed an avid international following.

      Dr. Wheeler has been called the “real Indiana Jones” by the Wall St. Journal, the “creator of the Reagan Doctrine” by the Washington Post, and an “ideological gangster” by the Soviet press. He has traveled to 180 countries and all seven continents, and leads 3 to 4 expeditions a year.”

  53. Good summary of AGW

    Professor Ian Clark testifies at the Canadian Senate Hearing – December 15, 2011 – YouTube This is a very concise lecture on the true science of climate change.

  54. The SAGE quoting Joe Scarborough … Crazy Never Wins.

    But that doesn’t stop them from trying …

    Vulture Capitalists (what other kind of capitalist is there) are doomed …

    workers unite!

    • Hey Sage! Unions are killing the Twinkie!

      Hostess returns to bankruptcy over pensions

      (Reuters) – Twinkies and Wonder Bread maker Hostess Brands Inc filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time in less than three years, after failing to reach an agreement with workers on pension and health benefits.

      Hostess’ declining financial performance, crippling legacy costs associated with its pension plans and massive debt levels led the company to Chapter 11 bankruptcy, court papers showed on Wednesday.

      The company, which has about $860 million in debt, said it does not expect disruptions in the manufacturing and delivery of its products during the bankruptcy process.

      To reorganize itself, the company must withdraw from multiemployer pension plans, address legacy health and welfare costs and secure new capital to modernize its production and distribution operations, Irving, Texas-based Hostess said.

      The company had total assets of $981.6 million and liabilities of $1.43 billion as of December 10, 2011.

      Hostess said it has secured $75 million in debtor-in-possession financing from its existing lenders led by Silver Point Capital LP.

      The privately held company said it had made efforts to sell its businesses and other M&A alternatives, including reaching out to companies like Smuckers, Kraft, Blackrock, KKR and others without any success.

      Hostess, founded in 1930, operates around 36 bakeries and employs about 19,000 people, a majority of whom are members of 12 unions.

      • Legacy costs……

        Buzz words for “we are so screwed”.

      • Yes, pay them $.14 an hour, that’ll raise profits! Screw the workers … we want more profit.

        I smile every time one of yous guys rant and rave over uinions and ignore the $2.4 million an hour clowns … it’s a beautiful thing … your demise is around the corner and you cheer it on.

        Predatory capitalism … is there any other kind?

  55. New York City Councilman Daniel Halloran wants the criminal case against Ryan Jerome, a former Marine facing 15 years in prison for unknowingly violating the state’s tough gun laws, to be dismissed.

    Halloran, a Republican, told The Daily Caller that he has been in touch with Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s office, but he isn’t optimistic that the DA will let the case go.

    Jerome visited New York City in September with $15,000 worth of jewelry he intended to sell. He brought a gun, for which he has a valid Indiana concealed carry permit, after reading online gun law information which he believed indicated it was legal to do so.

    Upon asking security officers if he should check his weapon at the Empire State Building, Jerome was arrested. He now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years in prison and a maximum of 15 years behind bars. A grand jury has not yet indicted him.

    Halloran said that the case is “another unfortunate New York District Attorney fiasco.”

    “I indicated my displeasure with the charge being brought against this Marine [to Vance’s office],” said Halloran. “I’ve also asked for a list of all of the people who have been arrested on weapons charges who have valid out-of-state permits,” he added.

    Vance is an opponent of H.R. 822, a bill that passed the House of Representatives in November with broad bipartisan support. If enacted into law, the bill would make what Jerome did perfectly legal by requiring states to honor out-of-state concealed carry permits.

    Halloran is requesting a list of cases similar to Jerome’s because, he said, there have been four or five cases within the last year alone that have received press coverage. “I’ve got to imagine there are more,” he said.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/09/nyc-councilman-demands-that-manhattan-da-drop-gun-charges-against-marine/#ixzz1j9vLnyhR

    • from John Lott,

      More individuals who unintentionally ran afoul of NYC gun laws
      Here is the case of a president of a university in South Dakota.

      The president of the University of Sioux Falls spent a night in a Queens, N.Y., jail after attempting to check a bag containing an unloaded handgun onto a return flight from LaGuardia Airport.

      Mark Benedetto, 56, was detained on possession of a firearm when he declared the weapon to a Delta Airlines ticketing agent Oct. 2, his lawyer, Steven Sanford, said. He was released by a judge the next day on his own recognizance and has not been formally charged.

      Sanford said the president, who has a concealed weapons permit from Minnehaha County, thought he was following the proper procedure. He had checked the bag without complications on his flight Sept. 28 to New York. . . .

      And here is a permit holder from Indiana.

      Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.

      That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.

      The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.

      Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell.

      The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate, however, and his late September arrest initiated what may become a protracted criminal saga. He hasn’t yet been indicted by a grand jury, but there may be little legal wiggle-room if he is. . . .

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I always thought that you were charged with knowledge of the law in the jurisdiction you are in…while I agree a 3-yr sentence is extreme given these circumstances (and while I seriously doubt there will not be a plea bargain here as there was with the other cases mentioned), the law in NYC is pretty straightforward on this.

        Mistake of the law is no defense! Criminal Law 101.

        • Buck,

          What about criminal intent? In these cases where people were trying to comply with the law and reported themselves to officers, and were then arrested. Is this the message you think they should be sending? Won’t that make it more likely people will decide not to report anything to the police for fear they may be charged with something?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            What about criminal intent?

            Criminal intent goes to the action itself — in other words, not the intent to commit a crime, but the intent to carry a concealed weapon.

            As for your other point, there is a reason these cases routinely get pled down.

            • Attorney Brian Stapleton of Goldberg, Segalla, LLP said Meckler was only attempting to follow TSA rules for checking in a firearm when he was arrested.

              “While in temporary transit through the state of New York in possession of an unloaded, lawful firearm that was locked in a TSA-approved safe, he legally declared his possession of the firearm in his checked baggage at the ticket counter as required by law and in a manner approved by TSA and the airline, yet was arrested by port authority for said possession,” Stapleton said.

              Meckler was arraigned Thursday in Queens Criminal Court and charged with second degree criminal possession of a weapon, a Class C felony.

              Meckler was released Thursday. He has a court date set for Jan. 12, 2012.

              Brown said Meckler, a well-known person in the tea party movement, told authorities he keeps the pistol with him because he gets threats.

              Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/16/tea-party-patriots-leader-arrested-at-airport-for-checking-in-lawful-pistol/#ixzz1jAfOEda3

              Seems to me NY is getting more aggressive is prosecuting these cases, maybe due to their mayor’s agenda?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sure, there may be a more concerted push to prosecute due to the mayor’s (or DA’s) agenda. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a clear law on the books here. Regardless of whether or not the gun was in a TSA-approved safe, there is still a violation of the law.

                If I had a concealed carry permit, knowing full well how strict certain states and localities are, and was venturing to another state, I’d make certain my permit was recognized and valid in the other state before bringing along my gun.

              • Me-I’m just not going to be going to New York-as long as this is the way they want to treat the visitors to their city. Common sense solutions are obviously a lost art in New York. Extreme BS seems to rule. I’m not much for my fellow Americans being used and treated unfairly to make some ideological or political point. The fact that it is legal to do so-just makes it worse.

              • Buck the Wala says:


                NYC is truly one of the greatest — if not the greatest — cities in the world. If you don’t want to visit because you can’t carry a concealed weapon, then its your loss. We’ll miss you though!

                Look, you may disagree with the law, but that’s the law. I certainly wouldn’t classify it as mistreating visitors. If I were to travel to your hometown and violate a law, regardless of my personal opinion of that law, should I be allowed to continue because I am a visitor? Or should I be held accountable?

              • I didn’t say I wouldn’t visit because I can’t carry a concealed weapon-I didn’t say New York shouldn’t enforce their laws-I said they should use some common sense in how they enforce them.

  56. WONDER WHAT THIS MEANS? “Addressing pilgrims on November 5, 2011, just over two weeks after President Obama announced U.S. troops would withdrawal from Iraq, Iran’s Supreme Leader cited American “failures” in Iraq and Afghanistan as proof that, “Today, the West, the United States and Zionism are weaker than ever before.”

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went further, declaring the American retreat was not enough. “So long as the American empire based in the White House has not been overthrown, we have work to do,” he thundered.

    In the weeks since, the Islamic Republic has ratcheted up both its rhetoric and its defiance.

    Whereas Iranian authorities often harass Americans visiting family in Iran, its January 8 sentencing to death of Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine in the country to visit his grandparents, appears resolute. Hekmati is a now pawn to an Iranian desire to prove American impotence.

    OR THIS…….”Iranian defiance has been particularly shrill on the nuclear issue. Tehran dismissed as illegitimate the most recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which listed a litany of Iranian activities that appear geared more to a weapons program and less to energy production. In the wake of the report, even Chinese and Russian diplomats find it difficult to maintain the fiction that Iran’s nuclear program is motivated solely by energy needs. Generating electricity to power factories does not require designing bomb triggers.”

    OR EVEN THIS? “While Iranian authorities have threatened traffic in the Strait before, they have not done so in almost a quarter century, since President Ronald Reagan responded with force—through Operation Praying Mantis—to defend international waters in the Persian Gulf, handing the Iranian navy the worst defeat in its history.

    That Iranian officials would once against threaten a U.S. warship suggests that Tehran no longer believes the United States has the will or ability to defend its interests.

    In the wake of Operation Praying Mantis, Iranian authorities came to respect Reagan, even as they hated him. Today, with his unilateral retreat from Iraq, Iranians of all stripes realize that Obama is no Reagan.”

    PERHAPS THIS? “Not only could Iranian authorities hold the international economy hostage—the net effect of acquiescing to Iranian claims to be the gatekeeper over the Strait—but they also could threaten America’s strategic presence. In recent years, Iranian officials have revived a centuries-old territorial claim to the island nation of Bahrain, home to America’s 5th Fleet, utilizing much the same rhetoric which Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein once used to describe Kuwait.

    When April Glaspie, the American ambassador in Iraq, then signaled an unwillingness to defend Kuwait, Saddam pounced. If Iranian authorities believe the United States too weak to respond, Bahrain could face the same challenge from the other side of the Persian Gulf.

    AND FINALLY..”Diplomats may dismiss Hugo Chavez as a tragic buffoon who guided once wealthy Venezuela into poverty, but if Iranian rhetoric is to be believed, a replay of the Cuban missile crisis could be around the corner, a half century after President Kennedy stared down Soviet counterpart Nikita Khrushchev.

    Iranian bluster is bad enough. When Tehran is able to put substance behind it, American interests will truly be in peril. The question for Obama and the Republicans seeking to replace him is whether the United States can bear an Iranian challenge which will grow exponentially once Iran goes nuclear.

    • d13

      Good morning Colonel. Hope all is well in Texas this morning.

      The “international” discussion this morning causes me to raise a pointed question. I see the same rhetoric in the coverage of the Elephant’s primary race. “We need to protect American Interests”, etc, etc, etc.

      Now this hits a very patriotic chord right off the bat. And that is where it stops. Not a single journalist, interviewer, etc has asked the relevant question.

      “What EXACTLY is the American INTEREST” in each of these areas?”

      If there is in fact a need for an International Police Force, then I submit it must be a true INTERNATIONAL effort. One in which the USA contributes proportionately, not disproportionately.

      Of course, we could just let the crazies do their thing and watch them drive their nations into bankruptcy.

      One other note from watching “political talking heads” the last couple of days. I am SO SICK and TIRED of hearing about how Iran or somebody is going to put a NUKE in a shipping container and the next thing we see will be a “mushroom cloud over New York”.

      Ambassador Bolten used this day before yesterday. Anybody else here remember this rhetoric as the “excuse” to go to war in Iraq??????? Yet the SAME people are using the SAME argument still. Are they completely unaware that the American Public realizes it was fooled. It appears they are depending on the “right wing talking heads” to carry this forward as a “truth”.

      In other words, you will see this increase, especially in rebuttal to Ron Paul, and nobody will question its validity. It is an example of the “conservative” media using “confirmation bias” to manipulate the message. Something Todd raised weeks ago.

      • Howdy JAC….yep and the sad thing is……..we can take away American interest in oil simply by drilling our own reserves. Sigh.

        As to a mushroom cloud over New York…..ummmmmmm….the problem with that is what?

        • d13

          That was my thought. It is their Patriotic duty to take one for the USA. If they were mushroomed then we would know for sure and could “retaliate” with moral grounds. Seems only right the Yankees should do this for the good of the country.

          To the point. Could you enlighten me as to “what our interest is” at least the one that is “driving” our international relations.

          That is besides oil.

          If we became energy independent then what else???

          Do we need a robust Navy to protect trade routes. For whom and why??

          These are the details missing from public debate.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0–Q9_KmAY

            I think Rachael gets this one right – Energy “Independence” is a crock of bovine excrement.

            • BF

              50% maybe. I agree that the “independence” issue is silly as it is a world market.

              The issue is $ cost per unit of energy output. LOWEST COST ENERGY should be our mantra.

              Independence could be a national goal. But it seems to me that would lead you down the road of HIGHER cost energy, and perhaps energy shortages.

              However, the rest of her rant is the usual practice she has of putting up a truth then attaching numerous false associations. Notice how she stops short of telling everyone what her goal would be, and what it would cost.

            • BF

              I agree………..so back to my question..

              WHAT ARE the AMERICAN INTERESTS???

              If it is ME oil then all we need to do is get the hell out and let Exxon, et al buy it up as cheap as they can.

              One point of order, however. Any oil/gas we can develop and put on the market, WILL affect the market. It WILL assure some sources may be available if others tried to “embargo”. Now I put the odds of this at VERY low, unless we keep poking people in the nose.

            • BF…Ithink you are somewhat correct….by independence, I understand that there is no way to be 100%…but there is a way to not be in reliance.

              • There’s a lot to be said for being self sufficient when the need arrives. WWIII could start next week. Besides her case is limited to the issue of independence and ignores all the other reasons we should be using our own resources.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          For openers, I’m 14 miles out and have a kid there, that is the AF Reserve Major one.

  57. And now, for your reviewing pleasure…………..a very in depth news debate this morning reveals that Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank are among the first to start monitoring Facebook and other social media to determine credit worthiness of their customers. They monitor whom you are associated with and run credit checks on them citing that “water seeks its own level”. In an interview with a unnamed credit counselor from Wells Fargo Bank, they justified asking for social media information on loan documents saying that if a prospective customer affiliates with credit risk people…they are a credit risk themselves.

    Hoo boy………..

    • How does that argument of BF’s go? I only have to provide a single proof the theory is wrong?

      Well, I have a credit rating above 800.

      My family has ratings in the 100 to 200 range. Most of my friends are probably in the 400 range..

      So much for Bankers who think they are Psychologists.

      Which caused me to have a new idea for you there Colonel. Feel like starting up a bank?

      • @JAC…all it takes is money……..compounded interest runs 24/7. We would have to do it free of Fed interference though…..perhaps DPM could be our security. DPM and a raptor force….formidable.

  58. BF, D13, USW, etc

    You folks who have been exposed…………..Did Israel really do this? If not then what is going on with this “trend”?


    • Speculative, but….

      But Israeli officials have hinted about covert campaigns against Iran without directly admitting involvement.

      On Tuesday, Israeli military chief Lt. Gen Benny Gantz was quoted as telling a parliamentary panel that 2012 would be a “critical year” for Iran — in part because of “things that happen to it unnaturally.”

      It is possible that Mossad directly or indirectly is the operative.

    • JAC…….when I first heard about it….the first thing that popped into my mind was Mossad……having said that…..This is cold war stuff revisited. Magnetic bombs from motorcyclists and scuba divers etc.

      There are several ways to intimidate scientists….this is one of them. As to the “Who done it”? Purely speculative. Could the Mossad have done it……certainly. They are more than capable.

      Renegade Iranian with proper training? Another aspect.
      Assassination within… another aspect.

      Russians….Chinese…? There are several entities out there that do not want to see a Nuclear Iran.

      The Israelis are going to get the blame no matter who does it.

  59. WH Power: Daley departure a victory for EPA
    byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
    Follow on Twitter:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson is having a good week in White House politics, as a major obstacle to her regulatory powers resigned as President Obama’s chief of staff, and then the president held an EPA pep rally the next day assuring Jackson of his commitment to her agenda.

    Bill Daley, Obama’s outgoing chief of staff, temporarily canned EPA coal emissions regulations in 2010 because of they would damage the economy. “What are the health impacts of unemployment?” he said while arguing against the Utility MACT rule.

    Jackson considered resigning when her new regulations were trumped by Daley’s concerns about their potential to destroy jobs. A former EPA administrator, Carol Browner, had already resigned as a White House environmental policy adviser before Daley eliminated her position.

    Daley apparently lost the internecine conflict over the new regulation in December, when Jackson announced the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) at a children’s hospital in December, despite growing opposition from Republicans and reports that the EPA hid the damage that the new rule could inflict on the electric grid.

    Three weeks later — Monday, January 9th — President Obama announced Daley’s resignation, a decision that caught Obama by surprise. The Washington Examiner asked the White House Press Office if Daley’s resignation was motivated at all by the EPA regulations, but has not heard back.

    “I think this is a case where it’s important and accurate to take at face value what Bill said, Bill Daley said in his letter of resignation to the President, and what the President said yesterday in announcing this transition,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in the press briefing yesterday. Carney said that that Daley is leaving because he wants to return home to Chicago after a stint in such a demanding job as the chief of staff.

    Obama announced Daley’s resignation, then went the next day to the EPA office to thank the regulators for their work. “I want to first acknowledge your outstanding Administrator, Lisa Jackson,” President Obama told the EPA staff. Speaking to the whole office, he added: “I want you to know that you’ve got a President who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we’ve got a cleaner world.”


  60. January 11, 2012 4:00 A.M.
    Obama’s Postmodern Vision
    Will we have another four years of his selective reading of the law?

    By Victor Davis Hanson

    There has been for months a popular parlor game of tallying instances in which President Obama seems to have either ignored or simply bypassed federal law. But what started out as a way of exposing occasional hypocrisy is now getting a little scary.

    Most recently, President Obama made several recess appointments — a tactic that as a senator he once criticized — even though Congress was not in recess. In December, the president signed a $1 billion omnibus spending bill, but notified Congress that he might not abide by some of the very provisions he had just signed into law. During the Libya war, Obama felt that bombing Qaddafi’s forces did not really constitute military operations, and therefore he had no need to notify Congress under the War Powers Act.

    It is clear that Arizona is not trying to circumvent federal immigration law, but rather is desperately trying to find some way to enforce it, given that the Obama administration has selectively chosen not to do so. In response, the federal government is suing the state of Arizona, even as it assures illegal aliens that they will not be arrested if they have not committed a crime — as if Obama can by himself decide that illegally entering and residing in the United States is not a federal crime in the first place.

    President Obama argued that it was constitutional to force citizens to purchase federalized health care, and that all Americans would be subject to his new health-care law — except some 2,000 businesses and organizations that were given politically driven waivers. Obama decided to reverse the legal order of creditors in the bailout of a bankrupt Chrysler Corporation in favor of more politically suitable constituencies. The administration does not like the Defense of Marriage Act, and therefore announced that it won’t enforce it. When a federal judge struck down an Obama- administration ban on new leases for gas and oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama for a time ignored the injunction. When a BP oil leak in the Gulf outraged America, the president met with company executives and announced that they had agreed to set up a $20 billion “fund” to pay for imminent damage claims — as if our chief executive now meets with culpable private businesses to assess what he thinks they should pony up to avoid federal retaliation.

    Every administration, of course, has constitutional disputes with Congress, the courts, and the public over the exact limits of its power. But in the case of the Obama administration there is a new sort of lawlessness unseen in recent governments. Is that predictable or surprising, given Obama’s own constant references to himself as a former constitutional scholar and community organizer?

    Both as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator, Obama blasted as unconstitutional or abuses of presidential power almost all of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — Guantanamo, renditions, military tribunals, preventive detention, the Patriot Act — which as president he later embraced or expanded. Apparently, Obama’s own status as an out-of-power senator or an in-power president, and the degree to which such issues were or were not politically useful to his larger agenda, alone determined whether something like renditions or military tribunals was lawful.

    Other than the normal explanations of abject hypocrisy and political expediency, why has the Obama administration shown such a disdain for the integrity of the law? In a word, Obama is a postmodernist. That is a trendy word for someone who leaves academia believing that there are not really absolute facts, but merely competing ideas and discourses. In this view, particular ideologies unfortunately gain credibility as establishment icons only from the relative advantage that arises from race, class, and gender biases.

    In postmodern jurisprudence, “critical legal theory” postulates that law and politics are inseparable. Those with power call their self-serving rules “the law.” But “laws” are not sacrosanct. Instead, they are mere embedded reflections of wealthy, white, and male privilege — dressed up in some bogus timeless concept of “justice.”

    A few critical and progressive minds among the legal technocracy have the ability to spot these fictions. And thus a Barack Obama or an Eric Holder has a duty on our behalf to use his training to make the necessary corrections, even if the rest of us don’t quite fathom what is going on. Federal voting-rights laws, for example, do not mean ensuring that no one intimidates voters. Hardly. They are instead fluid and relative, properly focusing only on those who are not now intimidating voters but whose ancestors might have, while exempting those who now are but whose ancestors might have been intimidated.

    Whether Congress is, or is not, in recess, or whether wealthy bondholders should be paid back before working-class union pensioners, or whether some company should or should not be allowed to drill in the Gulf — these and others are moral and political, but not necessarily legal, issues. To the degree that he can, on any given challenge Obama assesses the politics of favoring his constituency of the “poor” and “middle class,” and then uses the necessary legal gymnastics post facto to offer the veneer of lawfulness.

    If someone is breaking a federal “law” by entering Arizona illegally from Mexico, there must be a way to make the enforcer of that “law” the real suspect — given that a Sheriff Joe Arpaio is by allegiance of the privileged 1 percent and those whom he arrests most surely are not. Consumers are deemed to need federal help more than do lenders; accordingly, Congress “really” is now in recess. In other words, we are witnessing with this administration the ancient idea of the supposedly exalted ends justifying the somewhat ambiguous means — albeit dressed up in trendy Ivy League legalese and progressive moralizing.

    Our postmodern president is not content with just picking and choosing which laws he will follow in advancing his social agenda. The war against the myth of disinterested Western jurisprudence extends also to free-market economics, as we see with the monotonous demonization of the so-called 1 percent and those who make over $200,000 per year. Sometime after January 2009, we learned that the “wealthy” did not gain their riches by a wide variety of what we once thought were legitimate means — luck, inheritance, work, health, intelligence, expertise, experience, education, or an overriding desire for money and status, coupled with an avoidance of classical sins like sloth, crime, and drunkenness.

    Rather, we were taught that there was something else going on, something innately unfair in the manner in which we are arbitrarily compensated. In some sense, we are back to the old notion of a labor theory of value (e.g., an hour of working at Starbucks is inherently no less valuable to our society in terms of how much the worker should be paid than an hour crafting a deal at Goldman Sachs). The role, then, of government is not to ensure an equality of opportunity — which is impossible, given inherent and unending race, class, and gender exploitations — but to strive for an equality of result.

    That utopian task demands that the best and the brightest in government redistribute capital, or rather use the state to make right what the private sector has distorted. (Of course, no one dares to suggest that Obama himself is cynically interested mostly in power and the delights thereof — and so as a postmodernist he simply constructs these egalitarian stage-sets as a means to enjoy the privileges of the technocratic class that he surrounds himself with.)

    Tally up Obama’s early and recent unrehearsed and unguarded quips about wealth — “Spread the wealth”; his regrets that the Supreme Court has not addressed “redistributive change”; his concern that some have not realized that they already have made “enough” money; his warnings that now is not the time for “profit.” That serial message bookends the president’s slurs about millionaires and billionaires, corporate-jet owners, fat-cats, profit-driven doctors, and Vegas and Super Bowl junketeers.

    All this unscripted editorializing reflects a recurring theme: Those with superior intelligence and higher moral authority must correct for warped private-sector compensation and human greed. And they can do that by deciding roughly how much each of us deserves to end up with.

    In concrete terms, this pop socialism leads Obama to wish to enact more regulations, higher taxes on fewer taxpayers, and more on entitlements. Larger government can absorb health care and also many private-sector companies, as more federal and state workers likewise can even out the playing field. Near-zero interest rates, and renegotiating mortgage or student loans, along with higher deficits, more national debt, and expansionary monetary policy are likewise means to correct the inherent imbalances of the system and counter the greed of a few among us.

    It does not matter that much whether, in the attempt to do all that, the better-off must be demonized with crude sloganeering. It does not matter that the poor must be caricatured as Steinbeck’s Joads, starving and poorly clothed, lacking iPhones, $200 sneakers, and big-screen TVs. It does not matter that 20th-century phenomena like National Socialism, Communism, and the European Union — and any other crackpot effort of a self-anointed elite to redistribute wealth and expand the state under the banner either of nationalism, or the global proletariat, or enlightened world citizens — have led only to poverty and chaos, at least for those outside the small exempt managerial class that implements, profits from, and often survives the ensuing disaster.

    What makes Barack Obama a different president is not his racial heritage, his liberal outlook, or his mellifluous cadences, but rather the banal idea that the United States is fundamentally in need of this sort of radical change, and that only a select few like himself have the insight and skills necessary to both implement and preside over it. We simply have not seen that redistributive ideology in a president since Jimmy Carter, and then only in part. So far the biggest edge for Obama is his inability to push more of his agenda through first a friendly and now a not-so-friendly Congress — as if to say, “How could I be a redistributionist when they did not let me redistribute as planned?”

    The fulfillment of that old vision of mandated equality of result is what the 2012 election is about — nothing more, nothing less.


  61. Mathius™ says:
    • Mathius

      I agree with West.

      Funny how all the lefty comments following the article fail to recognize that he said this meant “stepping down”. He was not proposing a Coup or Sedition.

      I also find their responses funny in light of their argument that Generals should have spoke out against going to Iraq. What was that General’s name who ran for President? You know, the hero of the left for calling B.S. on Bush.

      • This takes great courage. To step down is to be fired and lose pension rights. However, there are plenty of other ways to do disagree with the CIC and be totally within legal, moral , and ethical bounds. BUT…..speaking from experience, you better be prepared for the political consequence. IF you do not toe the political line….you will never be a general.

  62. @ Bama Dad…..is the game over? Who won?

  63. January 11, 2012
    VIDEO: NH poll workers shown handing out ballots in dead peoples’ names
    Published: 1:15 PM 01/11/2012 | Updated: 2:15 PM 01/11/2012

    By Alex Pappas – The Daily Caller
    Bio | Archive | Email Alex Pappas
    Follow Alex Pappas Get Alex Pappas Feed
    Ads by Google

    MANCHESTER, N.H. — Video footage provided exclusively to The Daily Caller shows election workers in New Hampshire giving out ballots in the names of dead voters at multiple voting precincts during the state’s primary election on Tuesday.

    The bombshell video is the work of conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas.

    Voters in the Granite State are not required to present identification to vote. O’Keefe’s investigators were able to obtain ballots under the names of dead voters at polling locations Tuesday by simply asking for them, he said.

    “Live free or die,” an election worker told one of the investigators in the video. “This is New Hampshire. No ID needed.”


    In an interview with TheDC on Wednesday, O’Keefe said the exposé shows how voter fraud can be easier to perpetrate when identification isn’t required.

    “There is fraud going on and our goal is to visualize it for people,” he said. (RELATED: Complete election coverage on The Daily Caller)

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/#ixzz1jBIXZlun

      • Ray Hawkins says:


        “O’Keefe said the exposé shows how voter fraud can be easier to perpetrate when identification isn’t required”

        – I agree – he has shown how outrageously easy this is where ID is not required.

        “There is fraud going on and our goal is to visualize it for people”

        – I don’t entirely agree with this – there may be some fraud going on – but his expose has not proven that. I’d much prefer a study of the actual data versus what he has hypothetically shown. Then we can prioritize whether this is a problem or not and to what extent.

        However……just wondering……is it really that hard to get some form of identification? Do you need ID for welfare benefits?

        • Hey Ray-How are those babies doing?-keeping you busy I see. 🙂

          I don’t know how hard it is to get false identification-but it is an additional step of illegality-which should make getting caught-a bigger deal and a lot easier to prove-which also in my mind would involve more of a group effort to accomplish. Which would be more likely to discourage an individual attempt to vote illegally and make the likelihood of catching the group when an individual is caught more likely.

          I did read an article recently that said one needed an ID to purchase drain cleaner! And no this didn’t prove illegal voting was going on- just that it would be so easy-it probably is-as far as data-somehow data never seems to convince everyone of anything.

    • I like how the article says that only one guy was caught when the pollster (is that what you call them) knew who the dead person was and the incident was in the Boston Herald


      • Well, it’s the only one they were aware of-like the woman said how is she supposed to know if they are dead or not 🙂 I found her having so much confidence in their system and then saying the list must not have been updated for (at least) 10days rather sad.

        • I can see the 10 days but going on memory from seeing it yesterday weren’t some of them in October? And they guy interviewed at the end the “NH Ward Moderator” saying that it shouldnt be more then 4 days and it is continuously updated.

          • Yes, your right about all that-I was just pointing out that even with the limited information given in the article, the woman’s belief in the system was proven to be unfounded.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’d be curious to find out whether criminal charges are going to be brought against O’Keefe and his minions for violation of election laws….

      After all, it is a federal crime to seek to obtain a ballot that you (the prospective voter) knows to be false or fraudulent…

      • HeeHee..I knew it 🙂

        I read the same thing yesterday and I was waiting for this very comment to come from none other than our Buck the Wala.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Am I really that predictible?

          • Pretty much 🙂

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Well, in your opinion, should criminal charges be brought against an individual who violates federal election law?


              • I’m sure to catch flak for this but I’ve said before there need to be laws. For every law there will be cheaters..deal with things on a case by case basis. In this case you have to fight fire with fire. So fire away! 🙂

              • I’m also watching the Indiana 2008 primary fake signatures for Obama case. Voter fraud all around apparently. Who would’ve thought it possible?

      • Buck you say “it is a federal crime to seek to obtain a ballot that you (the prospective voter) knows to be false or fraudulent”

        But, in the provided article it says (assuming all the videos show this)
        team members never claimed to be the dead people whose ballots they were trying to obtain. Instead, they carefully worded the way they asked for ballots, phrasing it like: “Do you have Earnest Chavanelle?” and “Do you have Paul Soucy?”

        So to me would it come down to them trying to vote which they didn’t because they returned the ballot and left.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Tomato, tomahto. The fact is they asked for ballots for deceased individuals.

          Now, you do raise an interesting point about intent — is it a crime to ASK for such a ballot or is it a crime to ask with INTENT TO VOTE using that ballot? I’d have to see the language of the federal law itself.

          • Buck

            Do you realize that the same argument raised by Naten was used by the left to defend Acorn in its voter fraud issues?

            So what if Mickey Mouse was on the list. He didn’t actually vote.

            Part of the potential violations are:

            1. Recording a Polling Official without their permission.
            2. Crossing state lines to film the event (felony).

            Trying to get ballots with false Identity is one thing, but these other two are flat out repulsive.

          • O’Keefe told TheDC that the operation was done to bring attention to fraud since the state does not require identification to vote. Law enforcement seems to be watching.

            “That investigation is ongoing,” New Hampshire associate attorney General Richard Head told The New Hampshire Union-Leader. “Based on the information received on Election Day and the information on the video, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of voting procedures with the Secretary of State.”

            O’Keefe said his operatives didn’t break the law and didn’t vote even when they successfully obtained ballots.

            New Hampshire assistant attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge did not immediately return TheDC’s request for comment for more details on this investigation.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/okeefe-video-prompts-probe-by-new-hampshire-attorney-general/#ixzz1jGfuIVJ8


            If you pick up something in a store, you aren’t guilty of shoplifting until you leave the store without paying. It would be hard to prove identity theft since they did not ever say they were the dead person.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Bad analogy.

              Walking around a store with an item is not the crime; the crime with shoplifting is leaving the store without paying for the time.

              In this context however, the crime is the procurement of the ballot itself. So yes, there is arguably a violation of the federal law here. I don’t think it matters whether or not they explicitly asked for the ballot; they attempted to procure (and in certain cases did procure) a ballot which they knew to be false.

              • Need to take a lesson from the dems on how to do it and get away with it.

              • gmanfortruth says:


                Nobody is actually getting elected! It’s a Republican primary that means nothing. No public office will be held as a result. So how are ant “election” laws being violated? Noone is actually being elected! 🙂

      • SK Trynosky sr. says:

        Isn’t that “catch 22”? The only way to determine if a crime can be committed is by committing a crime?

        I somehow think that this is the splitting of hairs or asking the number of angels on that pin head. If you only asked if John Jones was in the book then there is no way of knowing if they would have processed a request for someone using his name to vote. By not asking if the name were in the book but rather merely stating John Jones and letting the poll worker incorrectly deduce that you are seeking a ballot as that person to vote, you are able to determine that a crime could be committed. In no case that I saw, did anyone claim to be the person.

        If what was done is determined to be a criminal offense, then the rationale behind that determination is suspect as being political and designed as to prevent there being an actual way to estimate potential voter fraud. If so, then by using the rules of logic, there is no fraud, which I think is what Eric Holder has been telling us all along…. Excuse me I am late for a tea party down the rabbit hole.

  64. Very interesting note…….. MR Holder was recently in Texas to talk about the discriminatory practice of requiring id’s to vote….since Texas does this. He ranted and he raved how discriminatory this practice was and how it alienated the minority from voting……..all the while requiring picture Identification to get in to hear him speak.

  65. @ BF……” LOWEST COST ENERGY should be our mantra And that is ME oil….

    Don’t know that I can agree with this. Our family is in the oil and gas business…we are pulling it our of the ground at 35-61 ppb right now on oil…there is so much natural gas right now the price is not worth it to sell it.

    • D13

      Oilfields Estimated Production
      /source Costs ($ 2008)
      Mideast/N.Africa oilfields 6 – 28
      Other conventional oilfields 6 – 39
      CO2 enhanced oil recovery 30 – 80
      Deep/ultra-deep-water oilfields 32 – 65
      Enhanced oil recovery 32 – 82
      Arctic oilfields 32 – 100
      Heavy oil/bitumen 32 – 68
      Oil shales 52 – 113
      Gas to liquids 38 – 113
      Coal to liquids 60 – 113

      Source: International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook

      • Then add transportation and all the other aspects for bringing it around the world and all the other aspects of it. I will look at your source but there is a lot left out of it however, I will ask my brother. He is the geologist in the family. He has all the relevant numbers at his finger tips. If this source is saying that there is 6-28 dollar oil….I will have to see the proof of this….I seriously doubt that this is the final cost of pumping.

    • I’m with you D, and cheapest energy, isn’t that coal? If we take a look at total energy that is know to be there, that changes the picture. It also needs to be used to point out where the government is making that resource off-limits. I posted above (Life of Illusion says:
      January 10, 2012 at 11:05 am ) Obama’s war on energy where they are stopping uranium mining. This will make nuclear power more expensive. I think it’s a presidential order from Carter that still prohibits us from reprocessing nuclear fuel as France does. How cheap could our energy be if we could get the government out of the way????

      • The irony of the green program is stark…..so let us do away with fossil fuels and go electric….but electric is powered by coal.

        • Add to that, if NG is so cheap and plentiful, use it instead of gasoline. It doesn’t have as much energy as gasoline, but is comparable and cleaner. And best of all, it would be decided by market forces, not government force!

    January 11, 2012

    Earlier this week, Mitt Romney got into trouble for saying, “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.” To comprehend why the political class reacted as if Romney had just praised Hitler, you must understand that his critics live in a world in which no one can ever be fired — a world known as “the government.”

    (And a tip for you Washington types: Just because a person became rich without working for government doesn’t mean he is “Wall Street.” A venture capital firm in Boston that tries to rescue businesses headed for bankruptcy, for example, is not “Wall Street.”)

    Romney’s statement about being able to fire people was an arrow directed straight to the heart of Obamacare. (By the way, arrows to the heart are not covered by Obamacare.)

    Talking about insurance providers, he said:

    “I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

    Obamacare, you will recall, will be administered by the same people who run the Department of Motor Vehicles. They will operate under the same self-paced, self-evaluated work rules that have made government offices the envy of efficiency specialists everywhere.

    And no one will be able to fire them — unless they’re caught doing something truly vile and criminal, such as stealing from patients in nursing homes.

    Oops, I take that back: Government employees who rob the elderly also can’t be fired.

    The Los Angeles Times recently reported that, after a spate of burglaries at a veterans hospital in California several years ago, authorities set up video cameras to catch the perpetrators. In short order, nurse’s aide Linda Riccitelli was videotaped sneaking into the room of 93-year-old Raymond Germain as he slept, sticking her hand into his dresser drawer and stealing the bait money that had been left there.

    Riccitelli was fired and a burglary prosecution initiated. A few years later, the California Personnel Board rescinded her firing and awarded her three-years back pay. The board dismissed the videotape of Riccitelli stealing the money as “circumstantial.” (The criminal prosecution was also dropped after Germain died.)

    But surely we’ll be able to fire a government employee who commits a physical assault on a mentally disturbed patient? No, wrong again.

    Psychiatric technician Gregory Powell was working at a government center for the mentally retarded when he hit a severely disturbed individual with a shoe so hard that the impression of the shoe’s sole was visible on the victim three hours later. A psychologist who witnessed the attack said the patient was cowering on the couch before being struck.

    Powell was fired, but, again, the California Personnel Board ordered him rehired.

    Now, let’s turn to New York City and look for any clues about why it might be the highest-taxed city in the nation.

    For years, the New York City school budget included $35 million to $65 million a year to place hundreds of teachers in “rubber rooms,” after they had committed such serious offenses that they were barred from classrooms. Teachers accused of raping students sat in rooms doing no work all day, still collecting government paychecks because they couldn’t be fired.

    After an uproar over the rubber rooms a few years ago, Michael Bloomberg got rid of the rooms. But the teachers still can’t be fired.

    Wherever there is government, there is malfeasance and criminality — and government employees who can never be fired.

    In 2010, 33 employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission — half making $100,000 to $200,000 per year — were found to have spent most of their workdays downloading Internet pornography over a five-year period. (Thank goodness there were no financial shenanigans going on then, so the SEC guys had plenty of time on their hands.)

    One, a senior lawyer at SEC headquarters in Washington, D.C., admitted to spending eight hours a day looking at Internet pornography, sometimes even “working” through his lunch hour. Another admitted watching up to five hours a day of pornography in his office. (Would that Bernie Madoff had posted naked photos of himself online!)

    Not one of the porn-surfing employees of the SEC was fired.

    In 2009, the inspector general of the National Science Foundation was forced to abandon an investigation of grant fraud when he stumbled across dozens of NSF employees, including senior management, surfing pornographic websites on government computers during working hours.

    A senior official who had spent 331 workdays talking to fully or partially nude women online was allowed to resign (but was not fired). I hope they gave him his computer as a parting gift.

    The others kept their jobs — including an NSF employee who had downloaded hundreds of pornographic videos and pictures and even developed pornographic PowerPoint slide shows. (And you thought PowerPoint presentations were always boring.)

    They weren’t fired or even embarrassed. One appealed his 10-day suspension, complaining that it was too severe. The government refused to release any of their names.

    These are the people who are going to be controlling your access to medical services if Obamacare isn’t repealed. There will be only one insurance provider, and you won’t be able to switch, even if the service is lousy (and it will be).

    Obamacare employees will spend their days surfing pornography, instead of approving your heart operation. They can steal from you and even physically assault you. And they can never be fired.

    That’s one gargantuan difference with “Romneycare” right there: If you don’t like what your insurer is doing in Massachusetts, you can get a new one.

    Now, wouldn’t you like to be able to fire people who provide services to you?


    And If we want to talk about someone who has caused people to lose their jobs-Obama, environmentalists, Obama, progressives, Obama.

  67. Pepsi suffers $3.1 million shakedown for ‘discriminatory’ hiring policies
    David Paulin

    Pepsi Beverages Co. has agreed to a $3.1 million settlement to end federal charges of racial discrimination over its hiring practices – but this wasn’t the sort of discrimination that once existed in the Jim Crow South. Pepsi was guilty of racial discrimination as defined by government bullies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Increasingly, the EEOC has used the battering ram of discrimination, as it loosely defines it, to promote “diversity” at all cost. And no matter if this means sacrificing the concept of meritocracy (critical to free-markets and democracy) for the sake of their ideological agenda.

    So what was Pepsi’s sin as defined by EEOC bureaucrats and their liberal cheerleaders? Pepsi had administered the same pre-employment screening to all job applicants regardless of their race, color, or creed. Specifically, Pepsi used criminal background checks to screen job seekers — something it presumably did to measure the content of every job applicant’s character. Applicants with arrest records (though not necessarily convictions) were disqualified, and Pepsi also turned away applicants convicted of minor offenses.

    The trouble was is that the background checks were, according to the EEOC, disqualifying higher numbers of blacks than whites because – well – more blacks applying to Pepsi had higher numbers of arrests! Or as the Associated Press noted in an article: the EEOC said Pepsi’s discriminatory background checks “can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.”

    In a statement, the EEOC was practically gloating over Pepsi’s settlement:

    “The EEOC’s investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi’s former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense.

    “Pepsi’s former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity.”

    Pepsi, after being dragged through the EEOC’s rabbit hole, agreed to make amends with new hiring policies more sensitive to minorities. Even so, Pepsi spokesman Dave DeCecco told the AP that Pepsi’s old hiring policy had been neutral, and that the EEOC had in fact not found any intentional discrimination.

    “We are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion and we have been widely recognized for our efforts for decades,” he was quoted as saying. To be sure, Pepsi will still look at job seekers criminal histories, but a more “individualized approach” will now be taken — one that considers criminal histories within the context of the job being sought.

    As part of the settlement, the more than 300 black applicants who were turned down for employment will get suitable job offers and split up most of the $3.1 million. Pepsi also “will provide the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices and offer anti-discrimination training to its hiring personnel and managers,” according to the AP.

    Pamela Devata, a Chicago employment lawyer, told the wire service that the EEOC has stepped up complaints about background checks over the past year. “The EEOC has taken a very aggressive enforcement posture on the use of criminal background and criminal history,” she was quoted as saying.

    Under the Obama administration, the EEOC’s Pepsi shakedown is apparently nothing new. The AP noted that the settlement, which was announced on Wednesday, “is part of a national government crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics.”

    Alice-in-Wonderland indeed. Or perhaps the better term is Obama-in-Wonderland.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/pepsi_suffers_31_million_shakedown_for_discriminatory_hiring_policies.html#ixzz1jFfhz4Jb

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I guess we file this one under WTF? Sadly, this sets precedent for other EEOC offices to lean on as an administrative judgment. The hiring process is by definition a discriminatory process. I was under the impression that most companies do deny employment to you (regardless of race) if a criminal background check reveals you were (a) convicted of a crime, misdemeanor or felony, (shows lack of judgment, tendency to repeat more of the same, etc) or (b) have been arrested for a crime (higher risk for committing crime, may result in higher HR costs if convicted and must then be discharged). I would have though that if the policy is applied at least consistently then why the hell is it Pepsi’s fault that more “minorities” applied for said jobs that white people?

      Hell – used to be that somewhere in that top ten list of “Reasons not to commit a crime” was something like…….”may make you unemployable”.


      • Agree! Add to that, do we want Pepsi to hire convicted rapists or child molesters to deliver their products to convenience stores, schools, etc? Places where they can use their access to plan crimes?

    • Are you kidding me? Every day you think you’ve heard it all and then you hear more crap.

    • I can speak from personal experience about dealing with the EEOC. The Company I work for got audited by them last year because we were COMPLYING with requirements placed on us by FHWC (Federal Highway) and ALDOT (State Hwy. Department). FHWA and ALDT came out last year and required us to pay all employees in “x” classification “z” salary. In our Alabama division we had some employees that did not meet that requirement; in fact we had 3 in Birmingham that did not meet the requirements on my staff. To solve the conflict state wide, at the direction of FHWA and ALDOT, we increased all those below the required salary line to the minimum salary for “x” classification. This made some folks get more of a raise than others and EEOC jumped all over that. It took us 6 months worth of interviews and several hundred thousand dollars of legal fees to get clear of this. When dealing with government the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

  68. Shout out for Greg Hunter at http://usawatchdog.com/greg-hunter-on-infowars-nightly-news/#more-6721. I’ve been following him for a couple years now. Straight talk..just the facts. Lots of good links..commenters are civil and informed.

  69. Thought of the Day

    Re: Contradictions that erode Liberty

    D13’s post regarding the Texas DUI laws is partly responsible for this post. Although I had been thinking of the matter due to some “local” efforts that are similar. Then it struck me that the same “moral” or “ethical” principles that allow us to say that we should “criminalize” a behavior that has NOT harmed anyone based on “What might happen” is the same ethic/moral principle that underlies other issues.

    Lets take the Conservative Republican view on Iran and Nukes. “We can’t let them have nukes” cries Santorum and his flock of chirping Myna bird cousins. Why? Because they “might” threaten us. They “might” use them.

    Why should driving while intoxicated be a criminal offense with mandatory prison time? They “might” have an accident that kills someone. Of course the rational application of “odds/statistics and cost/benefit” don’t apply to this issue, But are rolled out for others. The big point, however, is the “standard” that supports this. “MIGHT”, “COULD”, and their various forms.

    But these same “Conservatives” will cry foul when their lefty brothers try to reduce Gun Ownership or restrict the type of guns owned because too many guns “Might” result in more deaths. Those guns “Could” be stolen or used by a crazy person.

    As for the Texas proposal, I find it repugnant. I find all such laws repugnant. Just what we need, more non-violent criminals in prison living at tax payer expense. Of course, I guess there is an up side to this. Eventually these laws will STAMP OUT bad behavior and we won’t need police anymore. Right???

    • JAC,

      I don’t think DUI should be a crime, nor texting or using your phone while driving. I think if you have an accident while under the influence should be weighed against you. Run into someone while texting, it becomes manslaughter if they die. Same for drinking, drugs, etc. unless you can prove someone forced you to get drunk.

      Iran on nuke’s, it’s just a matter of time. N. Korea hasn’t used one yet, nor Pakistan. Someone will, someday. And then we or the injured country makes them into a parking lot.
      And maybe if we stop acting like the worlds policeman, the other countries will step up and take care of their own problems. It doesn’t have to be our problem to resolve.

    • @ JAC…….If DUI or DWI is the leading cause of fatalities, and you have repeat offenders doing this…….what would you do? I do not necessarily like this….but what would you do? Solve the problem for me. Just leave it alone and accept the fact that there are going to be drunk drivers? Eliminate alcohol? Revoking a driver’s license clearly has not worked. Sue them? That clearly has not worked. What do you do? It is a major problem here. It is the leading cause of fatalities over guns, drugs, gangs, etc. The only things that beat it are health related heart diseases.

      I do not know the answer myself but would support something. When my liberty become threatened because of this…..who takes precedence?

      • D13,

        @ JAC…….If DUI or DWI is the leading cause of fatalities

        This claim is completely untrue and false

        Sober drivers kill twice as many!

        It is the constant repetition of this DUI stuff that makes this issue so confused, and why after all the massive enforcement, highway deaths and accidents do not go down.

        • I did say IF and I would suggest you look at this link related to fatalities in Texas. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-texas.html

          But either way…how would you combat this….leave it alone?

          • D13,


            What is the problem?
            0% BAC drivers are the problem.

            So how do you deal with that?
            Advanced Driving Training

            Advance Driving Training will also improve the >0% BAC drivers too, and will more likely lower the number of those drivers as education and understanding is the best method to change behavior.

            • Ok…let me take your advice…..>Advanced Driver Training……….If I am not mistaken, you are against the driver;s license…..so HOW do you MAKE someone go to advanced training sans a law to do so OR some mechanism to force this issue?

              • D13,

                No, that is not my position.

                My position is that government should not “own” the roads because -as you highlight here- is horrifically mismanages them.

                My position is that highways should be privately owned – and whatever the owner requires for a person to use his property is his own decision

                NASCAR is privately owned, but you cannot drive there. You need to qualify before they let you drive there. This is EXACTLY how the highways should be managed.

                Right now, it is nearly impossible NOT to get a license to drive.

                Again, review the info from the NHTSA, you will find that the biggest problem – and where the deaths and injuries balloon is based on AGE – the 16 to 25 year old … once past that age, the number drops significantly.

                This demonstrates SKILL and EXPERIENCE. But we force our young drivers to learn this by trial and error and that is the result, lots of errors and lots of pain.

      • http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811401.pdf

        62% of fatalities are caused by those with 0% BAC

        • Maybe…but Texas was ranked number one for many years in DWI deaths….so combat it. How would you do it? How would “natural law” handle this?

          • D13,

            It also led in the number of 0% BAC deaths too…. so how do you combat that?
            Driver Training.

            That’s the problem … DUI stats are essentially meaningless for they are used to describe a situation that has nothing to do with the situation – the claim “DUI = highway death” cannot be supported.

          • Property rights.

            For you to come to a shooting range, you need to qualify.
            For you to drive at NASCAR, you need to qualify.

            All of this is enforced by Property Rights – I get to determine who and who will not enter my property.

            • Heck, I race at a look go-cart track where these little guys move right along at nearly 70mph… with my butt 3in off the ground.

              They require more DRIVING qualifications then to get a drivers license.

              And they mod the engine that for the first while, you get a 1/2 powered car, until you show you can handle more performance….

              Ya think this should be easy for the public road? But, no. A brat 16 year old can get his license and go jump into a 600hp Mustang …..

      • D13

        The non alcohol related accidents are 53% of the total. The problem with “alcohol related” is that this has NOTHING to do with impairment. Even the 0.08 number is bogus and driven by MAAD. The statistics are driven by the politics and thus meaningful conclusions rarely possible. For example, the last time I dug into this I found that “excessive” speed was indicated as well in many of the “alcohol related”. Speed kills, whether drinking or not.

        First of all, a DUI or DWI requires a police man to witness the driver. So once pulled over the issue is addressed. RECKLESS driver is removed.

        Take keys and tow car to lot. Send person home in cab. To get car back they must pay towing charge, storage fee and cab fare. But NO, NONE, NADA financial incentive for the police to start declaring folks as RECKLESS. Just reimburse the costs.

        Each incidence of drunk driving is a separate incident. Prior offenses are irrelevant. Are you RECKLESS right now is the question. If so, you do not drive any farther.

        This applies to RECKLESS DRIVING, which is the cause of the accidents. It applies to ALL reckless driving.

        Repeat offenders can only be stopped, well the only real chance of stopping them, is via treatment for alcoholism. NOT PRISON. Although I might support “mandatory” stay at Betty Ford for those really bad cases.

        I also concur with BF that better driving training and skill requirements should be enforced. The State can do this under the same premise. Better drivers have less accidents, even when drunk.

        We need to find a way to address this that eliminates this arbitrary conclusion of guilt based on a “number” set by Govt, driven by politics, that may or may not be relevant to the individual case at hand.

        I do support the public service stuff and education with the High School driver education as well. Perhaps a little time at the ER on Friday night would help?????

        I bet if we simply change the mind set we can find many more ways to deal with the issue than criminalizing behavior that doesn’t actually cause harm.

        • JAC…..I get it…..I understand your approach and BF’s approach. I agree that speed kills. I understand that using terms alcohol related and I understand about MADD (which I have never agreed with). I understand all of that but it is the end result that I am finding puzzling. BOTH of you are still saying to use some type of “force” when both of you advocate no force.

          Whether you put someone in jail or send them to Betty Ford….it still takes an arrest. It still takes a government…. it still takes a law or some sort of enforcement apparatus. You advocate Betty Ford….some advocate prison. You think prison is not the answer while others may think Betty Ford is not the answer. So, it is all subjective and does not solve the problem.

          Using the stats that I provided, it shows the significant drop in DWI’s as a part of fatalities that have a direct connection to stronger laws. I cannot subscribe to the theory that…”oh, look, he is weaving all over the road, we need to stop him.” The police stops him or her and they discover…”oh look, it is Joe Tentpeg…we stopped him three times last year for driving while under the influence of alcohol and we even impounded his car three times and here he is again.”

          It does not matter to me that Joe Tentpeg has been very fortunate to not have had an accident or killed someone THUS FAR. It matters to me that he does not get the chance to do it again. so, what do we do.

          So, in the perfect world of D13, there is no “accidental” driving under the influence of alcohol (please refrain from the rabbit trails of body mass and .02 vs .06 or whatever). if you are weaving across the road and it is alcohol or drug related, you will be stopped by the local gendarmes and should be. I do not believe for a minute that private citizen “Mr. Pissed Off” is going to follow someone home and give a lecture.

          So, whether or not it is Betty Ford or jail….it is still enforcement. It still takes police. It still takes a judge. It still takes sentencing. And even if you take away the police and judge and sentencing and institute a series of “agreements among free people” that this must happen..you still have to have an enforcement procedure. So I see no difference. The end result would be the same.

          This all came about because Texas is considering making the DWI laws mirror that of our murder laws. No slap on the wrist. When a burglar takes a gun and breaks into a house, he knows what he/she is doing. When a person drinks alcohol and steps into a car, he/she knows what they are doing. The fact that a burglar gets away with not being caught is no different than the alcohol impaired can get away without being caught. Fine….but when they do get caught…..I think the penalty should be severe enough to not make them want to do it again. If they do it again….take them out of society.

          My whole point in all of this, is that you believe in a form of enforcement. It takes someone to enforce JAC’s ideas or suggestions……the ONLY difference between you and I is the method of treatment.

          By the way…there is some CANUCK weather down here……in the 20’s. Texans do not like the 20’s.

          • Interesting points -waiting to hear the reply’s. I find I am a little at odds with you-no one should drive drunk-but is the rule no one can drive drunk or no one can drive after drinking at all. It seems to me the rules have become so tight-that one can’t even have a glass of wine or a beer-without worrying that their whole life will be ruined if they drive and an Accident happens. And why is every wreak automatically blamed on the person who has had a drink even if the accident is clearly not his/her fault.

            I guess my main question is what is the law-if one can’t drink at all-lets state it that way-not put restrictions that are so tight it is the actual outcome.

            • VH…I know that it is an individual thing. I am a private pilot and I see no difference between flying and driving. There is no greater danger to the public flying, as a PRIVATE pilot, than there is driving. Actually, there is greater danger to the public driving as there is greater exposure…..but I would never get in the plane as a pilot with even ONE beer consumed until 8 hours has passed. I have never taken an alcoholic drink at happy hour and then drive home. That is my choice of course…..so I see driving and flying while under any influence of alcohol to be an individual choice and a stupid one. My opinion, of course.

              • D13,

                100% agree here.

              • I find it interesting that most pilots share this attitude – I guess the experience of flying after even one drink really hits a nerve to the effects.

              • @ BF…..I did this once flying a simulator….one drink, a marguerita, and flying an instrument approach @ 400 ft. My reflex was off enough to miss the approach after one drink….5/10ths of one second created this problem….

                I cannot imagine what it would be at 15K…..

          • D13

            Yes, I do believe in some type of enforcement. But I don’t think that criminalizing behavior that has not actually harmed anyone is appropriate. It violates the core principles and opens the door to even more “rationalizations”.

            I think my proposals were very clear. If drivers are impaired, for what ever reason, then they should be removed….IMMEDIATELY.

            Think about your non-violent response to illegal aliens. Now expand to your concern over driving while “impaired”. I think more ideas will come to mind.

            As to the egregious repeat offenders. This applies to many situations, not just driving. Some people are simply irrational or irresponsible. But prison is not the answer in my opinion. Yes, mandatory Betty Ford is a forced visit. But the COST of that visit is paid by the offender and his charitable friends.

            Criminalizing personal behavior problems socializes the cost of bad personal choices. When costs are socialized there is no incentive to stop the behavior. So we eventually resort to the POLICE STATE to solve the problem.

            I am guessing, but I expect the number of these situations is probably much lower than total offenders. I have no problem with them having driving privileges suspended. But instead of Prison to stop them from using a car, how about a ban on buying or renting a car. Seems to me a periodic check of the driveway/garage might be in order. Just like Parole Officers do for others.

            Got a chuckle watching Stossel last night. The show was about how our “instincts” or “common sense” is often wrong and irrational. Like fear of flying vs. driving or crossing a street. The discussion moved to how these instinctive reactions create absolute contradictions and exceptions to our other core values. The example presented was TEXAS and its DWI/DUI laws. Point being that a State that prides itself on its freedom and liberty loving, libertarian ways is willing to impose “mandatory blood testing by the state”, “without consent” if a driver “suspected” of being over the limit but refuses the BAC breath test.

            Believe me, my Texican friend, I understand and empathize with your concerns. But we MUST come up with less “STATE FORCE” to solve these problems whenever possible. Every exception to the core principles is not just a crack, but a fault line in the foundation of our Republic.

  70. More of that hope and change from the most transparent administration in history……


    The inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) got hit with a nearly 50 percent budget cut for 2012, a move that, unless immediately remedied, will stifle the office’s ability to investigate a controversial branch of the Obama administration.

    CNCS, and specifically its Americorps division, has been plagued with scandals. Americorps is a federally-funded community service program.

    The previous CNCS inspector general, Gerald Walpin, was fired after investigating Sacramento, Calif. Mayor Kevin Johnson — a former NBA star and a Democrat with ties to Obama — over allegations that he misused an $850,000 grant Americorps gave his community group, St. Hope .

    Johnson was accused of inappropriately touching young girls, and is alleged to have offered at least one of them $1,000 per month to stay quiet about it and stay at St. Hope.

    Other allegations Johnson faced, according to a 2009 congressional report prepared by now House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley, include Americorps volunteers running errands for Johnson, washing his car and conducting political activities all while on the clock — meaning taxpayers paid the bill.

    Walpin also found about $80 million of wasted taxpayer funding through Americorps to the City University of New York, the Washington Times reported. That funding was apparently for a teaching fellowship.

    Issa’s and Grassley’s report found that White House officials had moved to fire Walpin without conducting a fair investigation. According to Issa and Grassley, administration officials argued that Walpin was “no longer fit for his job” based on a complaint CNCS Chairman Alan Solomont — a prominent Demcoratic fundraiser — delivered in person to Obama administration lawyer Norm Eisen in the White House parking lot.

    The White House had said that it conducted a “thorough” investigation of Walpin’s ability to continue serving as CNCS’s inspector general, but Issa and Grassley found that the White House only interviewed two of CNCS’s nine board members and that the White House took “substantive input from only three people: Chairman Solomont, a prominent Democrat fundraiser; acting CEO [Nicola] Goren and General Counsel [Frank] Trinity.”

    Trinity and Goren were subjects of Walpin’s investigation as well. Issa and Grassley cast doubt on the White House’s ability to conduct a fair investigation when the only people they took seriously during their decision to fire Walpin were his “adversaries.”

    After the Obama administration fired him, Walpin was supposed to be replaced by Jonathan Andrew Hatfield, a then-deputy inspector general at the Federal Election Commission. But, in April, during a news dump in the middle of the first 2011 budget battle between Republicans and President Barack Obama, the White House rescinded Hatfield’s nomination. That has left the CNCS without an inspector general for even longer than it was supposed to not have one.

    Then, during budget discussions on Capitol Hill later in 2011, 48 percent of the CNCS inspector general office budget was cut for fiscal year 2012.

    Now, the appropriations bill is law, and CNCS inspector general leadership has informed Republican Sens. Mike Enzi, Susan Collins and Chuck Grassley that the cut will lead to downsizing of 75 percent of the office’s staff in the next several days, unless the problem is fixed by mid-January.

    “With this reduction in funding, my ability to conduct oversight activities of the Corporation will be severely limited for the remainder of [fiscal year] 2012,” the agency’s current deputy inspector general, Kenneth Bach, wrote in a letter to Congress that was obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller. “And, for the first time in my experience, I believe that my independence may now be perceived as diminished due to my need to rely on the Corporation’s assistance in funding certain administrative needs and financial obligations that I can no longer fulfill.”

    “Under these circumstances, I have no choice but to initiate procedures for Reduction in Force (RIF) of my staff under federal personnel rules beginning mid-January,” Bach wrote. “I expect to reduce my staff by at least 75 percent to conform to remaining FY 2012 obligations and requirements and avoid a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. This RIF will include investigators, auditors and mission support staff.”

    Those staffers are people who are supposed to investigate and audit the Obama administration’s actions with CNCS. Without those staffers, that arm of the administration could commit questionable and corrupt activities without any check from the inspector general office.

  71. Mathius™ says:

    Boy… “They” sure do seem to be afraid of Ron Paul…

    I haven’t decided whether I would vote for him in the general (and it’s not like he’ll win the nomination anyway, though he’d certainly be my pick in the Red Shirt primary), and I haven’t decided if his views are net positive or net negative in general yet.. but the more I read about him from people on the left who are foaming at the mouth, the more I seem to like him…

    • Matt,

      I think you are 100% correct. He scares the left and all true Republicans. He puts his values before the party, which is a direct challenge to both parties. The only thing I disagree with him on is foreign policy, but if you read what he says, not what everyone says he said, it’s not that radical. If I were to vote today, it would be for him.


      South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint told The Daily Caller that he doesn’t want Texas Rep. Ron Paul to drop out of the presidential race — at least not quite yet.

      “I really don’t want Ron Paul to drop out until whoever our front-runner is is collecting some of the ideas that he’s talking about,” DeMint, who recently predicted Mitt Romney would win the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary, said when TheDC asked if it was time for other GOP presidential contenders to drop out and support the former Massachusetts governor.

      “Ron Paul is right on the fact that we’ve got an out of control and unaccountable Federal Reserve that is eventually going to create a major crisis,” said DeMint. “He’s also right in the importance of individual liberty and the whole constitutional limited government. And more of our candidates need to incorporate that.”

  72. January 12, 2012
    Gore warns ‘civilization is at risk’ if global warming not a campaign issue

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/gore-warns-civilization-is-at-risk-if-global-warming-not-a-campaign-issue-video/#ixzz1jHoQGcjP

    • Just a has been trying to stay relevant and keep his pockets full.

    • Anchorage on track for snowiest winter on record

      By Mark Thiessen and Rachel d’Oro, Associated Press

      ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Weary Alaskans woke up to another big dump of snow on Thursday, adding to what already has been the snowiest period on record in Anchorage and causing more headaches in coastal areas struggling to dig out.

      The snow started falling shortly before midnight, and meteorologists warned Anchorage residents the heaviest snowfall — up to 16 inches — could come later Thursday.

      About 150 miles to the southeast, the Prince William Sound community of Cordova, which has already been buried under 172 inches of snow since November, could get another 7 inches Thursday, meteorologist Shaun Baines said. The picturesque fishing community has had so much snow, National Guard troops helping clear roads are running out of shovels.

      “It’s funny because, after the numbers of days we’ve had of snow, you actually get to a point where it almost becomes it’s expected, that it’s going to be snowing,” said Teresa Benson, a Cordova resident and district manager for the National Forest Service.

      In nearby Valdez, another coastal community that’s seen 318 inches of snow, veterinarian Kathryn Hawkins said it’s been difficult to keep up with the shoveling, and 8-foot walls of snow line either side of her driveway.

      After snow fell off her roof, she can’t see out either the front of back of her house.

      “I look out and go, ‘Oh my gosh, where can it all go?” Hawkins said.

      “The scary part is, we still have three more months to go,” she said.

      The record snowfall is the result of two atmospheric patterns “that are conspiring to send an unending series of storms into Alaska,” said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who runs Weather Underground, a meteorology service that tracks strange and extreme weather.

      For the second winter in a row, the Pacific weather phenomenon known as La Nina is affecting the weather. But instead of plentiful snow in the Lower 48, Alaska is getting slammed because of the second weather pattern.

      That’s called the Arctic Oscillation and it has been strong this year, changing air patterns to the south and keeping the coldest winter air locked up in the Arctic.


    • Read another article a few days ago that said the AO & NAO are shifting and to expect winter to hit around Feb 1st.


      • Yesterday in Southern WI ran in one layer, no hat, no gloves – 53 degrees. Today was first snow of any consequence this winter. First time our grass has been covered. Very odd weather.

  73. Hey Charlie, This voice says the trend of sending jobs overseas is changing (I think that’s what he said?!? His circle arguments are hard to follow).

    You must be beside yourself with all the opportunities!


    • Kathy

      Please, allow me to translate.

      Job migration has reversed so we want to make sure the President gets on the band wagon so he can take credit before the election next fall.


  74. @ BF….some interesting points that you have raised. Let’s extrapolate some here, for the sake of good nature discussion.

    In applying the theory of natural law and the rights of man (wait, that is not PC….homo sapiens), and the right of non violent expression except when violence is warranted…..(only warranted when violence upon you or yours is perpetrated)………then how do you solve the problems or are they perceived problems. So let us use my own back yard…..Texas.

    It does not take a genius to see that our highways are killing fields. Speed, and DWI are considered the highest fatality percentage according to Texas DPS. Higher than drugs, guns, gangs…etc…..except heart disease and related illnesses.

    Apply natural law and the rights of homo sapiens to this phenomena or let it go as DWI would not be a violent act.

  75. A highway going from Fort Worth to El Paso…..how do you “enforce property rights. Whose property, if not..say the state. Are you talking about individual property rights? OR are you talking about a collective.

  76. USW – not sure what part of the state you are from, but hope you and yours are safe. Weird weather indeed.

    Tornado injures at least 15 in North Carolina

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2012/01/12/tornado-injures-at-least-15-in-north-carolina/#ixzz1jIg15RGC

  77. Big Brother is watching-but just so he can HELP you!

    Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents

    Brandon Turbeville
    January 12, 2012
    Over the past few months, I have written several articles dealing with the coming cashless society and the developing technological control grid. I also have written about the surge of government attempts to gain access to and force the use of biometric data for the purposes of identification, tracking, tracing, and surveillance.<
    Unfortunately, the reactions I receive from the general public are almost always the same. While some recognize the danger, most simply deny that governments have the capability or even the desire to create a system in which the population is constantly monitored by virtue of their most private and even biological information. Others, either gripped by apathy or ignorance, cannot believe that the gadgets given to them from the massive tech corporations are designed for anything other than their entertainment and enjoyment.
    However, current events in India should serve not just as a warning, but also as a foreshadowing of the events to come in the Western world, specifically the United States.
    Recently, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information – fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

    The project will be directed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) under the premise of preventing identity theft and social welfare fraud. India has rather extensive social welfare and safety net programs, ranging from medical support and heating assistance to others aimed at helping the poor. Fraud is a rampant problem in India, especially in relation to these programs due to a preponderance of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who often stuff welfare rolls with fake names and take the money for themselves.
    Yet, although the justification for the billion person database is the increased ability to accurately disperse social welfare benefits, it will not be just the Indian government’s social welfare programs that have access to and utilize the UIDAI. Indeed, even before the program has been completed, major banks, state/local governments, and other institutions are planning to use the UIDAI for identification verification purposes and, of course, payment and accessibility.
    A D V E R T I S E M E N T

    As Aaron Saenz of the Singularity Hub writes:
    Yet the UID is going to be used for much more than social welfare programs. The UIDAI is in discussion with many institutions (banks, local/state governments, etc.) to allow them to use the UID as a means of identity verification. These institutions will pay the UIDAI some fee to cover costs and generate revenue. There seems to be little doubt that once it is established, the UID will become a preferred method (if not the preferred method) of identification in India.
    Saenz also sees the eventuality of the UIDAI program becoming a means of payment and accessibility. He continues:
    Ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised if the UID, with its biometric data, could be used as a means of payment (when linked to a bank account), or as an access key to homes and cars. Purchase a meal with your fingerprint and unlock your door with the twinkle in your eye. Similar results could be expected in other nations that adopted biometric identification systems.<
    Saenz, and other proponents of the UID (UIDAI), have been diligent in pointing out that the program “is just a number, not an ID card.” However, this claim is debatable. Saenz himself admits that State issued driver’s licenses and identification cards will reference the UID information.
    The question then becomes how much of that information will be referenced, and how that will be accomplished? Will the information be included on the card? Will only part of the information be included on the card? Or will the card reference back to the digital UID information to be then reconciled with the information that is present on the card? Although the UID is obviously going to be utilized by other institutions outside of the social welfare programs, no answers to these questions have been provided.
    But, in the end, does it really matter if the information is collated into an ID card format if the government already has access to that information digitally? More than likely, a national ID card will appear as a supplement to the database already created by UID. Regardless, the private biometric information has still been taken from the individual. The database is still there.
    Indeed, government “officials” have already stated that the database will be used by intelligence agencies for the purpose of monitoring “bank transactions, cellphone purchases and the movements of individuals and groups suspected of fomenting terrorism.” This will be very easy to do since the UID number will be entered anytime an individual “accesses services from government departments, driver’s license offices and hospitals, as well as insurance, telecom, and banking companies.”
    Nevertheless, proponents have also touted the fact that, at this point, the UID program is optional. But the program will obviously not be optional for very long. As I have discussed in previous articles, the introduction of a program such as a national ID card, biometric data, or cashless payment technologies is always followed by the program becoming mandatory. The ultimate goal of an all-encompassing cashless surveillance program with no opt-out provisions is always introduced by stealth and the Gradualist Technique.
    At first, the program is introduced as a way to speed up transactions, increase efficiency, and provide convenience. Soon, however, governments and businesses begin to transition out of the older methods of payment and identification and focus more on the new technology. Identification using the traditional methods remain as an option, but become viewed as cumbersome. Eventually, the alternative methods are phased out completely and mandates replace what was once a personal choice.
    As soon as Indian banks, businesses, and government social service offices begin to require identification using the UID, the ability to remain off the system and lead what passes for a normal life will disappear.
    This is exactly the intention with India’s new biometric ID program. In fact, the cashless society is a stated goal of the UID program. CEO of MindTree’s IT Services, the company that was awarded the government contract for development and maintenance of the UID, explained in an interview with ComputerWeekly that the “ID scheme will support a cashless society. He said all vendors will have a biometric reader and citizens can pay for things with a fingerprint scan. Even a bag of rice.”
    No doubt, even after such an admission by a man who was instrumental in the development of the program, many who read this article will still dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory.”
    Nonetheless, this new monumental data mining effort by the Indian government dovetails with recent efforts in the Western world to develop an electronic surveillance grid capable of tracking, tracing, and recording every single movement and communication of every single citizen within a nation’s borders.
    New technologies which are being introduced inside the United States, the UK, and Australia such as vein scanners, biometric employee time and attendance systems, voice recognition devices, and behavior analysis systems are all geared toward Total Information Awareness of every human being on the planet.
    Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it. India is only the first nation to openly sweep up its entire national population into such a massive biometric database net. We cannot let our nation be the next.


  78. APNewsBreak: Obama seeks power to merge agencies
    Email this Story

    Jan 13, 7:45 AM (ET)


    WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama will ask Congress on Friday for greater power to shrink the federal government, and his first idea is merging six sprawling trade and commerce agencies whose overlapping programs can be baffling to businesses, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.
    Obama will call on Congress to give him a type of reorganizational power last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. The Obama version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers. The deal would entitle him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.
    It would be up to lawmakers, therefore, to first grant Obama this fast-track authority and then decide whether to approve any of his specific ideas.
    The White House said Obama would address his proposals for government reform Friday morning. The official confirmed the details to the AP on condition of anonymity ahead of the president’s event.
    In an election year and a political atmosphere of tighter spending, Obama’s motivation is about improving a giant bureaucracy – but that’s hardly all of it.
    To voters sick of dysfunction, Obama wants to show some action on making Washington work better. Politically, his plan would allow him to do so by putting the onus on Congress and in particular his Republican critics in the House and Senate, to show why they would be against the pursuit of a leaner government.
    Obama also has an imperative to deliver. He made a promise to come up with a smart reorganization of the government in his last State of the Union speech. That was nearly a year ago.
    At the time, Obama grabbed attention by pointing out the absurdity of government inefficiency. In what he called his favorite example, Obama said: “The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked.”
    The White House said the problem is serious for consumers who turn to their government for help and often do not know where to begin.
    Not in decades has the government undergone a sustained reorganization of itself. Presidents have tried from time to time, but each part of the bureaucracy has its own defenders inside and outside the government, which can make merger ideas politically impossible. That’s particularly true because “efficiency” is often another way of saying people will lose their jobs.
    Obama hopes to enhance his chances by getting Congress to give him the assurance of a clean, relatively speedy vote on any of his proposals.
    There is no clear sign that Obama would get that cooperation. He spent much of 2011 in gridlock with Republicans who control the House and can halt votes in the Senate.
    Should he prevail, Obama’s first project would be to combine six major operations of the government that focus on business and trade.
    They are: the Commerce Department’s core business and trade functions; the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. The goal would be one agency designed to help businesses thrive.
    The official said 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition; that is, as people routinely leave their jobs over time.
    The administration said the merger would save $3 billion over 10 years by getting rid of duplicative overhead costs, human resources divisions and programs.
    The point, the official said, is not just making the government smaller but better by saving people time and eliminating bureaucratic nightmares. The idea for the consolidated business agency grew out of discussions with hundreds of business leaders and agency heads over the last several months.
    The administration official presented Obama as the CEO of an operation who should have more power to influence how it is designed. According to the White House, presidents held such a reorganizational authority for about 50 years until it ran out during Reagan’s presidency in 1984.


  79. And before the pundits start screaming about the military pissing on dead bodies……..

    As I did in Vietnam when I found soldiers playing soccer with the head of a VC, these marines would be dishonorably discharged with loss of all benefits and rights of a soldier and as a veteran. A DH follows them for the rest of their lives and cannot be expunged. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. (Please, no rabbit trails here about we should not be there in the first place). This type of soldier is not “affected by war zone” or “post traumatic stress” or ” a release of emotion after seeing buddies killed”…this type of soldier would do this no matter where and is a blight upon the rest of the honorable soldiers out there…..the silent 99.9%.

    • d13

      Duly noted and damn straight.

    • The theory of soldiering shows that disrespect of the enemies dead – a brother in arms – is a break down in discipline and a rogue behavior. If it becomes even slightly pervasive, the Army begins to collapse.

    • What was your reaction to the video that appeared to show Marines urinating on three Afghan corpses?

      It’s an unacceptable desecration – 12%

      It’s an embarrassment – 7%

      It’s not surprising — things like this happen in war – 81%

      Total Votes: 13,445

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/americans_dont_share_liberal_outrage_over_urinategate.html#ixzz1jM4pkbNS

      My thoughts, you can’t judge all by the poor behavior of a few. We know there are good and bad in every profession from priest’s to police.

      • Ya know, LOI…..the thing that puzzles me is the simple reaction “things like this happen in war”…….this is spoken by those that have never been there. War brings out the beast…we all know this but the professionalism is how to we restrain the beast in us in these types of situations. BF is quite correct….no matter how much the dislike of an enemy, it is or should be a battlefield respect. Mano y mano……however, I will say that I never saw the Viet Cong not desecrate the battlefield. Their actions were designed to infuriate. Every single time that was available, our war dead were desecrated by the Viet Cong. The North Vietnamese regulars, for the greater part, respected war dead.

        Cannot say the same in the ME but that is the nature of the beast. The other thing that we must remember….countries, especially Asian, think differently on what is desecration.

        I am reminded of the gladiator days……it was not enough to just run the sword through a gladiator’s heart to kill him…….after the conquest, the head was quite frequently taken off and displayed on the end of the sword or spear to the delight of the audience.

        But for the US…..it is not to be put up with at all.

  80. The arguments are in-Guess a break for a day-gives the Prez. the power to totally override their authority to okay appointments or even make the rules that run their division of government. No more holidays for you guys. I guess the next argument will be there aren’t enough reps. present to be considered in session-even if the ones there are doing business.

    Justice Department memo argues Obama recess appointments were legal
    By Alexander Bolton – 01/12/12 12:32 PM ET
    The Department of Justice offered a defense Thursday for President Obama’s controversial decision to make several recess appointments while Congress was holding pro forma sessions.

    In a memo, Justice argued the pro forma sessions held every third day in the Senate do not constitute a functioning body that can render advice and consent on the president’s nominees. It said the president acted consistently under the law by making the appointments.

    “Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 to January 23, in our judgment, those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the president from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to ‘receive communications from the president or participate as a body in making appointments,’” Virginia Seitz, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in the memo dated Jan. 6.
    The Office of Legal Counsel concluded the president has authority to make recess appointments during a recess and that Congress can only prevent the president from making such appointments “by remaining continuously in session and available to receive and act on nominations,” not by holding pro forma sessions.

    Republicans, who had set up the pro forma sessions to prevent Obama from making the appointments, are expected to challenge them in court.

    Obama used his recess-appointment powers to place Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He also named three people to the National Labor Relations Board.

    White House press secretary Jay Carney said the legal reasoning in the Justice Department’s memo is sound.

    “We believe our legal argument is very strong and will absolutely pass muster,” Carney said, adding that Obama did not make a decision on the recess appointments until the opinion was rendered.

    Seitz offered several points in defense of Obama’s recess appoinments.

    The memo noted that pro forma sessions typically last only a few seconds and require the presence of only one senator.

    It cited statements from Republican and Democratic senators, including James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), indicating the lawmakers themselves did not consider the cursory sessions as true breaks in the Senate recess.

    The memo noted that the Senate’s website does not recognize pro forma sessions as breaking up extended recesses into mini-recesses, as Republicans now argue.

    It also notes that messages from the president received during recess are not laid before the Senate or entered into the Congressional Record until the full Senate returns to work, even if pro forma sessions have been convened in the interim.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who had called on the administration to make the memo public, called Justice’s argument “unconvincing” and said it flies in the face of the Constitution.

    “This is clearly an escalation in a pattern of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people,” Grassley said in a statement. “The Senate will need to take action to check and balance President Obama’s blatant attempt to circumvent the Senate and the Constitution, a claim of presidential power that the Bush Administration refused to make.”

    The federal judiciary has shown reluctance to limit the president’s power to make recess appointments.

    In 2004, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals validated the presidential power and refused to set a minimum length of recess for such appointments to be valid.

    “The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause. And we do not set the limit today,” the court ruled in Evans v. Stephens.
    On Thursday, Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the business trade association has not made a decision on challenging the recess appointments in court, a sign the administration might have a strong case.

    “We are not going to sue today because one has to see what [Cordray] does and what the three new guys at the National Labor Relations Board do,” Donohue said.

    “On this one, we’re working our way through it.”


    • “We are not going to sue today because one has to see what [Cordray] does and what the three new guys at the National Labor Relations Board do,” Donohue said.”

      This statement just floors me-the point isn’t whether or not someone LIKES what these guys do-the point is does the President have the right to do what he did!!!!!! GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

%d bloggers like this: