So how’s your day going?

Florida man who lost hand charged with feeding gator



  1. LOI, can you bring the ulsterman link from the previous post (either Anita’s or mine….great minds!!!) up here. I’d like to hear SUFA’s thoughts. Thanks!

  2. Gold up, approaching record highs.

    Not good, if you are an American.

  3. Along but interesting read about our President and yeah I know some will call it wingnut propaganda.

  4. Vote in the upcoming elections if you want to endorse, approve of, and support a power beyond your control and over which you have no control whatsoever, a power that can:

    …tax you to any extent it wants to and by any means it chooses to,

    …take any amount of your wealth and transfer it to whomever it pleases or use it for any purpose it pleases,

    …draft you into a fighting force if it decides to,

    …tell you what to eat,

    …control who appears on ballots,

    …borrow any amount of money,

    …itself decide what is legal for it to do,

    …enter warfare with anyone it chooses whenever and wherever it chooses,

    …interpret the Constitution as it sees fit,

    …regulate any product in any way it chooses,

    …regulate commerce no matter how insignificant,

    …take property for any use it wants to,

    …search you at its pleasure,

    …restrict your ability to own weapons,

    …restrict your ability to defend yourself,

    …make it a crime to own weapons and defend yourself,

    …make it a crime to use a wide range of drugs,

    …make it a crime to buy many goods or produce them,

    …control all communications,

    …control all transportation,

    …arrest you without warrant,

    …spy on you by any means it chooses,

    …postpone elections and declare martial law if it chooses,

    …hold you in prison without trial,

    …kill you,

    …in short, pass any law it pleases and enforce it on you and against you.

    Vote in the elections if you wish to stand up for, confirm, subscribe to and sustain a power that holds you in its grasp and can hold you totally in its grasp if it so decides.

    A vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans is a vote for this power, which is the power of either party and both parties together.

    Vote in the elections if you have been brainwashed into thinking your vote makes a difference.

    Vote in the elections if you have been brainwashed into thinking a vote for a given party makes a difference.

    Vote in the elections if you have been brainwashed into thinking that this is your duty, or that this is a patriotic act.

    Vote in the elections if you have been brainwashed into thinking that you have no right to complain unless you vote.

    Vote in this election if you think you are voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than thinking you are endorsing evil and have another option, which is not to endorse evil.

    Vote in the elections as a statement that you kneel before, acknowledge and accept a power that controls your life, your liberty, your property, and your pursuit of happiness.

    Vote in the elections as a sign and confirmation that you place little or no value on your life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness, and that a power beyond your control may do as it wishes with you.

    Vote in the elections if you want to endorse and confirm your own status as a slave who is subject to this power.

    Vote in the elections if you want to acknowledge that you are little more than a trained dog whose freedom is limited and controlled by its master.

  5. charlieopera says:

    Knucks a gampa? That’s what I’m talking about … OH, there’ll be another Bills fan in the world!
    Review: The Day I Left … Take a Knee … TK’s Locks of the Week … Gampa Charlie!
    Go Bills!

    The guy who lost the arm HAD to be a Dolphinations fan .. had to be 🙂

  6. CommonMan


    Interesting. I wonder if Harry Reid will apologize…

    The thing that catches my eye: 4 million in charity. That is over 1/3 of his after tax income!

    • Voluntarily gave $4M. Amazing how that whole charity thing works.

    • Something many people simply don’t understand:

      “But contrary to popular perception, Romney’s effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans — 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%.”

      That’s right. That horrible capital gains tax rate that is waaaaay too low… is higher than the effective tax rate of 80% of Americans…

    • charlieopera says:

      Apologize? You do realize how many more people would’ve benefitted from that “charity” (lets not forget his profit) had the money been distributed equitably rather than to specific targets (probably his church)?

      Marc Levin voice: There I said it. Redistribution!

      And don’t you just love his “estimate” of taxes paid?

      So why is it you think the rest of the GOP is starting to bail? Because he’s such a good leader or nominee?

      • Charlie,

        You have admitted our gov. has a lot of waste. Many on disability, welfare, etc. are lazy bums working the system…
        Who do you think does a better job spending his money, the gov. or the charities he has chosen?

      • Charlie,

        But that’s the thing. People – thousands if not tens of thousands of people benefited from his money.

        You think his money sat under a mattress.

        But no, it went to invest to make new jobs, industry, companies etc. It did more than your petty redistribution at the hands of thieves could ever conceive.

  8. I have become a Univision fan!

  9. 😐

  10. September 22, 2012
    America’s Road to Perdition
    By Jon N. Hall

    Although it takes a little longer than bombing, one sure way to destroy a nation is from within. Just ruin a nation’s people, and you can walk right in and take over. In Cormac McCarthy’s 2005 novel No Country for Old Men, Sheriff Bell muses: “I think if you were Satan and you were settin
    around tryin to think up somethin that would just bring the human race to its knees what you would probably come up with is narcotics.” Surely no sober person would disagree with that; just look at our neighbor across the Rio Grande.

    There’s another road a nation can take to perdition that is just as sure as drugs, and that’s debt, as in sovereign debt — i.e., a nation’s debt. When a nation goes too deeply into debt, its options become sorely limited. If a debt-laden nation tries to borrow its way out of debt by floating new bonds, it may find that it must pay ever-higher interest rates to attract investors. If a debt-laden nation has its own currency, however, it can “print” more money to pay off its debt. Of course, nations in the Eurozone don’t have that option.

    Ultimately, a nation’s creditors might ride to the rescue and restructure loans, even forgiving (writing off) a portion of their debt. But these final accommodations with debtor nations come with a price. In exchange for restructured loans or infusions of more cash from new loans to help them get on their feet, a nation must agree to make severe alterations to the way it operates. A nation must cut back on government spending for entitlements and pensions. It’s called “austerity,” and it’s not going down very well in the debtor nations of the Eurozone, as the mayhem in their streets confirms.

    If a nation faces a debt crisis, it is left with no good options. The starkness of what must be done to deal with a nation’s debt is so daunting that some want to just default and start over. In such an endgame, individuals must decide what is best for them. They may send their bank deposits abroad, before the government confiscates them. And the young, who didn’t cause the crisis, may decide to seek opportunity abroad, which leaves a debtor nation that much poorer. The thought is to save oneself, not one’s nation, which is seen as beyond redemption. Time to abandon ship!

    Ever since the onset of the “recovery” in America, all we’ve heard from progressives is that we must fix the economy first, and fix the national debt later. We’ve been assured that the debt is a long-term problem and that what government should tackle first is growth and employment. But after four years and a trillion-dollar stimulus, employment and growth remain anemic. Progressives defend their approach by arguing that the stimulus was too small, and that Congress needs to spend even more. In other words, progressives want to continue running huge federal deficits.

    If Congress ran a surplus of $100B every year that would be used solely to pay down the debt, it would take more than 112 years to retire the debt held by the public. Such a debt retirement schedule would require more fiscal discipline than Congress has ever dreamt of exercising. (We should remember that the only time Congress has run surpluses that big was during the stock market bubble at the turn of the century — hardly normal times.) But even if there were no wars or emergencies to thwart such fiscal discipline, running a surplus, or even a balanced budget, for more than a century would be quite difficult. That’s because of the interest payments on the debt, which have no place to go but up.

    The reason the federal debt hasn’t already ruined America is because interest rates are at historic lows. Interest on the debt is an item in the federal budget, it is paid continually, and it currently amounts to $222B. So the average interest rate on our $11.3T publicly held debt is just under 2 percent. Were interest rates to return to historical norms, debt service could easily top half a trillion a year. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that in 10 years, interest on the debt could approach $900B.

    So we don’t need to add another penny to the national debt for it to kill us — interest payments on the debt we’ve already accumulated can do the job quite nicely.

    And when do interest rates usually go up? One time is when economies start improving. So here we are in a double-bind; the very moment we see economic improvement, there’s pressure on a precondition of that improvement: low interest rates. Another time interest rates shoot up is when there’s inflation. With all the money-printing the Fed has done in the last four years, inflation should someday return. The last time inflation got out of control, around 1980, both the federal funds rate and the prime rate were around 20 percent. What would that do to our recovery?

    For heavily indebted nations, debt becomes a trap. If a nation has huge debts, it doesn’t have the wherewithal needed to fix its lousy economy, but it can’t fix its debt because its economy is so lousy. It’s the “Paradox of Debt” writ large.

    September 16 at The Wall Street Journal, five senior fellows at the Hoover Institution authored an article headlined “The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In,” and it’s all about debt and spending and the coming crisis. It’s especially worth reading for its treatment of the Federal Reserve. The opening blurb: “The next Treasury secretary will confront problems so daunting that even Alexander Hamilton would have trouble preserving the full faith and credit of the United States[.]”

    In a debt crisis, the citizens of spendthrift nations must be weaned off the teat of debt. But they’ve become so hooked on debt and what it buys them, their life of ease, that they can’t make the adjustment; they want to continue suckling; they’ve been infantilized; they’ve been…ruined. And the chief agent of their ruin, their enabler, is government.

    Politicians on the left and gurus in the media tell us that the number-one issue in the November election is the economy. But if America suffers a debt crisis, the economy will come to a screeching halt and then contract. The number-one economic issue in the November election should be the debt.

    The ongoing turmoil in the Eurozone, with its riots and Molotov cocktails, is a crisis of debt. Yes, their economies are awful, but what they’re reeling from is debt. America is never going to fix the economy if we don’t fix the federal debt, which means getting spending under control. Doing this will be painful, and no one, not even feted celebrity economists with Nobel prizes, can save us from the pain.

    Given the propensity of Obama and the Democrats to postpone grappling with big problems, the question becomes: how much longer does America have before a debt crisis brings us to our knees?

    Before you answer that question, read this interesting article. After reading it, you may think that it would be easier to just go straight to perdition.

    Read more:

    • Debt-Addicted Nations & The Central Paradox Of Debt Traps
      Posted on August 28, 2012 by Cato The Eldest

      Talking and listening to people over the last couple weeks on my summer holiday, it has struck me how difficult it is for many of us to get our arms around the central paradox of the debt trap Europe and the US are in. These aren’t foolish or uneducated or “mentally ungifted” people, mind you. They are affluent and industrious and smart.

      I came to the conclusion that it’s just a semi-conscious refusal to accept what they grasp only too well. Sort of like Orwell’s doublethink. They simply block the paradox out of their minds. The level of denial is a little stunning but shouldn’t have surprised me, I guess.

      I’ve watched this same continuous, determined denial of reality at work in Europe the last four years.

      What no one wants to deal with … what no one wants to hear … is that sooner or later we’ve a price to pay for the incredibly poor political and fiscal stewardship we’ve had in the US federal government over the last 30 years. We’ve seen total federal debt push upward more or less continuously toward $16Trillion, with annual deficits the last four years repeatedly hitting over $1.2Trillion a year. 7-9% of GDP.

      Among the European nations only Greece and Italy have more debt relative to the size of their economies than we Americans do, and none have annual deficits higher than ours.

      As Milton Friedman reminded us repeatedly “there no such thing as a free lunch”. Sooner or later, lunch is over and the check comes and the bill must be paid.

      So in the middle of my little summer siesta I thought I’d just restate a few basic realities, all of which will have to be dealt with in the very near future … the end of 2013 is my best guess … like it or not, ready or not.

      Warning: if you’re in total denial and damned determined to stay that way, stop reading here.

      Reality #1) The US economy is artificially pumped up by the $1.2Trillion we’ve borrowed each of the last four years. The government spends this money, and it finds it’s way into the GDP, goosing up the total in a completely artificial way. Real GDP comes from productive, profitable enterprise. This is the GDP that generates permanent jobs in the short term and rising living standards over time. Artificial GDP is just unproductive government spending. Jobs are temporary; they end when the spending ends. This is the Keynesian “stimulus” that produces nothing but short term mood elevation, like a syringe full of heroin.

      If the government stops spending $1.2Trillion in borrowed money each year the GDP will be reduced by $1.2Trillion. That’s a reduction of 7.75% of our $15.5Trillion GDP, and that much of a drop is called a very severe recession. Greece is shrinking about 7% a year, as an illustration of the social, economic and political destruction that causes.

      The US economy is sky high on the fatally addictive narcotic of borrowed money. Keynesian economists are the pushers. Withdrawal is going to be a total bitch. Ask the countries currently in rehab: Greece; Spain; Italy; Portugal.

      Reality #2) A healthy US economy runs on tax receipts of about 20% of GDP. We are currently, due to a middle sized European nation’s worth of unemployed Americans, paying in only about 17% of GDP. IOW, getting the economy back to health and historic levels of full employment would add about 3% of GDP to tax receipts. That’s about $500Billion a year. Unfortunately, the retiring Boomers will add $500Billion a year to Medicare and Social Security costs in the next decade (and rapid reform as I proposed in “If I Were King” isn’t going to happen). Moreover, global competition is crushing historically high wages in the US, so when jobs do come back they won’t be at historical levels of pay.

      IOW, without an immediate, politically impossible total restructuring of Medicare and Social Security, a healthy economy and full employment will be necessary just to keep deficits from expanding; just to keep deficits at the unsustainable levels they are at today. That means higher taxes across the board is the answer. Right?

      Wrong. Sucking more taxes out of the economy is no different in form or function that reducing the spending: it will result in a huge reduction of small business investment, consumer spending, new job creation and new household formation. All of those items contribute to real GDP, so less of them … and what you tax more heavily you get less of … means less real GDP. Which (see #1 above) leads to a very severe recession.

      Raising federal taxes and cutting federal spending … the “austerity” program at work in the PIIGS … has made matters worse in Europe rather than better. It would make sense not to do either one. So forget “austerity”. Right?

      3) Wrong. The obvious answer from the Totally Financially Oblivious Club (Paul Krugman, TFOC Chairman for Life) is simple: don’t cut spending and don’t raise taxes. Just keep borrowing the $1.2Trillion a year to which the economy as become fatally addicted. Then there won’t be a Greek or Spanish-style economic mess. Right?

      Well, yes … for a little while … until you can’t borrow $1.2Trillion a year anymore. Until the markets shut you out and shut you down. Until you hit the same immovable financial wall Greece and Ireland and Portugal and Spain and Italy have hit. And when that time comes …

      4) … all that’s left to do is print money. Which, if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the mess in Europe, is all that’s left for them to do. The Europeans are standing around waiting for the ECB to print lots of €Euros to bail out Spain and Italy and Greece and maybe Portugal and Ireland as well by buying what the free markets will not touch: mountains of increasingly worthless sovereign debt.

      The Europeans are manically busy this week haggling over the terms and conditions for the ECB to print mountains of €Euros. Whether the money should be distributed directly to governments or through a unified EU banking system or through the ESM or ESFS bailout funds or some other Brussels banking agency and what treaties would need to be amended and who the regulators would be and who would have senior and who junior positions in the sovereign debt holdings and on and on and on. But all there is to discuss is how to get the ECB to print more money. Lots and lots of it. When debt traps close there are no other answers to consider. Of course …

      5) … that’s what the US equity and debt markets are impatiently waiting for from Uncle Ben’s Federal Reserve, too. QE3. Printing more money. Mountains of money. To buy up US sovereign debt or US mortgage loans or, who knows, perhaps US corporate debt “to stimulate the economy” with another load of Keynesian heroin. Another beautiful, temporary, blissful high.

      The irony is that the US economy has been ”stimulated” with over $6Trillion in the last four years by the Obama Administration and another $2.3Trillion by the Fed … and now sits in a drug-induced stupor. We print money to avoid the hard choices, not to fix the problems. We print money to keep the debt-addicted economy pumped up, high as a kite and reality-free. As an added benefit, it gives us another few months in guilt-free total denial.

      This is what debt traps look like, my friends. Nations that get addicted to borrowed money fall into debt traps, and the US is in a deep one. The largest on the planet, actually. Triple the size of Japan’s. The US debt trap dwarfs any in Europe. Italy is Europe’s most indebted country, but Italy’s total sovereign debt is about one-tenth of ours.

      So that’s the choices. The endless, circular, none-of-the-above set of choices. That virtually none of the affluent, educated Americans I’ve talked to recently want to think about.

      Cut spending $1.2Trillion a year and take a huge recession until America’s economy gradually works back to equilibrium at zero borrowing. Probably 5 years.

      Or raise taxes 50% across the board to generate a fresh $1.2Trillion a year in tax receipts. (YES, 50%! We’re only paying $2.4Trillion a year now! Obama’s “tax the rich” BS would generate $85Billion a year per the CBO, about 7% of what’s needed. So yes, Virginia, it’s 50% across the board. Every man, woman and child.)

      We’d take a huge recession until America gets back to equilibrium at European levels of taxation. If it ever gets back to equilibrium at European levels of taxation. Perhaps with “Best Practices” that would take about 7 years. That’s what it took Sweden and Germany to drag themselves back from the brink. 7 years.

      Or we could just keep living in total mindless denial and just keep borrowing money and spending money until there’s no more lenders left in the world. Then print money …

      … and sit back with financial heroin in our veins blissfully watching everything we’ve spent 223 years building wash down the drain. Just as Europe is sitting around watching 60 years of political work to build the European Union evaporate into a haze of sovereign debt, political autocracy and economic rot.

      Sorry America, but you’ve had your “free” lunch, and the bill will be delivered very soon.

  11. Nah, Charlie is merely confused.

    Charlie’s talent is observation. But he can’t reconcile his observation with reason. So he mumbles about things backwards and offers precisely the root of the problem he observes as the solution to that problem.

    Romney blunders every time he talks about taxes, and that’s because he has no consistent position that he justifies.

    He’s all over the map.

    He’s wide open for criticism on his 47 percent message, and he’s getting that criticism.

    Romney could strongly attack Obama on the economy or on the rise in government debt, but to do that he’d have to have ways to stop government spending from rising.

    But his plans call for bigger government.

    So he blunders on that score too.

    You would think that a man in his position, with plenty of money and time, could come up with a principled position that makes sense. But that is what politics does – it is impossible to have a principled position since that would be a retraction and withdrawal of government out of society – but his job depends on government involvement in society!

    So, it’s not just him but all of them. They all appear like the bumbling irrational idiots – trying to what Charlie does – solve a problem by using the institution that created the problems.

    • BF, how do you know he plans for bigger government? His speeches have included the phrase ‘limited government’. Ryan’s budget plan cuts government…slowly. He hasn’t said anything about wealth redistribution. He wants to repeal OCare, and offer something like state exchanges. I’m just curious why, other than your suspicions and your hatred for govt, you think he is a big gov guy.

      • Anita,

        Since you do not believe me and if indeed I show you his plan – and that plan shows an increase in debt and spending – will you commit yourself to ignoring federal politics, will not vote, will not continue your partisan political outlook and finally admit to the futility of politics?

        • No 😉 . I think that at this point anyone would be a fool to run for president if they had intentions from the start of growing govt. Romney has been wanting this for years..why bother setting yourself up for failure? There is nothing to gain.

          • Anita,

            You amaze me.

            You make a baseless assumption about intentions of Romney – that he wouldn’t dare run for president whilst planning to grow government – when the facts show -the facts, ma’am– that is exactly what he has done in every government position he ever held in his entire life.

            You believe he is setting himself up for failure.
            What does this mean? It means YOU have defined for HIM what HIS success and failure is. You are, again, in err.

            He has defined his success as being a man who is running for President of the US – and his great success will be in being called “Mr. President”.

            He does not define his success or failure on how well you may or may not live your life nor if he, in being President, allows you to live or kills you.

            Given that he is totally unconcerned about your life, believe me, he is totally unconcerned about your meager economic welfare either.

            To his mind, he wins when he is President. Period.

            • Do you think he has no intention of removing obstacles so the job creators can get with it?

              • Will he cut government spending? No.

                He may cut taxes – but without equal or more spending cuts, he merely transfers the payment for government spending from taxes into more debt.
                Will more government debt improve job creation? No.
                Credit comes from somewhere – every dollar government borrows is a dollar less available for business to borrow.

                Further, with interest so low, who will lend to risky business when the assurance of government “will always pay back a dollar” (by printing it) is competing for that loan? No one would loan to a business that is under risk to repay … when rates are 2%… low return goes only to the lowest of risk – and that is government who can print dollars.

                So, pray tell, what is the economic myth or fairy tale do you believe he can pull out of his pocket that seems to comfort you?

              • It would comfort me if you were his economic adviser. Since that is a fairy tale my next thought is that our troubles will end somewhere. With someone in charge. Obama has proved himself incapable so far. The next hope is Romney.

                But humor me if you would. Let’s just say that you were his economic adviser. Lay the plan out as you would have it.

              • -eliminate all federal agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, TSA etc.)
                -cut the federal workforce by 50%
                -cut the Department of Defense budget by total 25%; eliminate all foreign war funding
                -eliminate all foreign aid
                -eliminate international drug programs
                -eliminate international organizations and commissions
                -transfer Medicaid and all other federal-state social welfare programs to the states
                -eliminate personal income tax
                -eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes
                -eliminate estate and gift taxes
                -sell federal lands and other federal assets
                -end the FED

                -Social Security and Medicare – commitments to older workers and retirees would be honored, while workers younger than 35 would no longer qualify.

                -The Veterans Administration would be the only agency whose funds would be maintained at current levels of growth.

                -Congress, Senate, Judiciary and Executive salary would be cut to the median personal income of the American worker – about $40,000/yr.

                …then in the 2nd month…

              • YAY! See it’s simple. So why isn’t it that simple….don’t bother I already know. BUT it can be done. If someone would just get out there and say it just like this I put money on it that that person would win. Just like with kids..they want to be put in check. I think people are ready for just this sort of just have to have some jobs ready 23 million.

              • You err.

                No, it cannot be done – no politician elected or wishing to be elected would ever accept such a program.

                That’s the point, Anita.

                You hold this fairy tale over here “this is what must be done” – without also and concurrently understanding Public Choice Doctrine.

                It is not one thing that is necessary – all things in the political regime must be met for such things to be done. The lack of capability in any one part of such a regime and it becomes impossible.

                It is like believing a car can drive around because it has fuel engine a body — but no means to put wheels or steering or brakes.

                For a political policy to exist – you need a plan, and a political will AND a body politic willing to embrace. So what if I have the first? The latter two requirements simply do not exist, will not exist, and cannot exist.

                So why fantasize about the plan?

              • …or be like JFK, go into office firmly believing in the illusions – have those illusions utterly shattered – then begin ripping out the heart of evil – and catch 10 bullets….

              • Because. You laid out the plan. Public Choice Doctrine is an abstract. It’s theory. It’s not rules set in stone. Ultimately your plan is one that will happen. Whether through default or choice..we will end up at your plan. The people will either like it or lump it. We just the need the one guy (BEE EFF) who will take the hits to make it happen. Someone is out there who will do it

              • Public Choice Doctrine is not “abstract” – it is a theory, that is, an explanation of cause/effect in reality.

                No, my plan will not ultimately happen, since such a plan is conscientiously applied and calculated.

                What will happen with Casandrarian-certainty is government default. It will absolutely renege on almost all of its obligations and self-assumed responsibilities and promises.

                It will be wholly unintended, wholly a shock, it will happen suddenly, over-night and few will be even marginally prepared and nearly no one ready for it.

                It will be an economic disaster for 99% of Americans. And a really bad day for the other 1%.

                It will be a Black Swan event.

                There will be no plan, because people like you Anita are so broiled up in illusion, fairy-tale, waste of time politics that you have no mind, no energy and no wits to do what is necessary in readiness for the day after.

                The shame of it – Charlie’s gang are ready for the day after.

              • oops didnt see your JFK post. Yes that part definitely has to come into play..don’t have an answer for that.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                The problem here is that your axiom of “every dollar spent by government is a dollar less for business to borrow” is NO LONGER TRUE. The Fed is creating dollars out of thin air, and if you look at M2, M3, M6 or any other charts, the amount of dollars now in the system is inexorably HUGE. Most mega-corporations have more than enough dollars, but they are simply sitting on them and earning money by sticking them back into the Federal Reserve and earning interest, or inflating the stock market with all of these dollars and making a killing on paper. It is easier for them to “earn” record profits in this way… they don’t even have to do any actual WORK to make record amounts of these dollars!

              • The creation of a new dollar destroys the purchase power of old dollars.
                There is no free lunch.

                It is true that the closer you are to the creation of new money, the better position you are in using that money at its highest purchase power – the further, the less able.

                Government being closest gets the largest benefit – you, the furthermost, suffer nearly all of its defects. Big business whose ability to access loans from large banks are third close (after banks).

  12. BF.. The Day After:

    Could you attempt explaining it? How about starting at Default week, after the dead bodies are collected. Money is worthless so no need in paying your mortgage. Food storage lasts a couple months. Hopefully farmers are up and running. Then what?

    • No dead bodies – necessarily – (maybe suicides ….)

      Money is not worthless. Government defaulting its obligations does not make money worthless – likely make money very valuable.

      Remember the Great Depression – a penny bought a lot.

      You will need to pay your mortgage or you will lose your house.
      Will you have a job to earn that money? That is the question you best ask yourself now.

      All commodities will fall in price – food and gold included – remember economics – Supply and Demand – no one has money to buy, prices will fall.

      Farmers will do very well up to the collapse – prices will rise – after, they will do ok too – people need to eat.

      Instead of looking at Washington for your answers – start building local resources for those answers. Local politics – building a grassroots foundation right where you live will be the difference in your future.

      Somebody is doing that right now where you live.
      If you do not know who that is, you are in big trouble because it is not a circle of which you are part of – and likely not the circle you would be part of. So that means you are on the outside already.

      Outside is cold.

  13. Well, an interesting journey into the insanity of the Leftist/Statist.

    I am appalled that none – here as personified by Charlie, Buck or Mathius – nor anyone of their ilk in the Netizen world can hold to any argument rooted on principle and reason. None.

    They all fall into self-contradiction; they want to bludgeon others into some desire, but argue and rage against such bludgeoning to be used on them for someone else’s desire.

    It’s like they all have a mental disease preventing them from understanding that that reciprocity of principle is a fundamental natural law.

    • Bottom Line says:

      • Man, I love Stevie Nicks. Such a powerful and haunting voice. And the songs really mean something.

        But how does it fit in with this??

        Oh wait, I know:

        Well, did WE make BLACK FLAG & BOTTOM LINE cry, make BLACK FLAG & BOTTOM LINE break down,
        Shatter your illusions of AUSTRIAN ECONMICS & ANARCHY
        And is it over now, do BLACK FLAG & BOTTOM LINE know how
        Pick up the pieces and go home

      • OMG, T-Ray reads Huff Post! There’s hope for you yet!

        Did you follow the link to the full article:

        The next two sentences:

        You might reasonably suspect that all the fuss about disappearing Arctic sea ice is overblown, then, given the growth of ice down south. But you’d be wrong, for all sorts of reasons.

        And you didn’t answer my question? 🙂

        • Solar activity has been extremely high this year. So is there a trend here. Be careful, correlation is not causation.

          • Solar activity has been extremely high this year.

            Was solar activity extremely high in 2005? And 2007? Has solar activity doubled since 1980, accounting for the 50% decrease in arctic ice?

            Be careful, correlation is not causation.

            Yes, and you seem to be applying a correlation that has nothing to do with cause.

            • Arctic Ice changed is due to current, not “global warming”

              The global mean fell from 1999 to current – in sync with the diminishment of sunspots and solar activity.

              • Silly me, I thought “current” was part of the environment and climate…so what caused the “current” to change?

                he global mean fell from 1999 to current – in sync with the diminishment of sunspots and solar activity.

                I assume the “mean” you’re referring to temperature?

                If the temperature has fallen, why is Arctic Ice still decreasing?

              • Climate always changes, Todd.

                It appears you do need a lot more learning on the topic – and a brief post will not do that for you.

                However, “climate” as you see it is almost always created by the cyclical El Nino/El Nina decadal ocean oscillation phenomena. There is lots of detail reading you can find about that.

                Arctic ice has been decreasing for 12,000 years – you and others merely started noticing that a few years ago. Some of know of the Interglacial period – which we are in – who’s primary signature is -*shock*- glacial retreat!

                The Arctic ice changes with sea currents – which changes with the winds – which changes with the patterns of the Nino/Nina and a supercycle on top of that pattern with changes circulation flow in the Mid-Atlantic caused by changes in weather patterns in the Sahara.

                Equally, if you investigated, Antarctic Ice has never been larger – and it continues to grow at a rapid pace. If YOUR climate theory had merit, this would not be happening.

              • Black Flag,

                Climate always changes

                Then why do you deny Climate Change is occurring?

                Arctic ice has been decreasing for 12,000 years – you and others merely started noticing that a few years ago.

                Yes, but a 50% decrease in 30 years is quite an increase in the rate of melting.

                The Arctic ice changes with sea currents – which changes with the winds – which changes with the patterns of the Nino/Nina and a supercycle on top of that pattern with changes circulation flow in the Mid-Atlantic caused by changes in weather patterns in the Sahara…

                …all accelerated by a warming earth. See, we agree!!

                Equally, if you investigated, Antarctic Ice has never been larger – and it continues to grow at a rapid pace.

                So 1% per decade growth in the Antarctic Ice is a big deal, but 15% per decade decrease in Arctic Ice is no big deal?

                If YOUR climate theory had merit, this would not be happening.

                Oh, quite contrar! What happens when ice warms up? I don’t mean melting, I mean ice at -10 degree F vs ice at 0 degrees F?

                What happens when the atmosphere warms up? Again, -10 degree F vs 0 degrees F?

              • Todd,
                Do not make up stories.
                I deny Anthropogenic causation – and you know that, so stop playing stupid.

                You have no study – none – to compare “rates of change” of glacial growth or shrink are “good or bad”. However we do know – for a fact – that the glaciars retreat during the end of the Younger-Drays mini-ice age moved in retreat a few hundred miles a year. The NA continent was covered in ice 12,500 years ago – and by 10,000 years ago it was relegated only the very northern parts of the continent as it is now.

                You have zero study – none – that show a warming atmosphere influences Nina/Nino. Zero studies show this. None. Not one. It is agreed by all scientists on both sides of the climate argument that this does not occur. Only econuts make this claim.

                Correct, 1% of a billion is much larger than 15% loss of a million.

                Both caps are about 6 million sq. miles but Antarctica is 98% covered 1 km thick ice. and Arctic is 28% covered with 2 meters thick ice.

                One is primarily land – (Antarctica) one primarily ocean (Arctic)

                The question of warming of what? Water? or Atmosphere?
                Further, the posit assumes an serious error. No where has anything warmed up by +-10. This specious claim -under the lie of “what if’s” – infuses a belief that the temp. is crazy.

                It has increased arguably (with dispute) less than 1C (0.74ºC) over the last century!!!!

                So answer your own question: what happens to ice when it is warmed from -15C to -14.99 in one year?
                Answer: dick all.

    • Reefer Madness (Climate Change Edition)
      By Daren Jonescu

      A new study by climate researchers from Germany, Australia, and Canada seems to prove beyond any doubt that — hold on to your hat — if global temperatures reach levels at which coral reefs are damaged, then coral reefs will be damaged. Terrifyingly irrefutable logic.

      The news article outlining the study’s findings, entitled “World’s coral reefs will die without drastic action on climate change: study,” is as typical in its alarmism as it is alarming in its typicality. What does “drastic action” entail? How are such “drastic” measures to be undertaken? Who is to take them? Might there be any legal or ethical issues implied by such measures? A real journalist, if there were one, would be asking these questions. Our modern Official Story disseminators simply say, “Wow, listen to this!” In reply, the online commentators on this article line up to say, “Yeah, it’s all the right-wingers’ fault,” or “Man, this is scary.”

      So, what computer-generated scenario are they alarming us with now? The study’s lead author, Dr. Katja Frieler, explains the study’s conclusions in the clearest possible terms (emphasis added).

      Our findings show that under current assumptions regarding thermal sensitivity, coral reefs might no longer be prominent coastal ecosystems if global mean temperatures actually exceed two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

      Read more:

      (Don’t you just love SCIENCE?—under current assumptions—-coral reefs might— if global mean temp’s actually exceed two degrees C)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Todd needs to do a lot more research, obviously.

      Prior to August 1st, 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was just below the “normal” line (the 1979-2008 average). In early August, a HUGE cyclonic storm (called an “Arctic Hurricane” centered itself over the Arctic Ocean, broke up a TREMENDOUS amount of the ice, and washed the pieces out into the Chuchki and Bearing seas where the pieces melted in the warmer water. The storm persisted directly over the arctic ocean for 78 hours (more than 3 days) and did tremendous damage to the ice.

      If it had not been for that particular storm, projected ice levels were going to remain just below the “normal” line for the remainder of the melt season.

      Now that the melt season is over, and temperatures have again dropped well below freezing in the Arctic Circle, it will be interesting to see how the ice rebounds.

      • Peter,

        Prior to August 1st, 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was just below the “normal” line (the 1979-2008 average).

        No, Arctic sea ice extent has been well below the “normal” line (the 1979-2008 average) all summer, and below the previous record year of 2007 for most of the summer as well.

        In early August, a HUGE cyclonic storm (called an “Arctic Hurricane” centered itself over the Arctic Ocean

        Yes, very unusual in strength, size, location, and duration. Some have even called it the ‘Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012.′

        What could cause such an unusual weather event? Has “anyone” predicted more extreme weather?

        If it had not been for that particular storm, projected ice levels were going to remain just below the “normal” line for the remainder of the melt season.

        No, it was already on path to set a record before this storm.

        You seem to be arguing for the wrong side Peter. Our climate is changing, and this freak storm is just another indication of that. Arctic Sea Ice is shrinking and thinning, meaning storms like this will have a greater impact. The two previous records for Arctic Sea Ice Minimum, in 2005 and 2007, happened during the recent solar minimum. What do you think will happen now that that trend is reversing?

        • Our climate is changing, and this freak storm is just another indication of that.

          Typical muck.
          You attach a truth – climate changing – with a lie “storm indicates it”; a fallacy as old as mankind.

          No, the storm indicates weather, and your bald attempt at trying to equate that to storm to climate demonstrates the insanity of the econut theories.

        • Todd,

          What trend?
          Given you do not accept proven theories of the sun’s influence on earth’s climate, what possible trend to you wish Peter to present, when you have already denied science?

  14. On the “Florida man who lost hand charged with feeding gator” – maybe the fine will teach him a lesson! 🙂

    • Ya think? First of all, the man lives in Florida…….it would seem that walking a dog next to anything that has water would not be the thing to do…..That would be like walking through West Texas barefoot and getting snake bit. But a fine? Do you know if it was waived or is it standing? ( The fine )

  15. We hear a lot hear about the big cities, with all their problems, being mostly Democratic.

    How about the 10 poorest states? All of them except New Mexico are strong Republican.

    Seems to me that an awful lot of Romney’s supports fall into his “47%” that he doesn’t care about…

    • read the WHOLE article and you will see the differences….for example….what makes one rich. Pretty interesting, Then,I suggest that you take the richest states and the poorest states and compare debt and solvency. More Interesting numbers. Another example….one of the richest States, California….is busted. So is Connecticut, New York….etc. Then compare the states that were broke and the outcomes of some of the states now and who is in charge…..interesting numbers and facts there as well…..Start with Wisconsin.

      • Did you read the articles? They’re about personal income, not state debt or solvency.

        If you want to talk about that, post some links.

        What do you want to “Start with in Wisconsin”?

        • Colonel, I agree with Todd 🙂 Shame on you for pointing out that democrats cannot be trusted with the peoples money, that is not the reason the link was given.

  16. And the 10 richest? All of them except Alaska either lean or are strong Democratic.

    • Well. I think from a statistical, testing and measurement point of view one must dig a lot deeper. Sort of like, just for an example now, you wouldn’t find Mayor Bloomberg or Bill Gates doing anything but flying “over” New Mexico so, it is unlikely that they would settle there. Now, when Charlie has his way, we will force them to live there because, we will be “fair” in all ways and if you disagree with being fair, you are a counter revolutionary and in the fine tradition of almost all revolutions, everywhere, will be shot. .

      • <blockquote cite="" Well. I think from a statistical, testing and measurement point of view one must dig a lot deeper.

        Sure, this isn’t a comprehensive study, but it’s an indication of how the different states are doing.

        Sort of like, just for an example now, you wouldn’t find Mayor Bloomberg or Bill Gates doing anything but flying “over” New Mexico so, it is unlikely that they would settle there.

        How does this qualify as “statistical, testing and measurement”? Isn’t that their choice?

        Now, when Charlie has his way…

        So this is somehow Charlie’s fault? Way to go Charlie – why don’t you fix this mess you created!!

        • It is an example of who chooses to live where, can’t make it any simpler than that! Charlie is not at fault, he has a solution! WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

          • Steven,
            If Mayor Bloomberg or Bill Gates had chosen to live in New Mexico, maybe they wouldn’t be so successful.
            Or maybe these two liberals would help improve New Mexico’s economy and tweak the income up.

            I don’t know. And neither do you.

            But the fact is Red States have lower incomes, despite all those hard working, freedom loving, regulation hating Republicans.

            And Blue States have higher incomes, despite all those lazy, socialist, big government loving Democrats.

            • I wonder if these figures take into consideration the cost of living. I have always wondered if more of the poor live in the red states, bringing down the income levels, because they simply can’t afford to live in the blue states.

              A friend of mine moved from California and eventually ended up here because per her, they cannot afford to live in California. Her daughter and son in law, just moved back to California but they are having to move in with there in-laws because they cannot afford a place of their own in California but they could afford one here. I suspect they will be back.

              Not sure how you would do a search based on this assumption though. 🙂

              • Back in the 1970’s. in New York, with the increases in rent, the increases in the welfare rolls and the loss of housing stock, it was predicted that the city would become a haven for the rich and poor with no middle class by and large this did occur with a huge out migration. Your California example stands. It is far too pricy out there for a family to afford especially if they have more than one child. On the other hand if you are wealthy with no kids or gay with no kids you can do fairly well. If you are poor the state will take care of the basics and you can scam the rest. The wealthy these days with few familial responsibilities or who live alternate life styles tend to be democrats. The poor tend to be democrats. The middle class, broadly speaking, tends to vote republican.

                Just hang out on the upper west side of Manhattan for a few days and see what I mean. A short trip to Harlem, before it completely gentrifies will also be instructive.

  17. @JAC……I had to leave for three days and I left you in charge……..and what did you do.

    1. Obama on a rant about how Fast and Furious is a George Bush thing he inherited and that Eric Holder immediately eliminated the problem. ( I guess he forgot that Operation Fast and Furious started in September of 2009. I was present at the briefing by the Justice Department lackey sent down here to Texas…in September 2009).

    2. Continued denial that there was nothing tied to 9-11 and terrorists in what is now 14 countries but that this 9 month old movie trailer is the reason for these spontaneous demonstrations……with automatic weapons and RPG’s.

    3. The announcement that the United States is now a welfare state and that the stated aim of the progressives is to treat people like mushrooms and keep them there. The largest ever amount of on food stamps and welfare checks and the elimination of the Clinton work rules that were required.

    4, $70,000 to buy TV time on Pakistani (government run) TV apologizing for this movie trailer and our free speech. The great apo;ogy tour continues….

    And this was only three days I left you in charge, my friend……………………………………

  18. @ BF…………………….interesting fact for you………we have two large chain stores in Texas that go by the name of Albertson’s and Fiesta Foods, Interesting development in that there is a notice posted on the door of two stores (one of each brand) that says beginning January 1, 2013, they will no longer accept food stamps or EBT cards……………..

    I hope that people are prepared.

  19. Anita… trying to catch up….you can expect the following things to happen with the impending election. You must remember that the progressive movement is a socialist movement and is tax and spend and dependency upon government.

    The Rhino (old established republicans like Romney, et al…..) is also big government. Lower taxes but no corresponding decrease in government spending and they are not dedicated to less government as well.

    BF is correct in that the real main problem is going to be the FED. I would have put that as the number one elimination item on his list of things to do. Getting rid of the Fed and people like Bernake is the thing to do. Rule number one in economics..YOU CANNOT PRINT (money) YOUR WAY OUT OF TROUBLE…….

    BF is also correct in the value of money…..if Obama is re-elected, it is my opinion, that we will see a recession never before seen. I know of plenty of businessmen that are sitting on their cash, not hiring and have no plans of hiring, dropping Federal bonds at a tremendous pace, (our family decision was to cash in all Federal Bonds and treasuries and stockpile cash)….most businessmen as well as our family are considering moving large amounts of cash OUT OF Federally backed banking institutions into State or local owned banks…getting away from the requirements of FDIC and the FED, or even moving money off shore. (as a family, we have never considered going off shore until now)…most of the smart planners have already made their move on the estate and inheritance taxes and have created trusts, leases, or transfers to avoid the death taxes that are coming under Obama’s rules…things like this. There is no secret to the new taxes that are about to hit…..and it will not hit the one percent….relatively very little effect…it will devastate the middle class and the working poor. The numbers are there…all you have to do is add and subtract. (child care credits are cut in half, marriage penalty will be back, increased taxes for everyone, including the middle and poor class etc,etc).

    BF is also correct in his observation that government will not be curtailed….Obama was also correct in that Washington cannot be changed from within….it must be from the outside….but Obama’s outside is, in reality, inside. The true outside is locally, In our area, here is something that is already happening locally…..there have been panels of doctors that have left the hospitals in droves(specialists)….not just one or two. They are creating their own hospitals and will not take anything government….medicare nor medicaid. They are creating their own insurance programs and self funding to avoid all State and Federal Laws, all guarantee corporations and regulations. There are two brand new privately owned self funded banks that have opened and are doing land mark business. There is no FDIC guarantee, which has also dropped to $100k anyway. Each depositor knows that there is no Federally backed loans nor guarantees to safeguard their money. Credit unions are popping up all over the place and employers are getting together because we all know that the government cannot manage and does not have the best interest of the individual at heart.

    So look for the little signs….( non acceptance of government checks or welfare cards)….etc. The numbers do not lie…never before in our history has any President or administration done what is being done on this magnitude with adverse intent. The one saving issue for the dollar and the Untied States…… that there is no other country out there….in better shape.

    So, there are things that can be done….unlike BF..I still intend to vote….may not catch a fish but you certainly will not catch a fish if the line is not in the water….so I am preparing…but trying the other end as well. I wish there was someone better than Romney for the conservative side, but there is not…..however, it is better than the alternative. Take heart, friend Anita..there are still a lot of good people out there to pick up pieces,,,,and move forward….just plan wisely…and do not panic.

    • Thank you Colonel. Now I’ll pass your info on to the family. They are SUFA ites by They are watching closely too but I think they think I’m a little overboard. But I will continue to warn them as best I can. 😉

  20. September 24, 2012
    Missing piece surfaces in the Obama puzzle
    Thomas Lifson

    Nobody knows for sure how Barack Obama managed to get into and pay for the elite higher education he received, particularly given his self-admitted lackadaisical approach to school in his younger years. The president’s decision to keep his higher education records a secret is considered unworthy of attention by the mainstream media.

    Students of Obama’s rise have long been intrigued by a television interview granted by Percy Sutton, e borough president of Manhattan, and one of the most influential black politicians in New York City, in which he stated that:

    he had been introduced to Obama “by a friend who was raising money for him. The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.” (snip)

    He also revealed that he had first heard about Obama 20 years previously in a letter where al-Mansour wrote, “there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

    Sutton concluded in the interview, “I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.”

    At the time the interview was granted in 2008, the Obama campaign succeeded in keeping it out of the mainstream media by having family members put out the story that Sutton in essence was a doddering old man. That’s all the media lackeys needed as an excuse to consign the interview to the memory hole, protecting the American public from any disturbing connections of President Obama to the Saudis.

    But, as the Bard write, “The truth will out.” Not from the media lickspittles of Manhattan and the beltway, of course, but from a newspaperman in Kalispell, Montana fercryin’outloud. Frank Miele, of the Daily Inter-Lake newspaper was reading through old newspaper and came across a syndicated column written by a Chicago Tribune columnist in 1979 that provides a fascinating light on the nature of the cabal that seems to have formed around Barack Obama.

    So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”

    Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer – Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

    Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified.

    You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.

    Maybe the funding materialized, maybe it didn’t, but what’s particularly noteworthy is that this black Islamic lawyer who “for several years [had] urged the rich Arab kingdoms to cultivate stronger ties to America’s blacks by supporting black businesses and black colleges and giving financial help to disadvantaged students” was also the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.

    The kicker here is that the 1979 column was written by none other than Vernon Jarrett, longtime influential Chicago black leftist, close friend of Frank Marshall Davis, and father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett, the closest aide to President Obama, and a major figure in his rise within the Chicago political world.

    There is no proof of anything here, of course. We don’t know that a close associate of the Saudi royal family funneled oil money into the education of Barack Obama (and presumably other Americans) on spec, hoping he would rise through the political system and be in a position to cripple American oil production and take a hard line against Israel’s defense against a nuclear attack. There is no proof ot it. But there is a reasonable suspicion, given the pedigrees of Jordan and Sutton, that these influential figures actually do know something about the inside story of the curious, inexplicable rise of Barack Obama on the slender reed of his actual accomplishments in life.

    Read more:

  21. September 24, 2012
    Elizabeth Warren not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts
    Rick Moran

    This is some extraordinary detective work performed by Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson. Digging through voluminous records and following up with calls to pertinent licensing agencies, Jacobson has made the shocking discovery that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is not licensed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts.

    The fact that Warren used her Harvard Law School office to dispense legal advice, write briefs, and represent clients — all activities that meet the legal definition of “practicing law” — is also problematic, as Jacobsen explains:

    As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.

    Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.

    As any good lawyer, Jacobson builds his case methodically, thoroughly, and dispassionately. The evidence is overwhelming and the good professor followed up with phone calls that confirmed his findings:

    I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.

    Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.

    Warren’s Texas Bar information indicates she is not eligible to be licensed in Texas, but does not indicate when she went on that inactive status. Consistent with our finding that Warren was not admitted in Massachusetts, Warren listed only one other place of admission on her Texas record, New Jersey:

    This information should be a game changer. But in deep blue Massachusetts, will voters avert their eyes to these transgressions and vote for Warren anyway? It’s a distinct possibility but at the very least, it gives GOP candidate Senator Scott Brown some potent ammunition. Much will depend on how the Massachusetts media responds to this new information. Will they dismiss it because it comes from a blogger? Or will they act like journalists and work to confirm Jacobson’s charges?

    It should be a very rough few days for Elizabeth Warren.

    Thomas Lifson adds:
    Elizabeth Warren is far from the first lawyer to move to Massachusetts and join the Harvard Law School faculty. The question of practicing law from her office almost certainly came up in the process of her joining the faculty. When I joined the Harvard Business School faculty in 1978, the outside consulting that I did from my office on campus was subject to strict reporting requirements, and received scrutiny from the Dean. There were limits on how much consulting one could do, and the nature of the clients and engagements were evaluated. Of course, I was a mere junior faculty member with the ink barely dry on my PhD. Nevertheless, I know that senior faculty at HBS faced the same reporting and scrutiny at the time.

    I have to assume that Warren faced review of her outside legal activity from former-Dean Elena Kagan, among others. I wonder how Justice Kagan can explain the apparent fact that she allowed Professor Warren to practice law in Massachusetts without a license?

    Read more:

    • I am sure that Buck will find a perfectly valid explanation sort of like he did for the Obamas.

      • Challenge accepted!

        With Obama, it was a case of complete speculation and automatically assigning malintent for a perfectly normal occurrence absent any evidence whatsoever.

        With Warren, it is a case of complete lack of fact — Each state has its own rules as to what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law (note these rules ate generally different for a layperson and an attorney licensed in another state). What are the specific rules on this in MA? What specific activities were being done by Warren? In the major case she worked on, she was not the lead attorney. Did she have pro hac vice admission (and if not was it even required given her role in the case and the federal court rules)? Can we please get some actual facts down before assigning guilt?

        • Morning Buck-Explain the Gobbledygook please. 🙂

          No, Mass. Board of Bar Overseers has not exonerated Elizabeth Warren

          Posted by William A. Jacobson Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 11:42am

          In response to my post yesterday, Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem, Michael Fredrickson, General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, gave an interview with Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (MLW) which widely is being cited as exonerating Warren.

          League of Ordinary Gentlemen and Above The Law have cited Fredrickson’s statement for that purpose, as have Warren supporters on Twitter.

          Here’s Fredrickson’s statement from the MLW article titled Warren law license matter called non-issue:

          Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have “a continuous presence” or “an office practicing law.”

          “If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,” Fredrickson says. “But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.”

          The statement seemed at odds with a plain reading of the statute and rules, as explained in my prior post. It also struck me as strange that the Board of Bar Overseers would issue such a casual determination without an investigation, particularly since Warren has refused media requests for full disclosure of the nature of her law practice.

          So I called Fredrickson this morning to better understand his position and on whose behalf he was commenting.

          Fredrickson was perfectly pleasant, although he did express both at the start and the end that he did not want to be dragged into a political issue.

          Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO.

          Fredrickson said it was his “personal reading” of the law, and that he was “not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.”

          Fredrickson also stated, in response to my question, that he was not speaking on behalf of the Bar Counsel, the office vested with investigatory and prosecutorial function at the BBO. Fredrickson did indicate, though, that as a practical matter registration issues usually are referred to him.

          Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just “speaking hypothetically” and not specifically as to Warren because “I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.”

          I then explored various legal positions expressed in the MLW interview. Fredrickson said he did not mean to suggest that there was any different standard for law professors, or that maintaining an “office for the practice of law” under the Rule 5.5(b)(1) required that it be an office exclusively or primarily for the practice of law.

          In short, Fredrickson’s opinion in no way could be deemed the position of the Board of Bar Overseers or a determination as to whether Warren herself complied with Massachusetts law.

          Update 2:45 p.m: Mass Lawyers Weekly has not yet responded to multiple requests that it add a clarification to its story to make clear to readers that Fredrickson was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not expressing a conclusion as to Warren. The Fredrickson comments are being cited far and wide as representing the view of the BBO.

          And, some commenters (all new) are touting the supposedly brilliant analysis at League of Ordinary Gentlemen. Since it now is getting attention in the blogosphere, and at risk of creating a never-ending blog post circle, I’ll dispatch with that blog post quickly:

          First, LOG skips over the first of my two main points, that Warren maintained an “office for the practice of law” and had a “systematic and continuous presence” practicing law in violation of Rule 5.5(b). She had an office in Cambridge, she practiced law in it for 15+ years continuously earning large fees in numerous cases, and she used it as her office address for her law practice in court filings. There’s nothing real complicated about it.
          LOG asserts that preparing legal briefs from an office in Massachusetts is not practicing law in Massachusetts if it involved federal law, but LOG cites zero authority for that. You can’t just make stuff up and call it a legal argument. Not even on a blog. In fact, as cited in my original post, preparing legal briefs clearly is within the definition of practicing law under Massachusetts case law. See Section 3 of my prior post. It’s what lawyers do.
          The LOG claim that Rule 5.5(d) saves Warren, which LOG says is the most important point, is wrong. The subsection in question, 5.5(d)(2) says “(d) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that: … (2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.” This does not apply to Warren because there is no claim that there was a federal law or other law which permitted her to practice in Massachusetts. If a federal court somewhere granted her the right to appear in that court, it only would cover that court and would not usurp state Bar licensing requirements. No one is claiming, for example, that Warren violated Supreme Court admission rules, but nothing in her Supreme Court admission gave her the right to maintain a law office or practice law in Massachusetts. This is a distinction a lot of people commenting on Warren have confused. Ed Whelan notes this distinction over at NRO.
          Continuing with Rule 5.5(d)(2), you can’t have it both ways, and say she was not practicing law in Massachusetts, but then saying there was a federal or other law (which you don’t cite) which says she can practice in Massachusetts.
          LOG also makes a strawman argument about Warren not violating advertising rules. I make no such claim.
          None of this legal analysis is particularly complicated. It’s made complicated only because of how much Warren defenders have to spin in order to claim that representing numerous corporate clients from an office in Massachusetts for 15+ years earning hundreds of thousands of dollars is not practicing law in Massachusetts.

          (added) Good to see John Hinderaker is on the case picking apart the baseless argument at LOG:

          So the question is, what “federal law or other law of this jurisdiction” would allow Warren to practice law in Massachusetts, even though she doesn’t have a Massachusetts law license? Neither she nor her supporters have suggested any such law that might apply.

        • This says she is inactive in Texas and has been since 1992 and a lot of other Gobbledygook . That leaves NJ-I think but I read somewhere she just had that re-instated-will have to go find it.

          • Again — what precisely was she doing? What is the extent of her involvement in these cases?

            • I don’t know Buck-that’s what people are trying to find out. But on one of them she was paid over $200,000.00. How much do you have to be involved to earn $200, 000.00?

              • On a multi million or billion dollar case, probably not that much!

              • All I can say Buck- there is enough suspicious behavior and known facts-to warrant an investigation of Ms. Warrens activities the last 15 years. Because it sure looks like she was practicing without a license.

          • ooops, remembered that wrong-she just gave up her license in NJ.

            “Warren became licensed in New Jersey in 1977. She famously and speculatively claimed to be the “first nursing mother to take a Bar exam” in New Jersey.

            Warren, however, is not currently licensed in New Jersey:

            While the date of termination of her New Jersey license is not on the website, telephone inquiries to the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners and the New Jersey Lawyers Fund For Client Protection indicated that Warren resigned her license on September 11, 2012 (one of the people remarked to me “that’s a memorable day”). It’s odd that in the middle of a campaign Warren would take the time to resign her New Jersey Bar membership, particularly since she would have to retake the Bar exam to be readmitted.

            Neither office in New Jersey could state whether her license was continuously active until her resignation because the computer only shows the current status, so I have made the request in writing as instructed. By resigning her New Jersey license earlier this month, Warren made it more difficult for the public to determine her pre-resignation status.”

            This is just the relevant part of the article-the link is attached if you want to read the whole thing.


            • New information on Warren-

              Warren Defender Admits She May Have Needed MA Law License

              by Michael Patrick Leahy 27 Sep 2012, 10:10 AM PDT 172 post a comment
              Today, it was reported that in 2001 Elizabeth Warren represented a Massachusetts client in a Massachusetts Federal Courtroom in a case that involved Massachusetts law without a license to practice law in Massachusetts. The case was heard before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, and was titled Cadle Company v. Schlichtmann.

              Blogger Mark Thompson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, who had been Ms. Warren’s most ardent defender until this new revelation, has changed his mind about Professor William Jacobson’s argument that Ms. Warren has engaged in the unlicensed practice of law in Massachusetts:

              “Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law. Although this is still a federal appellate court, because we’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren. With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak.” (emphasis added)

              Harvard Law School Professor Charles R. Nesson, who is listed along with Professor Warren as counsel for the defendant in the case, appears to have been licensed in Massachusetts to practice law at the time the case was heard in Boston’s First Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

              Update: Thompson emailed Jacobson later on Thursday this comment for attribution, which has just now been posted at Legal Insurrection:

              Professor Jacobson:

              I couldn’t figure out how to leave this as a comment at your site, but I wanted to let you know ASAP that I concede that your discovery this morning answers all of my arguments and is a gamechanger. Your diligence in investigating this matter is commendable. (emphasis added)


              Mark Thompson


        • See, I told you so.

  22. Interesting posts VH. What is our vetting process again?

  23. A Republic Airlines flight attendant was detained and then charged with disorderly conduct after she attempted to pass through security at the Philadelphia International Airport with a loaded .38 revolver in her purse, triggering an incident in which police accidentally discharged the weapon while securing it, authorities said.

    According to officials, at 6:33 a.m. today, the flight attendant entered a Terminal C security checkpoint lane with a loaded .38 caliber Smith and Wesson Airweight revolver in her purse.

    A Transportation Security Administration employee discovered the gun on the x-ray machine and notified police.

    The flight attendant was taken to secondary screening room, where an airport police officer attempted to unload the gun, and it discharged into a wall.

    There were no injuries to passengers, employees or police, officials said.

    The flight attendant, identified by ABC station WPVI-TV in Philadelphia as Jaclyn Luby, of West Chester, Pa., had a valid Chester County permit to carry a concealed weapon, police said.

    The permit was confiscated and forwarded to the Chester County Sheriff, and the weapon — an Airweight revolver — was confiscated by the crime scene unit and transported to for testing.

    She was charged with disorderly conduct, as per Airport Unit policy.

    The officer who accidentally discharged the flight attendant’s gun is on desk duty pending completion of an internal investigation, police said

    The Airweight is a small frame, aluminum alloy, short barrel personal defense revolver and is among the most popular of these.

    (Points I’m pondering. All airline employee’s should be security conscience. Any CCW permit holder who is an airline employee, doubly so…
    A police officer “accidentally discharged” the firearm, so the highest trained person present, the person most responsible for our safety turns out to be the most dangerous and incompetent.)

  24. “Likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. ”

    The words of Iran’s President-don’t see any difference between his words and the words of our President and Hillary, people who are supposed to be standing up for Freedom of Speech-not agreeing with the people who don’t.

    • Please, No More Apologies For Free Speech
      By Victor Davis Hanson
      September 23, 2012 7:07 P.M.


      This week amid the theatrics at the United Nations, let us hope that President Obama and his lieutenants do not persist with the ongoing administration de facto apologies for the views of a crude American filmmaker, and instead try to explain to the world the singular American commitment to free expression, which always eventually proves to be a commitment to unpopular and often repelling expression.

      What has been especially galling about Secretary of Clinton’s chronic hedging, and the apologies aired on Pakistani television, are—other than the abject fear of Islamists— two salient facts. One, the Middle East — not its individuals, but its official government-sponsored and subsidized television, radio, press, and film — routinely demonizes and defames Christians, Jews, and Americans in the worst sort of way. Let us be spared from the sanctimonious boilerplate, for example, from a Prime Minister Erdogan, who has presided over a surge of Turkish anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American television shows and popular films, many of them with the de facto aid of the Turkish government.

      Apparently leaders of the Islamic world present a non-negotiable demand to the West that they be given a blank check for their governments to defame Jews, Christians, and Americans, but the United States must condemn any private individual who, quite apart from the knowledge of the U.S. government, does the same to Muslims. That is the issue, and anything less than an unapologetic defense of free speech is not only a betrayal of our Constitution, but a very dangerous concession that will only incite more violence in the near future. Unfortunately, Western hedging, appeasement, and apologies to theocrats and authoritarians have never won gratitude, but instead such magnanimity is seen as either weakness to be exploited or proof all along that the apologizer admits culpability and will do so again in the future — a fact well known to history’s thugs, big and small, whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

      Second, Muslim outrage over an amateurish trailer for a probably non-existent video coincides with an ongoing hit Broadway play ridiculing the Mormon Church, the reappearance of the once government-subsidized Piss Christ photos, and so on. When the administration apologizes for the excess of a private individual, but ignores condemnation of far more widely disseminated similar venom, some of it sponsored by the U.S. government, it is making a policy statement — we dare not tamper with free speech unless it touches upon Islam, not out of principle but because of sheer cowardice.

    • Wow-that was impressive !

      Maybe we should all “censor” ESPN !

    • I WAS THERE! I held a big blue cardboard over my head, but it was cool, ’cause they made eye slots so you could see it all. It’s amazing how they coordinate these things. Just had the cardboard on our seat when we arrived along with instructions on when and how to hold it up. Don’t know if I was aware ESPN censored it. How awful for the viewers at home to witness such a disgrace, huh?

  25. Parents not told NYC schools dispensing morning-after pill

    Published September 24, 2012

    Morning-after pill available in New York schools
    Emergency contraceptives available in high schools

    The New York City Department of Education is providing morning-after pills and other birth control drugs to students at 13 city high schools.

    School nurse offices supplied with the contraceptives can reportedly dispense “Plan B” emergency contraception and other oral or injectable birth control to girls as young as 14 without telling their parents — unless the parents opt out of the program after receiving a school letter informing them of the new policy.

    Fox affiliate WNYW reports that New York City high schools have supplied free condoms to teens in the past, but this is the first time city schools have given hormonal birth control and Plan B, which can prevent pregnancy if taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex.

    Connecting Adolescents to Comprehensive Health, known as CATCH, is part of a citywide plan to prevent teen pregnancy.

    According to the New York Post, which first reported the story, 7,000 New York City girls under age 17 got pregnant last year. Sixty-four percent of those pregnancies were aborted, according to the newspaper.

    The Plan B distribution could be the first of its kind in the nation. The National Association of School Nurses said it could not locate another school district that supplies Plan B.

    Read more:

    I wonder what will happen when the first child has some type of adverse effect from this policy? Will the parents be able to sue the school, the City for giving their children drugs without their permission-just how do these people get away with doing this type of thing without the parents permission?

    • How can they possibly give any meds of any sort without parent approval? I really don’t get it. I don’t think our school allows a school nurse to give out Ibuprofen without approval.

      • Because you agreed.

        You agreed that others more worthy then you can decide things for you on your behalf.

        Oh yes, you are free to have choices like what color shoes you will wear – but you have abrogated your decision making long ago on all the important things, like your freedom.

        • Where did she agree? Our school district requires any drugs given..even a cough be dropped at the office on entry to the school with a note from parents stating when the office staff can give the drugs. Get caught with a cough drop unaccounted for and you’re sent home for the day.

          • She agreed up front – agreed to government action to determine the right/wrong of most of the important decisions of her life.

            Now, you are merely disappointed in one of those decisions – but that’s the thing, once you gave up making decisions, you have to abide by the choices of others, whether you like them or not – that is what it means “to give up decision making”.

            • I think we agree…..and sign… a compact with the schools each year. I don’t recall ever consenting to morning after pills. Did I also agree for them vaccinating my child, or them giving birth control, or allowing them to perform a tonsilectomy?

              • You handed over your poor sweet progeny into the hands of people you deemed ‘authority’.

                You have done this for most of the most important things in your life, like security, health, welfare, etc.

                So once in while these authorities make a decision you don’t like?? Ah, its not like they are wrong or anything – just a different opinion.

                …hmm… I kinda like being Mathius

              • Well Mathius..I disagree with you usual! 🙂

              • Anita, New Jersey has a new law going up for a vote making it next to impossible to say no to vaccinating your kids! Have you tried to say no to an intrusive pat-dwn at an airport lately (despite the 4th Amendment). Oh, try bying a 32 oz pop in NYC nowadays! People are getting arrested for using cash, and a Florida judge says it’s OK for you to be detained for using cash at a toll booth. BF is quite correct, everyday we have less and less freedom.

              • — unless the parents opt out of the program after receiving a school letter informing them of the new policy.

                Would like to see what that letter said and what small print might be in there somewhere…..I would bet it did/does inform parents, if they receive the letter and bother to read it! Wonder if it was mailed or carried home by teen intent on having sex?

              • I wonder if there was a sign and return requirement. Not that any of those things make any difference. A student can sign it for their parents as easily as not give it to their parents. And if something came up where they gave these drugs to a student who’s parents opted out-it would just be an unfortunate paper error.

                I just find it odd that schools are so afraid of being sued by ACLU when it comes to so many issues-but in this-actually giving a student a drug-they don’t seem to be worried about being sued. Why is that?

  26. Great ad by Scott Brown. “hahaha, but who knows?” Well, now we know that having a license to practice law in MA was family lore too! It’s a high cheek bone thing you know. Good lord.

  27. By golly, something is getting done:

    Local party store owners accused in Bridge Card fraud scheme

    DEARBORN, Mich. (WXYZ) –
    The owners of three party stores in Dearborn and Dearborn Heights were arrested by federal agents, accused of scheming to defraud the Bridge Card program.
    Agents searched eight party stores in the area as part of a two-day sweep.
    According to one of the criminal complaint the owner of one of the stores let bridge card holders illegally cash out their accounts, buy booze, cigarettes and perfumes, among other illegal items.
    Among the most serious offenders, according to the U.S. Attorney, are the owners of Baghdad Mini Mart on Warren in Dearborn. The complaint claims the owners defrauded the Bridge Card Program of an estimated 1.65-million dollars over a period of three years.
    Bridge Cards are part of the food stamp initiative, which allows low-income families and individuals to purchase groceries.
    Read more:

    How do you like the name of the party store?

    • Is it really the Baghdad Mini Mart?? Too funny.

    • Like this is news? Try any mini-mart in any minority neighborhood. Several weeks ago young ,man working in such an establishment was slashed across the face because he would not allow the customer to purchase beer with the card.

      As long as your inventory can cover the amount of food stamps you take in you are fine in an audit. Street value of food stamps is .50 on the dollar.

  28. I think Flag said this was what to watch?|htmlws-main-bb|dl2|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D209684

    • Watch the shipping – the bellwether of any advanced economy dependent on a high division of labor.

      High division of labor specializes in smaller and smaller components of a consumer good – requiring shipping between all suppliers for such a good to be brought to market.

      A slow down in shipping shows a slowing of this vital interaction – and a sign of a slowing economy.

  29. charlieopera says:

    NFL capitalist greed ruining this NFL season … unbelievable. Demonize the working man while shitting on the fans (the suckers buying the product) … the NFL is now as corrupt as the Government … what’s the common denominator? Greed, baby … just be greedy. 🙂

    • Yep, them damn unions are just as much at fault. It’s a two way street and greed is a player, but who is being unreasonable (I don’t know, I’m not following the issue). The “replacement” refs are terrible, that’s for sure. Here’s a question, if the Packers fail to make the playoffs because of the bad call last night, can the players sue the NFL and the Ref’s union for lost playoff wages?

      • charlieopera says:

        Why not, it’s America? Capitalism running wild … why not let the lawyers get involved … what we called (on the street) a Chinese Fire Drill … not that there’s anything wrong with being Chinese …:)

    • As a lifelong Packer Fan, I think the refs blew several things on the last play. The offensive pass-interference, the touchdown, and when the 2 refs disagreed, they should have had a huddle and decided what the call on the field was, and then whether it can be reviewed.

      However, if you don’t want to get beat by a lousy call by the refs on the last play of the game, then I suggest you play better football during the previous 60 minutes so you are not in a position to lose on the last play of the game.

      The Packers sucked for 59 minutes and 59 seconds. The refs sucked for 1 second (and maybe a few more!). The Packers didn’t “deserve” to win. There were several bad calls by the refs that went both ways (there always have been, just a little more so this year). The issues with the refs has been known for several weeks.

      Good teams raise above obstacles – and win.

      Not-so-good teams don’t.

      • Right on Todd! The Lions had a rough game too losing in OT to Tenn. But just like you said..don’t let it come down to the last play.

      • charlieopera says:

        Todd, you must have stopped watching after the first half. The Sea Pigeons dominated the first half, the Pack the 2nd half. There were several horrible calls on both sides … and although I agree with the “don’t let it come down to one play” theory (it sounds good in a locker room), the reality is one play cost a team a game and it shouldn’t have. Sometimes it does come down to one play.

        The Ayn Randers are ruining this game … what do they want, Deregulation of football? Great idea … with all the Americans out of work, we can just line them up with football gear as one after another gets carted off the field!

        Oy vey …

        But how ’bout those Buffalo Bills! That might’ve been our last win for a while …:)

  30. Interesting, the Jack Ryan Files…

    In 1998, Obama’s first year in office, he was of only three legislators to vote against a bill creating a misdemeanor offense for persons on probation, on conditional discharge, on supervision for a criminal offense or on bail to “knowingly or unknowingly” have contact with a gang member if that is a condition of their release.

    After a gang murder in 2001, Obama was one of only nine senators to vote against a bill that aimed to toughen penalties against those who commit crimes “in furtherance of gang activity,” and took to the floor to question what the term “in furtherance of gang activity” meant.

    Republican Gov. George Ryan later vetoed the bill, which would have made gang-related murder a capital offense. Ryan, a staunch death-penalty opponent, would later go to prison on corruption charges.

    According to Rauchenberger, Obama’s crime-policy votes are indicative of the struggle he faced bridging the gap between the Senate’s black caucus, which was suspicious of laws that could be seen to target African-Americans, and the white urban liberals who favored tougher anti-crime laws.

    “Barack had pressure from one side to stay in line with the black caucus and the kind of extreme left of the Democratic Party,” Rauchenberger told TheDC. “At the same time, he represented a college campus where much of his financial support and supporters were not black [and] who saw themselves as enlightened and wanting strong anti-gang and anti-drug crime legislation.”

    “So Barack’s votes on criminal justice issues were interesting to watch,” he added. “He kind of vacillated and bounced around a lot, a lot of ‘present’ votes complete with a lecture to the rest of us.”

    Obama also voted “present” for a Columbine shooting-inspired bill written to require the state to try as adults teens age fifteen and older who fired guns in schools. However, he voted against a law allowing persons under a protection order from carrying a gun, against a bill permitting police officers to carry guns while off-duty, and against a bill aiming to authorize lawful gun owners to shoot intruders in their homes.

    In 1999, Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill that would have prohibited convicted sex abusers who had targeted family members or persons younger than 18 from getting out of jail early for “good behavior.” Two years later, he would vote “present” on the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, which was designed to toughen laws on prisoners and criminals.

    Read more:

  31. Bring on the Cuccinelli Principle
    By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has made enemies by fighting big, lawbreaking government. His critics often unwittingly help his run for Virginia governor in 2013 because they stand in stark contrast to his view of government bound by the rule of law.

    Unlike many other state attorneys general who sometimes swarm like wolf packs against only the private sector, Cuccinelli takes a more even-handed approach to tackling lawbreaking in both the private sector and government.

    He was the first to file a lawsuit against ObamaCare, and he’s taken the Environmental Protection Agency to court for its job-killing regulations, which Cuccinelli believed exceeded the EPA’s legal authority.

    Cuccinelli’s biggest problem in enforcing the law on government is a legal system that has come to be flawed and even corrupt in how it too often protects government lawbreaking.

    Statewide, Cuccinelli recently announced his support for an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that would return the power of eminent domain to its original and limited scope under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

    In what many consider to be not just judicial activism, but a violation of the 5th Amendment, which is the law limiting government’s power on property takings, the United States Supreme Court expanded government’s authority in the controversial and dreaded Kelo decision. That ruling allowed government to take private property for the benefit of political cronies.

    Cuccinelli’s explanation of support for the eminent domain amendment shows why he’s in the top tier among America’s constitutional conservatives to hold public office: “Government is often a bully, and bullies don’t often go after people their own size. They go after little people that they can push around.”

    It is that type of candid talk about how government abuses its authority, combined with his actual efforts to protect individual liberty and private property rights, that has made Cuccinelli an early and strong favorite in the 2013 race for Virginia’s next governor.

    Cuccinelli is also setting the pace for conservatives nationally. He does not back down from supporting American values, yet he maintains a very limited approach to his enforcement authority. Among politicians, he may be unmatched in insight and courage articulating the constitutional principles of limited government that are the basis for freedom, prosperity, and American exceptionalism.

    Statists, on the other hand, believe that law exists solely to control the people. To them, the notion of government’s following the rule of law is contradictory or even objectionable.

    When Virginia passed legislation requiring abortion clinics to meet standards applicable to hospitals, some members of the state’s Board of Health refused to enforce the law on existing facilities in contravention of the law.

    Cuccinelli responded that as the attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia, he would not defend members of the board if they were sued for being in violation of the law.

    That notion was too much to bear for The Washington Post, which tries to ensure that conservatives do not succeed in Virginia politics:

    If that threat of non-representation – call it the Cuccinelli Principle – were to apply broadly, it’s unlikely that Virginia could fill vacancies on any agencies, boards or commissions. Many citizens would refuse to serve, knowing that the exercise of their best judgment might leave them financially exposed based on the political whims of an attorney general.

    Applying this “Cuccinelli Principle” more broadly, however, would not make it difficult to fill government vacancies except by those who wish to use their power unlawfully. Cuccinelli has demonstrated amply that he defends government when it follows the law despite the hysteria extrapolated falsely by The Washington Post.

    It is when government officials don’t follow the law that this Cuccinelli Principle seems to be quite appealing, perhaps even a model for other state attorneys general.

    When government officials violate the law, citizens seeking to enforce their rights bear their own legal expenses, yet we taxpayers foot the bill for lawbreaking government officials. Lawbreaking bureaucrats should have skin in the game. That might actually cut down on government officials’ violating the law.

    Read more:

    September 24, 2012, 7:33 p.m. ET

    The 10% President
    The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit becomes somebody else’s fault.

    A question raised by President Obama’s immortal line on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday—”I think that, you know, as President, I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree”—is what that degree really is. Maybe 70% or 80% of the buck stops with him? Or is it halfsies?

    Nope. Now we know: It turns out the figure is 10%. The other 90% is somebody else’s fault.

    This revelation came when Steve Kroft mentioned that the national debt has climbed 60% on the President’s watch. “Well, first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here,” Mr. Obama replied. Fair enough, so here’s his context in full, with our own annotation and translation below:
    Related Video

    “When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history.1 And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90% of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for,2 as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for,3 a prescription drug plan that was not paid for,4 and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.5

    “Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10% of this increase in the deficit,6 and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.7”

    Footnote No. 1: Either Mr. Obama inherited the largest deficit in American history or he won the 1944 election, but both can’t be true. The biggest annual deficit the modern government has ever run was in 1943, equal to 30.3% of the economy, to mobilize for World War II. The next biggest years were the following two, at 22.7% and 21.5%, to win it.

    The deficit in fiscal 2008 was a mere 3.2% of GDP. The deficit in fiscal 2009, which began on October 1, 2008 and ran through September 2009, soared to 10.1%, the highest since 1945.

    Mr. Obama wants to blame all of that on his predecessor, and no doubt the recession that began in December 2007 reduced revenues and increased automatic spending “stabilizers” like jobless insurance. But Mr. Obama conveniently forgets a little event in February 2009 known as the “stimulus” that increased spending by a mere $830 billion above the normal baseline.

    The recession ended in June 2009, but spending has still kept rising. The President has presided over four years in a row of deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and the spending baseline going forward into his second term is nearly $1.1 trillion more than in fiscal 2007.

    Federal spending as a share of GDP will average 24.1% over his first term including 2013. Even if you throw out fiscal 2009 and blame that entirely on Mr. Bush, the Obama spending average will be 23.8% of GDP. That compares to a post-WWII average of a little under 20%. Spending under Mr. Bush averaged 20.1% including 2009, and 19.6% if that year is left out.

    Footnotes No. 2 through 4: Liberals continue to claim that the main causes of the current fiscal mess are tax rates established in, er, 2001 and 2003 and the post-9/11 wars on terror. But by 2006 and 2007, those tax rates were producing revenue of 18.2% and 18.5% of GDP, near historic norms.

    Another quandary for Mr. Obama’s apologists is that he has endorsed nearly all of these policies. The 2003 Medicare drug benefit wasn’t offset by tax hikes or spending cuts, but Democrats expanded the program as part of ObamaCare.

    The President also extended all the Bush tax rates in 2010 for two more years in the name of helping the economy, and he now wants to continue them for people earning under $200,000, which is where 71% of their “cost” resides. The Iraq campaign was won and beginning to be wound down when he took office, and he himself surged more troops in Afghanistan.

    Footnote No. 5: Mr. Obama keeps dining out on the excuse of the recession, but that ended halfway through his first year. The main deficit problems since 2009 are a permanently higher spending base (see Footnote No. 1) and the slowest economic recovery in modern history. Revenues have remained below 16% of the economy, compared to 18% to 19% in a normal expansion.

    The 2008 crisis is long over. The crisis now is Mr. Obama’s non-recovery.

    Footnote No. 6: Even at face value, Mr. Obama’s suggestion that he is “only” responsible for 10% of what the government does is ludicrous. Note that in addition to his stimulus, what he calls “emergency actions” include his new health-care entitlement that will cost taxpayers $200 billion per year when fully implemented and grow annually at 8%, even using low-ball assumptions.

    But the larger point concerns executive leadership. Every President “inherits” a government that was built over generations, which he chooses to change, or not to change, to suit his priorities. Mr. Obama chose to see the government he inherited and grow it faster than any President since LBJ.

    The pre-eminent political question now is whether to reform the government we have to make it affordable going forward, or to keep growing the government and raise taxes to finance it, if that is even possible.

    Mr. Obama favors the second option, though he pretends he can merely tax the rich to do it. Nobody who has looked honestly at the numbers believes that—not his own Simpson-Bowles commission and not the Congressional “super committee” he sanctioned but then worked to undermine.

    At every turn he has demagogued the Romney-Ryan proposals to modernize the entitlement state so it is affordable, and he personally blew up the “grand bargain” House Speaker John Boehner was willing to strike last summer.

    Footnote No. 7: Mr. Obama’s posture as the tightest skinflint since Eisenhower is a tutorial in how to dissemble with statistics. The growth rate seems low because he’s measuring from the end of fiscal 2009, after a one-year spending increase of $535 billion. That is the year of his stimulus and thus spending is growing off a much higher base. The real annual pace of government growth is closer to 5%, and that doesn’t count ObamaCare.

    In another news-making bit with “60 Minutes,” which the program decided not to air, Mr. Obama conceded that “Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, mistakes that are made, areas where there’s no doubt that somebody could dispute how we are presenting things, that happens in politics.”

    Note the passive voice, as if the President’s re-election campaign is disembodied from the President. If Mr. Obama’s campaign seems dishonest enough that even Mr. Obama is forced to admit it, this is because it’s coming from the top.

  33. What is wrong with this woman? she personifies everything that is wrong with our society.

    Madonna strips for Obama, offers profanity-laced endorsement
    By Emily Goodin – 09/25/12 09:21 AM ET

    Madonna offered a profanity-laced endorsement of President Obama at her concert Monday night, which involved the singer stripping down to her underwear to reveal the president’s name written on her body.

    “You all better vote for f—ing Obama okay,” she told the crowd at Washington’s Verizon center.

    Later in the show, Madonna took off her shirt and pulled down her pants to show she had “OBAMA” written in all capital letters across her lower back.

    “When Obama is in the White House for a second term I’ll take it all off,” she said to cheers and whistles from the audience.

    She then began singing a slow, seductive version of “Like a Virgin” while rolling around on a piano top.

    Madonna first revealed her body art in early September, during her performance at Yankee stadium in New York.

    The outspoken, controversial singer was on the second night of her Washington, D.C. stop in her “MDNA” tour.

    Between performing fan favorites such as “Express Yourself” and “Vogue,” she paused twice to discuss politics.

    In her endorsement, Madonna touted Obama’s support of gay rights in a profanity-filled monologue about the president.

    She also spoke of the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., noting “and now it’s amazing to think we have an African-American in the White House.”

    She added: “So they didn’t die for nothing.”

    She ended her speech by shouting of Obama: “So vote for him, OK godd—it!”

    Later in the show she admitted: “I get a little worked up about some subjects.”

    • Didja miss the part where she said we have a “Black Muslim ” president? Always knew that girls head was not screwed down all the way.

      • I read about her Muslim statement a little later-

        ” Ya’ll better vote for f–kin Obama, OK? For better or for worse, alright?

        We have a black Muslim in the White House, OK? ”

        What the heck does that even mean?

  34. THought I’d share a nice experience. I built a huge treehouse for my Pops on the edge of a big field this summer. Thought I’d go sit in it and call coyotes tonight. Quite a comfy building, 12 feet up in the air, I called and called for about an hour. Suddenly, a Sow and 3 cubs (black bear) came out in the field and just laid down! It was a young sow, less than 350 lbs, but a wonderful sight to see and watch. They went back in the woods and came back out later. Too bad politics can’t be such a nice sight (pure nature at it’s finest). THat’s 5 bear since labor day weekend in the same field I’ve seen while callin coyotes. Guess I’ll be bear hunting after all! 🙂

  35. Okay-it does seem to me -a very bad idea for service men or woman to be living together and having sex-when they serve together.

    It also seems to me, that people who are not religious, do not feel the need of Chaplains. But people who do believe, derive a lot of strength from that association. So, I must wonder if the people who are trying there damdest to deny them that association-have any idea of the damage they are selfishly inflicting.

    CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges
    Toleration doesn’t cut both ways

    By Col. Ron Crews

    Tuesday, September 25, 2012

    The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

    The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

    Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

    Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

    At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.

    Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

    A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.

    The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.

    Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

    This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

    This outrageous social science lab experiment could have been easily prevented. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty has worked closely with members of Congress to enact legislation, which has already passed the House, to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those they serve.

    Even more outrageous is that we have to ask Congress to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those who serve in the military. The fact that Congress excluded a religious freedom protection amendment (authored in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom), to the repeal sends a clear message that our current leadership does not consider, much less respect, the constitutional implications of their actions while they bow in allegiance to the powerful and aggressive lobby of those who supported the repeal.

    Read more: CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges – Washington Times
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  36. Planned Parenthood: ‘There’s A Little Bit of Slut In All of Us!’

    Email Article
    Print Article Send a Tip
    by Ben Shapiro 25 Sep 2012, 1:20 PM PDT 19 post a comment
    Just in case you were wondering whether Planned Parenthood supports sexual promiscuity, they’ve elucidated their position: “slut” is a positive word. Their Facebook page for teenagers carries a video from MTV Voices with Francisco Ramirez, subtly titled “Sextra Credit 2.” In it, Ramirez, a gay activist, says, “A lot of people define slut as someone who has too much sex or too many partners – but according to who? The slut fairy?”

    Ramirez wasn’t done yet: “Did you know that some people use slut in a positive way? They use it to define a woman who is confident in her sexuality and being the sexual being that she is. I personally think there’s a little bit of slut in all of us. So embrace it!”

    Terrific. From a company that provides abortion to cover their costs to promote sexual promiscuity seems less than shocking.

    Karen Handel, a former top executive at Komen for the Cure who quit after Komen became the focus of a targeted Obama administration assault over their lack of support for Planned Parenthood, wasn’t surprised. “Planned Parenthood promotes promiscuity, STDs and abortion instead of academic achievement, integrity and hand work as defining characteristics of young women,” said the author of the new bestselling book, Planned Bullyhood. “Planned Parenthood glorifies ‘sluttiness’ at the expense of self respect among women, defining them as sexual objects instead of our next generation of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, and mothers.”

  37. Hmmmm- Another case of paying money out to everyone who wants to make some extra money, whether they were discriminated against or not.

    September 25, 2012

    Obama USDA offering women, Hispanic farmers over $1.3 billion in discrimination payouts
    Published: 12:17 AM 09/25/2012
    By Caroline May

    As part of “a new era of civil rights” at the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced Monday that Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers who believe USDA discriminated against them can file claims to get a piece of at least $1.33 billion in cash awards and tax relief payments and up to $160 million in farm debt relief, beginning this week.

    Women and Hispanic ranchers and farmers who feel the agency denied their loan or loan servicing applications because of their race or gender at various periods from 1981 to 2000 can file claims alleging discrimination from Sept. 24, 2012, to March 25, 2013, for a slice of the payout.

    “Hispanic and women farmers who believe they have faced discriminatory practices from the USDA must file a claim by March 25, 2013 in order to have a chance to receive a cash payment or loan forgiveness,” Vilsack explained in a statement Monday. “The opening of this claims process is part of USDA’s ongoing efforts to correct the wrongs of the past and ensure fair treatment to all current and future customers.”

    In February 2011, Vilsack announced the historic “path to justice for Hispanic and women farmers” to offer them an outlet to receive compensation for past wrongs without having to go to federal court.

    This is the third settlement to interest groups the USDA is believed to have discriminated against during the Obama administration.

    “When I was sworn in as secretary of Agriculture two years ago, President [Barack] Obama and I made a commitment to mend USDA’s troubled civil rights record,” Vilsack said in 2011 statement. “Since then, we have taken comprehensive action to turn the page on past discrimination. Last year we entered into a settlement with black farmers in Pigford II to address pending claims, and finalized a historic settlement agreement with Native American farmers under Keepseagle that faced discrimination by USDA.”

    The $1.25 billion Pigford II settlement — which covered black farmers who charged that the USDA had discriminated against them when applying for loans from 1981 to 1996 but missed the filing deadline in the original 1999 Pigford settlement (named for the lead plaintiff, Timothy Pigford, in a class action lawsuit against the government) — made headlines in 2011 for the allegations of fraud in the program.
    Ads by Google

    The Keepseagle settlement made $760 million available to Native American farmers and ranchers who believe they did not receive the same farm loan opportunities as whites between 1981 and 1999.

    The USDA plans to engaged in outreach through mail, media, and community advocacy groups to ensure that those eligible are aware of the claims process. The agency has print, video and audio outreach messages in English and Spanish on its website.

    Read more:

    • What a great country we live in. Pigford 1 and 2 paid out over $2 billion in tax money to slightly less than 100,000 black “farmers”.

      “Sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by the president of the National Black Farmers Association, John Boyd, put the number of black farmers in America at 18,000.”

      “To date, more than 94,000 individuals have filed discrimination claims.”

      Fraud anyone? Who says we don’t redistribute wealth.

      • I wonder how many of the people who already got a slice of the Pigford pie or the Keepseagle pie -will now get another slice because they also happen to be female.

        I might not even mind this program-if it wasn’t so obvious that it has nothing to do with actual discrimination against farmers of that era. WE really need to put these agencies-those we deem we actually need-on a REAL Budget. They obviously have control over a lot more money than they actually need to do their job.

        • Is there nothing for gay farmers?

          Seriously though, don’t you love the fact that these monies will be doled out to people who “think” they were discriminated against. there is no necessity for proof, no rejection letter, no application mysteriously misfiled, no completed forms returned for unknown reasons and certainly no rejections where the info provided was identical to some male whitebread corn husker who got a loan.

          Gotta love the federal government! Seems like spending us into the ground is one of those “Rules for Radicals”.

  38. Charlie…….thought you would find this interesting since you are all into slavery issues:

    1.Zimbabwe, Sudan, Madagascar, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Algeria,are considered Tier three countries that are the worst in human trafficking and slavery

    2. Romania, Ukraine, Turkey, Portugal and in the Western Hemisphere Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, and Chili are considered Tier Two countries. A Tier two country is where there are indentured servants and debtors prisons and work gangs for debtors.

    3. Tier One countries are those that have openly addressed these issues with the United States being the number one Tier One country.

    *****Interesting note is New Zealand which is fast approaching a Tier Three country in that it openly practices press gangs for its fishing industry.

  39. RIP Andy~

    • RIP Andy and thank you!

      Listening to that song-makes me want to be swaying and twirling around the dance floor.

      • Head over to youtube and check out some of the videos of Andy (and his brothers) with the Osmonds. Now contrast that with the trash that is Madonna. How far we’ve fallen as a society.

  40. Germany Clears Last Hurdle to ESM Bailout Fund Ratification

    Published September 26, 2012


    Read more:

    Very interesting article. Be sure to read it carefully as the Euro depends on this…………………………….and Germany’s right to veto.

  41. So here’s a throw out question. Is Obama going to drop out of the race? The empty chair analogy has been apt for much of his career and life, but this last month, heck, even the chair is gone. He’s making no attempt at even trying to look like he’s doing his job. It’s beyond a joke. No meeting with foreign leaders, skipping out on meetings, even the UN luncheon yesterday. What is his gig? Drugs? His calendar literally has nothing on it. What the hell is going on?

  42. Are you ready? Or will this be you?

    • It is all in the details, a 21% value added tax on everything including food. Peruvian immigrants, Catholic charities feeding people who reject Catholicism and for that matter, all religions. These were the guys who were, as Cody Jarret would have said, “Top of the World Ma” a few years back.

      Too bad Franco did not live forever. I think he tried the best he could to bring Spain along, out of chaos of the Civil War but, they just seem to have slipped back into it. Too bad.

        • Glad that you were a fan too. Smartest pol of the 20th century. Actually used Hitler and Mussolini rather than the other way around. When der Fuhrer screamed, Franco sent 150,000 of his most ardent fascists on a volunteer mission to the Russian front (from which none returned). At the end of the war, he was the last man standing. He restored the monarchy, presided over a transition to a parliamentary government and basically left everything running fairly well for his successors. then they got greedy, that brand new Spanish 1%.

          Tito and he did things about the same with the exception that Tito never planned for a succession. I guess that’s the difference between a believer and an atheist. Atheists figure they ain’t never gonna die.

  43. And we all know, of course, that the government should be able to stop violence/sarc . So far ,I’ve heard Freedom of speech defined as an abuse of freedom, and now as a form of violence. What does it take for people to see that this man, Does Not Believe in our most cherished freedoms. There is no way, that those of you voting for a third party or not voting-can possibly believe that Romney would ever be as damaging to our freedoms as Obama.

    I’m not smart enough in economics to know when or if our economy will really fall, at least to the point where it can’t be fixed. But I do know that we can go so far to the left in our mindset and actions-that this country can be lost-even if the economy recovers. Obama personifies that freedom destroying mindset. He cannot be allowed to win-don’t let him win.

    Obama’s Dangerous Equivalency: “Intolerance Is Itself a Form of Violence”

    Guy Benson
    Guy Benson
    Political Editor,

    Sep 26, 2012 10:32 AM EST

    President Obama’s United Nations address has received a great deal of scrutiny, including yesterday’s sharp take from Katie. She and Allahpundit both pointed out Obama’s contradictory admonitions and behavior. In an interview taped Monday, the president told the ladies of ‘The View’ that the best course of action is to ignore offensive speech — then he highlighted and denounced an inflammatory YouTube video six times in an internationally-televised speech the very next day. Obama took care to sound all the right notes for his domestic audience (affirming free speech, asserting America’s right to vigorously defend her interests, and condemning violence), but as others have noted, his speech also contained some profoundly troubling passages. Many people have focused on one line in particular:

    “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    This is an unsettling sentiment coming from the leader of the free world. What does he mean, exactly? The future doesn’t “belong” to people who choose to mock or criticize or insult a major religious figure? Actually, the future must belong to free people who exercise the right to express themselves in a host of ways — including through unseemly speech, such as blasphemy. The future must not belong to those who would fly into a rage over real or perceived religious slights, then menace or harm those whose speech offended them. President Obama undermined his own statement of principle regarding the sanctity of free speech when he qualified that message by asserting that certain speakers are not proper heirs to our nebulous shared future. He went even further later, stating that this latest piece of online gutter satire “must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.” Really? “Must” we also reject those responsible for the Mohammad cartoons? And what about author and provocateur Salman Rushdie, or others like him? These works have also precipitated riots, threats and death across the Islamic world. Do those who refuse rebuke controversial forms of speech also violate our “common humanity,” and if not, where is the line — and who gets to draw it? But the most disquieting element of Obama’s address has largely been overlooked:

    Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

    This is deeply pernicious, especially considering the current backdrop of world events. (Some may mistakenly believe that Gandhi’s wisdom is beyond reproach. They should read his advice to Jews during the Holocaust and look into how he treated members of his family). Both Gandhi and Obama are wrong: “Intolerance” is not a form of violence, even if it frequently manifests itself in wrong and immoral ways. By approvingly citing this quotation, Obama constructs a dangerous moral equivalency and advances an insidious mixed message. Earlier in his remarks, Obama sharply — and rightly — abjured violence. But by equating unproductive words to violence, he casually ceded the moral high ground. If (some? all?) Islam-diminishing words are intolerant, and intolerance is “a form of violence,” then extremists’ riots and bloodshed merely represent one species of violence reacting to another.

    This is unacceptable. The words may sound nice, and Obama’s rhetorical flourishes might have impressed the delegates, but any President of the United States’ words carry special weight and significance. Blurring the distinction between free expression and violent behavior is a significant moral pronouncement, whether Obama realizes it or not. And he should realize it. Obama is, after all, famous for cribbing another politician’s soliloquy on why words matter. In this case, his words matter because some radicals may interpret them as an American leader’s backdoor justification for their actions — not that they seek permission for wreaking destruction in the first place. They also matter because some “liberal” Westerners are now counseling the civilized world to attempt to appease the barbarians by further limiting or even criminalizing certain forms of free expression, elevating “the need for order” above bedrock rights. Throwing around words like “slander” and offering false equivalencies only serves to encourage and validate these decidedly illiberal impulses.

  44. California Gov. Signs Bill Allowing Non-Doctors to Perform Abortions

    Posted on September 26, 2012 at 6:39am by Erica Ritz Erica Ritz

    Print »
    Email »

    Comments (74)

    California Gov. Jerry Brown Allows Non Doctors to Provide Abortions

    (Getty Images File Photo)

    Over the weekend, Governor Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) signed legislation that expands a controversial trial program allowing less-trained members of the medical community to provide abortions.

    Whereas typically only licensed doctors can perform the delicate procedure, the bill states that due to a shortage of doctors, now a number of certified nurses, midwives, and physician assistants are also qualified.

    Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), who introduced the bill, said its purpose is to expand access to abortion for women, particularly those in rural areas where abortionists are apparently harder to find.

    Supported by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the procedure has the novices using a tube to “empty” the uterus with a suction, according to Silicon Valley’s Mercury News.

    LifeNews adds:

    The California Pro-Life Council sent a legislative alert asking for pro-life residents of the state to contact the governor to urge him to veto it.

    …“Since [the program’s] inception 41 nurse-midwives, nurse-practitioners and physician assistants have been trained to kill unborn children. The purpose of this training, funding by abortion businesses and sympathizers is designed to expand the pool people will to perform abortions. Already abortions can result in serious injury and death to mothers and of course almost always the unborn child.”

    “The materials presented in this training teach these newbies to the abortion industry how to validate the ‘moral’ decision to kill unborn children,” CPLC added.

    Brown also signed a bill allowing more nurses, midwives, and physician assistants to prescribe birth control pills, patches, and rings to women.

    “At a time when some seek to turn back the clock and restrict women’s health choices, California is expanding access to birth control and reaffirming every woman’s basic Constitutional rights,” Brown said.

    Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards added: “by enacting this bill, California [is] once again setting an example of national leadership at a critical time when access to healthcare is under attack.”

    • I’d love to be a fly on the wall when you find theses articles V. Just yesterday it was the schools handing out morning after pills, now this. Since when is our nations healthcare under attack? Where are Matt and Buck when we could use a good for this?

      • No, you don’t-I wrote 3 paragraphs-and decided I should delete them 🙂

        I just get really tired of them wrapping up Abortion in this little box of better sounding words. Healthcare, Constitutional rights, blah,blah, blah. How about calling Abortion, Abortion. If they really wanted abortion is be rare-they wouldn’t try to cover up the reality of destroying unborn children with nice sounding words.

        Personally, I think this goes right along with giving out abortion pills at High Schools. Nothing matters except protecting a woman’s ability to get rid of unwanted children. In any other area-this crap would Never be allowed.

      • No argument from me at the moment, but I fail to see anything wrong with this.

        • Description

          A surgical abortion uses a vacuum to remove the fetus and related material from a woman’s uterus (womb). The procedure is usually done 6 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period

          You may receive medicine (sedative) to help you relax and feel sleepy. The doctor may numb the cervix so you feel little pain during the procedure.

          If the surgical abortion is done after 12 weeks of pregnancy, the doctor must first open (dilate) the cervical canal. Small sticks called laminaria are placed into the cervix to help it open. Sometimes, this is done a day or two before the actual abortion procedure. Next, the doctor inserts a hollow tube into the womb before using the vacuum to remove the pregnancy-related tissues from the womb.

          Medicines may be given to help the uterine muscles contract. This reduces bleeding.
          Back to TopRisks

          Risks of surgical abortion include:

          Damage to the womb or cervix
          Emotional or psychological distress
          Excessive bleeding
          infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes

          The risks of surgical abortion increase as a woman gets further along in her pregnancy. That’s why it’s important to make a decision about abortion as early as possible, when the procedure is safest.

          The risks for any anesthesia are:

          Reactions to medications
          Problems breathing

          The risks for any surgery are:


          Call your health care provider if you have had a surgical abortion and you have:

          Excessive vaginal bleeding (may lead to shock)
          Continued pain or pregnancy symptoms (possible sign of ectopic pregnancy)
          Signs of infection, including persistent fever, vaginal drainage with a foul odor, vaginal drainage that looks like pus, or abdominal pain or tenderness.

        • Let’s try this one again, is there a difference here between this procedure and a back alley, coat hanger abortion? Part of the rationale for legalized abortion were the horror stories told, over and over about the tragic results of illegal ones conducted by incompetents who were not backed up by doctors if something went wrong. Logic would dictate that we are now returning to those days albeit legally.

          The why question is foremost in my mind. These days, there are a few doctors who fear for their lives if they conduct abortions, there are a few who fear for their reputations and there are those who don’t like being introduced at cocktail parties as abortionists. Most literature I have read indicates something else, perhaps, the biggest driving force. Doctors are more and more likely to be personally against abortion these days. .

          The dilemma can be solved one of two ways, we can either mandate that to secure a license to practice medicine you must perform procedures that you may find personally distasteful/immoral or more likely, we allow MD’s to immigrate to the US who have no problem doing them and getting rich in the process.

    • So, the difference between this and the back alley coat hanger abortion is…………?

      • Only Dumbocrats can find more ways to kill babies and use politics to make it legal. So, because of a shortage of doctors, likely caused by Obamacare (more so than would have been) suddenly, more people are now qualified!?! Amazing, maybe we can make 8 years olds qualified to be politicians, afterall, we have a major shortage of honest ones 🙂

  45. As I have said for a long time. Politics are just lies!

  46. Say What-a three star General is saying this-D 13 any thoughts?????

    Three Star General: Muslim Brotherhood Has Infiltrated Our Government

    by AWR Hawkins 26 Sep 2012, 10:07 AM PDT 44 post a comment
    U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) William Jerry Boykin claims that individuals with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood hold security clearances in both the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.

    Boykin says Republicans should have listened to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), who was correct to be concerned over possible Muslim Brotherhood ties of Huma Abedin, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Boykin says politicians on both sides of the aisle are scared to pursue the truth on this, for fear of being branded “intolerant,” and the result of their inaction is continued infiltration by the radical Islamic organization.

    He claims that people with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood hold important positions “in every major federal agency.”

    Boykin was one of the original members of the Army’s Delta Force, served in clandestine operations for the CIA, and was formerly a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

  47. Todd
    Antarctica gained 140,000 km² of ice overnight, to reach the sixth highest daily area ever recorded. Another day like today, and tomorrow will break the all-time record for most sea ice ever measured at either pole.

    • NASA’s Rubber Ruler Scandal
      Randall Hoven

      It turns out that there is no way to reliably compare current global temperatures to historical data using NASA’s database. It is a scientific scandal.

      I wrote recently about NASA changing its entire temperature record database, just from July to September. That is, in 2012, NASA changed temperatures going back to 1880. And it did that without telling anyone or explaining it. The net effect was to make the 130-year warming trend steeper, by lowering older (pre-1963) temperatures and slightly raising recent ones.

      I must confess, I was slightly apprehensive about writing that. It was just possible that I had grabbed the wrong data set in July and was comparing apples and oranges. I’m now happy to report that I was not the only one to catch this change. It was real.

      I don’t know exactly who does this, or how, but someone compares every month of NASA’s temperature data to the previous month. If you want to see exactly what changed between August and September 2012, select the top month on that page. Here is a summary of how much changed in recent months.

      August to September: 60%.
      July to August: 27%.
      June to July: 17%.
      May to June: 39%.
      April to May: 17%.

      NASA’s temperature record is, indeed, a living document.

      My piece was also picked up by “Watts Up With That?” WUWT argues that NASA is in violation of the Data Quality Act.

      This is the data that the American public pays for. It is one of only two or three such records of global temperatures going back more than a century. It is what all claims of global warming are based on. And about one third of that data changes every month! Without warning, notice or explanation.

      In my opinion, this is a scandal. There is no way for the public to inform itself reliably on an issue that could cost us trillions of dollars. We have no way of knowing how much of global warming is real and how much is simply due to unexplained adjustments to the data – data that is under the control of zealots like James Hansen.

      Read more:

      (first article on this was better written. How can you justify changing temp records from 1880? )

    • Black Flag,
      The thing you’re missing is that the Antarctica sea ice extent is fairly consistent from year to year. This record is just barely outside of the “2 standard deviations,” while the Arctic ice (which had been fairly consistent until recently) is now melting at an accelerated rate.

      See the pictures and graphs here, and note the differences between the ice extent and pink line that represents the average. Which is more extreme?

      You’ll notice that the Antarctica record is just barely outside of the “2 standard deviations,” while the Arctic melting is far outside the “2 standard deviations.”

      And since you acknowledge we’re in an Interglacial Period who’s primary signature is -*shock*- glacial retreat, why would the Antarctica sea ice extent reach a record (which your buddy Steven Goddard has already declared)? By your own admission, this shouldn’t be occurring…

      • Black Flag, The thing you’re missing is that the Antarctica sea ice extent is fairly consistent from year to year. This record is just barely outside of the “2 standard deviations,” while the Arctic ice (which had been fairly consistent until recently) is now melting at an accelerated rate.

        First part is true – however, that has to do with the geography and not anything nefarious.

        I did not “miss it” – I told you why – Antarctica sits mostly on land whilst Arctic sits mostly on water. The latter receives far more variations due to water currents and wind than ice on land for obvious reason – land doesn’t move with a current or with wind.

        Accelerating? No.

        And since you acknowledge we’re in an Interglacial Period who’s primary signature is -*shock*- glacial retreat, why would the Antarctica sea ice extent reach a record (which your buddy Steven Goddard has already declared)? By your own admission, this shouldn’t be occurring…

        I made no such admission.

        Listen up AGAIN for I will repeat what I said AGAIN.

        The Younger Dryas Ice Age … look that up for more info … was a Northern Hemisphere climate phenomena, its impacts of large ice occurred across the entire Hemisphere – the southern hemispheres saw a cooling and a regrowth of some local glaciers but it was slow and not pervasive

        “South America shows a less well defined initiation but a sharp termination – Huybers has argued that there is fair confidence in the absence of the Younger Dryas in Antarctica, New Zealand and parts of Oceania”

        The current Northern retreat is consistent with the continual retreat of the YD Ice age – and is completely independent of whatever happens in the south.

        But over all of this, none of it is anthropogenic.

  48. Government says you must return this tuna to the ocean even though it is dead and worth half million dollars. Yeah government knows best on how to handle any situation. If nothing else let them haul the thing to shore and feed some hungry people for free, but no that would make sense and break the government mandated laws.

  49. Ladies..they say we don’t care about what happened over the last four years! Can I slap this female please?

  50. QE1 occurred in late 2008, when the Fed bought 1.25 trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities (minus 61 cents) from banks in an effort to shore up a weak economy. It got the money to do this literally out of thin air: “…the mortgage team would decide to buy a bond, they’d push a button on the computer—“and voila, money is created.”” That, of course, is a special power the Fed has—to will money into existence with the push of a button. So…where did all that money go? It “remains in bank reserve accounts collecting interest and dust. The Fed reports that the accumulated excess reserves of depository institutions now total nearly $1.6 trillion.” Oddly enough, that $1.6 trillion dollar figure is almost exactly the amount of the Federal Budget deficit for that year! “

    • I wish, I actually understood this stuff-but I just can’t figure out how the Fed can make money and be owed money-when the money they’re peddling ain’t real.

      • On my blog, I talk about what money is. Read it, and it will be clear to you.

        The FED can make money out thin air, and it is real money, and they can owe money, and be owed money.

        • I will go read it again-in the near future-and I may understand the mechanics. But I will never understand the reasoning.

          • That is why I posted that on my blog – the reasoning.

            Money is merely the most desired and trade-able good in an economy. People value things, and the thing they -aggregated in a society- value the most becomes money.

            Green paper is that today. It is real.

            Like cars, and apples and IPods, it is has a manufacturer or a producer – called the FED. Nothing bizarre here – all economic goods are produced by someone, somewhere. Money is not different. If it was gold, gold has a producer, true?

            Money is just another economic good. How the laws of economics applies to apples and Ipods, also equally and exactly apply to money – no more and no less.

            So to understand the mechanics around money, use apples as the commodity. People are already confused about money, so this replacement helps by removing ideological myths that seem to surround money and get in the way of understanding.

            • I actually understood that-so the Fed is simply the manufacturer of money and the government buys it from them. But out of all the things I don’t think the government should do-not doing this one, costing themselves extra money to buy money, seems stupid.

              So what is the reasoning behind them having a FED-instead of just producing money themselves?

    • “Thin air” characterizations hinder understanding, but essentially the content is correct.

      The FED monetized the debt – that is, they replaced the debt with money they created. They bought the debt from the banks with new money.

      Nothing is bizarre here – lots of companies trade debts for money – you buy and sell securities, T-bills and bonds and that is what you are doing – trading debt for money.

      The only difference is the FED manufacturers money – so they can produce money to buy the debt.

      So, you sold an IOU to the FED and got cash – no big deal – and you put that cash into a savings account instead of lending it out again. No big deal here too.

      So nothing is really bizarre in the trade or mechanics.

      So now, you wish to measure the consequences of all these actions — what are they?

      A manufacturer of a good has increased its production — increase in supply, what does that do to its price?
      A retailer has accepted a huge shipment of this production — but has not put it out on the shelves to be sold, what does this do to its price?

      What has the retailer done this …inventory the goods and not put it on the shelf?

  51. Boy, do I agree with Mr. Sowell.

    September 27, 2012 12:00 A.M.
    Barack Obama: Confidence Man
    The president actively works against American interests.

    By Thomas Sowell

    Thomas Sowell

    Much puzzling behavior by Barack Obama falls into place when we go behind the image that he projects (““Obama 1”“) to the factual reality of the man’s whole life and thrust (“Obama 2”).

    Obama himself is well aware of the nature and importance of his image. In his own words, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” An 18th-century philosopher put the matter bluntly: “When I speak, I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off.”

    Many of Barack Obama’s actions as president of the United States reflect neither political expediency nor an attempt to promote the best interests of the American people. Take, for example, his bowing low from the waist to foreign leaders.

    No president of the United States had ever done that before. It gained Obama nothing with the voters, nor was there any reason to think that he expected it to. Why then did he do it?

    What did it accomplish? It brought the United States down a peg, in the eyes of the world, something that he has sought to do in many other ways.

    These bows were perfectly consistent with his view of a maldistribution of power and prestige internationally, just as his domestic agenda reflects a felt need for a redistribution of wealth and power within American society.

    It is not just the United States, but the Western world in general, including Israel, that needs to be brought down a peg, from the standpoint of the ideology prevalent among the people with whom Barack Obama has allied himself consistently for decades.

    Against that background, it is not at all puzzling that President Obama has clamped down on offshore oil drilling by Americans in the Gulf of Mexico, while actually encouraging and subsidizing with our tax dollars Brazil’s offshore oil drilling.

    Nor is it surprising that he imposes draconian restrictions on industrial activities in the United States in the name of fighting “global warming,” while accepting the fact that Third World nations that are beginning to industrialize will generate far more pollution than any restrictions in America can possibly offset.

    That is another example of international redistribution — and payback for perceived past oppressions or exploitation of the West against the non-West. So is replacing pro-Western governments in the Middle East with Islamic extremist governments.

    Some people may have gotten focused on the issue of Barack Obama’s birth certificate because so much of what he has done seems foreign to American ideals, traditions, and interests. But birth tells us nothing about loyalty. One-time American Communist leader Earl Browder was descended from the Pilgrims.

    Those who have questioned whether Barack Obama is really a citizen of the United States have missed the larger question: whether he considers himself a citizen of the world. Think about this remarkable statement by Obama during the 2008 campaign: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that every other country is going to say, ‘Okay.’”

    Are Americans supposed to let foreigners tell them how to live their lives? The implied answer is clearly “Yes!” When President Obama went to the United Nations for authority to take military action and ignored the Congress of the United States, that was all consistent with his vision of the way the world should be.

    How has Obama gotten away with so many things that are foreign to American beliefs and traditions? It is partly because of a quiescent media, which shares many of his ideological views and is focused on the symbolism of his being “the first black President.” But part of his success must be credited — if that is the word — to his own rhetorical talents and his ability to project an image that many people accept and welcome.

    The role of a confidence man is not to convince skeptics, but to help the gullible believe what they want to believe. Most of what Barack Obama says sounds very persuasive if you don’t know the facts — and often sounds like sheer nonsense if you do. But he is not trying to convince skeptics, nor is he worried about looking ridiculous to informed people who won’t vote for him anyway.

    This is a source of much polarization between those who see and accept Obama 1 and those who see through that facade to Obama 2.

    • Obama Versus Obama: Part II

      Thomas Sowell

      Sep 26, 2012

      Obama Versus Obama: Part II
      Nowhere is the contrast between Barack Obama, as defined by his rhetoric (“Obama 1”) and Barack Obama as defined by his actions (“Obama 2”) greater than in his foreign policy — and especially his policy toward Israel.

      What if we put aside Barack Obama’s rhetoric, and instead look exclusively at his documented record over a period of decades, up to and including the present?

      The first thing that is most striking about that record is the long string of his mentors and allies who were marked by hatred of the United States, and a vision of the world in which the white, Western nations have become prosperous by oppressing and exploiting the non-white, non-Western nations.

      The person most people have heard of who matched that description has been Jeremiah Wright, whose church Barack Obama attended for 20 years, and was still attending when he began his campaign for the presidency. But Jeremiah Wright was just one in a series of mentors and allies with a similar vision and a similar visceral hostility to the West.

      Barack Obama was virtually marinated in that vision from childhood. His mother clashed with her Indonesian husband when he began to move away from his earlier anti-Western radicalism and to work with Western businesses investing in Indonesia.

      As a counterweight to whatever ideological influence her Indonesian husband might have on her son, she extolled the virtues of his absent Kenyan father, who remained a doctrinaire, anti-Western socialist to the end.

      After Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents at age ten, his grandfather introduced him to a black man named Frank Marshall Davis, who had a long career of anti-American, anti-white propaganda that included a stint as a member of the Communist Party. Davis was Obama’s mentor on race throughout his adolescent years, until Obama left for college.

      The progression of such mentors and like-minded contemporaries continued as Obama went through Occidental College, Columbia University and the Harvard Law School.

      These included Professor Edward Said at Columbia, a spokesman for Palestinian terrorists, and Professor Derrick Bell at the Harvard Law School. Bell was an advocate of so-called “critical race theory” — an uncritical mishmash of notions by a man who said that he saw his role as deliberately annoying white people. Barack Obama literally embraced Professor Bell at a public gathering.

      After Obama went out into the world and worked for a time in a private business, he regarded himself as being, in his own words, “a spy behind enemy lines.”

      Later, when he began his political career by running for state office in Illinois, his campaign began with a fundraiser in the home of Bill Ayers, who had been a domestic terrorist who planted bombs in public places, including the Pentagon.

      When this association was later revealed, Obama said that he was still a child during Ayers’ years as a terrorist. But Obama was by no means still a child when Ayers defended his years of terrorism in a statement that appeared in the New York Times — ironically, on September 11, 2001.

      This is not the Barack Obama that most voters saw and elected President of the United States in 2008. What they saw was a carefully crafted image of a bright, articulate, energetic and genial fellow who would heal our racial and partisan divides. His likability was high and remained so, even after many became disappointed with his policies.

      His geniality has carried him over many rough spots. But have you ever heard of a grumpy confidence man? Geniality is a prerequisite for the job.

      What many regard as a failure of Obama’s foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, may well be one of his biggest successes. His desire to redistribute wealth domestically is part of a larger ideological vision that includes a redistribution of power internationally.

      Obama has long said that the United States plays too large a role internationally. His policies suggest that Islamic countries need a larger role. The troubling question is whether he still sees his own role as “a spy behind enemy lines” in the White House.

    • Nah, They’ve been digging up SE Mich for years looking for him. Word on the street is they buried him under a new highway that was put in at the same time..a highway that is just a couple blocks from my place, so he may be close! 🙂

  52. Well this is odd. Wasn’t some stimulus money used for protecting some mouse? Was this the area? And now people have died, and those workers tested are told to keep quiet. Unreal. The enviro-goons are probably cheering.

  53. Here’s another Liberal who has no idea what freedom of speech or expression actually means.

    Non-violent protest-really- non-violent protest means you can just destroy something that doesn’t belong to you just because you disagree with it-or even worse, the nut cases who believe they have the right to throw fake blood or even glitter on other people. I don’t know where these people get these ideas from- because the part of the Country I come from-you pull this kind of crap-you better be prepared to have people object to YOUR Violence by being violent themselves.

    • In her “news” appearances, she’s been touting Egypt’s new “moderate” president. (who doesn’t think highly of freedom of speech, among other things)….

      Egypt’s new Islamist President Mohammed Morsi on Wednesday used his first speech at the United Nations to demand curbs on Western free speech rights and “an end to all forms of occupation of Arab lands.”

      Morsi also used his U.S. speech to push his revolutionary mix of Islamic and progressive demands that all Middle Eastern nations, presumably including Israel and Iran, be stripped of their nuclear weapons; that other countries bring down Syria’s government; that UN countries establish a “new global economic governance”; and that Western countries continue to transfer aid and technology to Egypt’s government and poverty-stricken population.

      Much of his emphasis was on the establishment of a Palestinian state. “My duty [is] to support our Palestinian brothers and sisters … [by] putting an end to all forms of occupation of Arab lands,” he said in the speech.

      “I call for immediate, serious movement, as of now, to put an end to colonization, occupation and settlements and the alteration in the identity of occupied Jerusalem,” he said, not specifying whether he considered all of Israel, or only the West Bank, to be occupied territory.

      According to Islamist ideas championed by Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, all territory conquered by Islamic armies since the 630s is considered Islamic in perpetuity.

      Read more:

  54. Robert A. Heinlein short story, “By His Bootstraps”. Thanks to John Lott.

  55. Seems pretty quiet here today, so let me offer something for the debate mill:

    Reportedly Julian Assange/Wikileaks has been declared an ‘enemy of the state’ by the Defense Department. Anyone find any problems with this?

  56. I would be interested myself in seeing if anyone here at SUFA would agree with DOD.

    In the sense of transitioning into what we are becoming, DOD is 100% correct!

    In the second World War, there was a need for strategy to be secret. As operations continue, that holds true. How we got into this mess or Desert Storm or Vietnam or Korea deserves as much scrutiny as we can throw at it. Big Brother, be he at 1600 Pennsylvania or on Wall street does not want nobody knowing nothing. In that, I agree with Charlie.

    • Hi Stephen,

      Don’t understand your answer. Could you restate it ? 🙂

      • You try not to tell the enemy when you are invading and you try not to tell him how to make an atom bomb for example. After the war is over, you try not to tell him who might have left the back door open for you to protect them. These types of intel will aid him. On the other hand if you stumble into a war because of the “Tonkin Gulf” incident or because there are “weapons of mass destruction” or, as in Korea because the State Department makes a mistake in drawing a map, in a free society, as soon you realize you are wrong, you should shout it from the hilltops. Assange, like Elsberg with the Pentagon Papers was publishing from what I can glean, information on how decisions were made based on faulty or skewed information. I have no problem at all with that.

        The nonsense of labeling everything “secret” is just that, nonsense. Most of it is done these days to cover mistakes not to protect the troops in the field only the “Brass” and the politicians. See the Pat Tillman mess for an example. The reality of what happened there made the Army look horrible from a squad level right up to command level. When you think about it, how dumb can you possibly be to entrust these secret/sensitive files to a lowly Private E-3 who can then click a mouse and send them around the world in a nanosecond. What Colonel or General has lost his job because he allowed that to happen?

        The designation “enemy of the State” has frightening connotations. The choice of referring to the United States as “homeland” too leaves something to be desired. Too much like “Fatherland” (Germany) or “Motherland” (Soviet Union). Hey people! We are the US, ok, what’s wrong with that?

        • charlieopera says:

          Assange, like Elsberg with the Pentagon Papers was publishing from what I can glean, information on how decisions were made based on faulty or skewed information. I have no problem at all with that.

          I’m with you here, brother.

        • Thanks Stephen 🙂

          I find that my immediate response to the Assange situation, is that the guy who gave this non-American secret information was wrong, wrong, wrong.

          I don’t really expect Assange, a non-American to have any loyalty to this Country-which is why giving the information to him and his organization was wrong, wrong, wrong. Was the guy even selective in what he gave to them? Is stealing information through the internet any different than breaking into the Pentagon and stealing information?

          So yea, Assange is an enemy of this Country-does anyone believe he cares whether or not the information he releases should or shouldn’t be released-that doing so might cause more harm than good-that maybe the information should be classified.

          But on the other hand-I do believe that there are times that a whistle blower is doing the country a favor-if the country is doing something majorly wrong. But if an American does so-he better be right, and the information he provides best prove the government was the one doing the illegal, bogus crap. If not he is a traitor by definition. Period.

          • Problem is, who gets to decide what is ok and what is not. “The Pentagon Papers” were nothing new. It was all there in the news for anyone to see since the late ’50’s yet the government wanted it classified “secret”. Why? Only to save the reputations of people who guessed wrong.

            This was I understand, an info dump. The Private, Manning I believe, just hit forward with everything. The whole business about Mr. Assange being wanted for rape, conveniently smells. May be true, may not be true but it does tend to tarnish him a bit. This is one of those things that I have changed my mind on a lot in the last 40 years. Everytime I stand in front of that black wall in DC and the tears begin for the might have beens, I get madder than hell. Not that the war was necessarily wrong but the way it was run and the incredible suffering that could have been avoided if only a little truth had been forthcoming at the time. Coming on the heels of the Kennedy assassination, what it did to an entire generation regarding faith they had in the government is still reverberating today.

            • Who gets to decide is always a problem-nothing like this is ever truly black and white-but one individual can’t be given carte blanche to decide for his self. We have to have rules about this sort of thing. So if you believe your right, fair or unfair, you have to be prepared to accept the possible consequences-you may be considered a hero-you may go to jail for being a traitor.

              As far as the government, classifying everything as classified-I don’t know how to fix that-struggle through all the freedom of information maneuvers , try to get new rules passed-I don’t know-but everyone can’t just be allowed to make these decisions on their own and to hell with the consequences.

              • Agreed that there are consequences for your actions. Having once been involved in a case involving a government vendetta against an innocent individual which to me was done for the sole purpose of redirecting attention away from the truly guilty parties. I have a very hard time taking the governments side on anything. In that case, despite the acquittal of the individual, they truly bankrupted him and twenty some years later he has still never gotten his reputation back.

                Believe them why?, Because they “say so”? Not hardly!

              • No where, my friend, did I say we were supposed to believe them-simply because they say so.

              • One thing, I don’t think I made clear-I do personally believe Assange is an enemy to this country-but I am not saying our country has the right to force him to come to America. He is basically a media outlet, not to mention one, outside of this country. If one of our people break the law and send him classified information-it’s on our law breaker-not Assange.

  57. This is so absolutely, terrifically great.

    Now, I being a reasonably intelligent US citizen seem to vaguely remember something about “free phone service” for the poor so they could call 911. Turns out that this was a Reagan era program for landlines subsidized by all those little taxes we pay at the end of the phone bills (not to be confused with the tax to pay for The Spanish American War). In 2008, Bush time, the program was expanded to cover cell service and apparently no longer restricted to emergency calls. I have no clue how this is being subsidized today but apparently a number of folks seem to have multiple plans some of which are unlimited.

    So, if we want to start cutting budgets, I suggest here is an excellent place to start.

  58. ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps

    by Warner Todd Huston 28 Sep 2012, 4:45 AM PDT 9 post a comment
    The ACLU released a report this week that shows that under Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder, warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American’s electronic communications is “sharply on the rise.”

    After months of litigation and Freedom of Information Act requests, the ACLU obtained documents from the federal government proving that real-time monitoring of electronic communications inside the U.S. has climbed 60 percent since 2009 and far surpasses monitoring under President Bush.

    The ACLU reports that the Dept. of Justice used “pen register” and “trap and trace” techniques 23,535 times in 2009 and 37,616 times in 2011.

    A “pen register” captures outgoing data from a phone or email account while “trap and trace” captures incoming data.

    During that same time period, the number of people whose telephones were the subject of pen register and trap and trace surveillance more than tripled. In fact, more people were subjected to pen register and trap and trace surveillance in the past two years than in the entire previous decade.

    (ACLU’s bold above)

    “The number of authorizations the Justice Department received to use these devices on individuals’ email and network data increased 361% between 2009 and 2011,” the ACLU said.

    It should be noted that all of this is perpetrated by the Dept. of Justice without obtaining traditional warrants.

    The ACLU complained that it has been repeatedly blocked by the Obama administration when seeking disclosure. The ACLU also noted that since Obama became president his administration has repeatedly neglected deadlines required by law to release reports on the DOJ’s actions.

    The civil rights group charges the federal government with “frustrating democratic oversight” and obviating a basic measure of accountability by neglecting its duties to fulfill these transparency measures.

    Warrantless wiretapping, when initiated by the Bush administration, was one of the left’s most dear causes, but since Obama came to office — and been proven to have tremendously increased such wiretapping — silence has prevailed over the practice.

  59. I thought this injustice had been stopped-should have known better.

    How Far Does SEIU‘s ’Forced Unionization’ Go? Wait Until You Hear These Stories Involving Skimming Money From Medicaid Checks

    Posted on September 28, 2012 at 12:11pm by Becket Adams Becket Adams
    TheBlaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern reported on “forced unionization” involving SEIU and the parents of two disabled children. Many of you were outraged. Now it seems those parents weren’t alone. And the overall practice is getting more attention as lawyers are getting involved.

    Four years ago, Steven Glossop moved in with his mother Linda to care for her after she suffered a stroke while recovering from heart surgery. Her condition requires constant attention and her son, whether at work or elsewhere, makes sure someone (usually his wife) is there to help.

    But the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is making life difficult for the Glossops.

    “The Glossops, by virtue of getting Medicaid money from the state, are members of the SEIU thanks to a unionization scheme orchestrated in 2005 when Jennifer Granholm was governor,” writes Jack Spencer for Michigan Capitol Confidential.
    Caregiver Steven Glossop Says the SEUI Takes a Portion of his Caregiver Medicaid Checks

    Yes, that Jennifer Granholm (AP)

    “This whole thing just gets me,” said Steven Glossop. “It’s hard to believe the union could get away with something like this. They (the union) can’t do anything about things like working conditions. They have no idea what goes on inside our house each day.”

    “I’d say the biggest effect that being in this union has had on me is them taking money from our checks. To me, it’s just thievery,” he added.

    And the Glossop family is not alone. They are actually one of two families being represented by the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation in a fight over what they say are unfair labor practices.
    Click to learn more…

    “The legal action asks the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to reverse the decision that recognized the forced unionization of those workers nearly seven years ago,” Spencer notes.

    “It also asks that the money being taken from the Medicaid checks of disabled and elderly people in Michigan be immediately ended and for the return of about six months’ worth of dues, or about $3 million,” he adds.

    The SEIU, according to the MCC report, enacted a “forced unionization” of Michigan’s home-based caregivers (i.e. people like Steven Glossop) back in 2005, meaning they get a cut of the Medicaid checks caregivers are given to provide home care.

    Want to guess how much the SEIU has taken in as a direct result of this “forced unionization” scheme? Try $32 million.

    But wait! There’s more.

    Much of that $32 million has been put towards Proposal 4: a proposal that will make the “forced unionization” scheme an official part of the state constitution.

    Pretty nifty, right?

    “The union is trying to get this in the state constitution because earlier this year Gov, Rick Snyder signed legislation into law that ended the forced unionization. The SEIU later took the issue to federal court and was allowed to continue taking the money,” Spencer notes.

    And you better believe the SEIU has pushed back against complaints from people like Glossop, arguing that unionization will ensure the elderly and the disabled can stay in their homes and that background checks will make things safer.

    Funny thing though, there are already fed programs in place that ensure both of these things.

    “Who would I want to have a background check done on?” Steven Glossop said. “I have no need for background checks.”

    Indeed, according to MCC, an estimated 75 percent of the people enrolled in the Home Help Program are friends or family of the person being taken care of.

    “Back when I received the first check I noticed that dues had been taken out of it,” Steven Glossop said. “I thought, ‘I’m in a union, that could be good.’ I thought I must be a state employee. The only other union I was ever in was the Teamsters union. That was when I worked for a beverage company. Back then, they (the Teamsters) had to negotiate for us.”

    “Later I saw that all the union (SEIU) was doing was taking our money,” he said. “I wonder what most taxpayers would say if they knew that some of taxpayer dollars being paid to help families out is being taken by the union.”

    Glossop said the union sent him an informational packet detailing how it spends its money. Among the things included in the breakdown of expenses were union cards.

    “I finally decided I wanted to get out of the union,” he said. “I called the union up and told them. They sent me a packet. It was full of information about why I should stay in the union.”

    “It felt like they were bullying me. Then I found out that, even if I left the union, I’d still have to keep paying what they call a fair share. This would be 66 percent of what the dues had been,” he added.

    “To me, it seems like the union is power hungry,” Glossop said. “I can’t believe all of this stuff. I’ve been forced into this union that I never signed up for. It seems like we all just keep losing more and more freedoms and liberties.”

    Glossop says although a union representative recently contacted him to see if he had received all the information he had requested, he believes their new found concern for his situation has to do with the upcoming election.

    “I’m just hoping at some point this will be done with,” he said.

    • Just another form of income redistribution. And now it will get bogged down in lawsuit after lawsuit. These are the tactics of the left. They don’t care who they are taking it from (disabled? elderly? so what?), as long as they get their pockets filled.

      • Do not call it income redistribution – it is not that at all.

        It is theft.

        It is important that moral people call things what they are, and not dismiss the evil by gently renaming it.

        • charlieopera says:

          It was theft when “investors”/”owners” took money for work they didn’t do.

          How do you like them apples? 🙂

          • They didn’t “take” such money – it was given to them voluntarily by the people who paid them that money.

            That is the difference, Charlie – taking vs. giving. Coercion vs Voluntary.

        • Good point. It’s just that a lot of people are finally waking up to the gross unfairness of income redistribution, but won’t yet go down the path of calling it theft.

          • I certainly understand BF’s point-I have made the same point about Abortion. But I also think it is informative for people to start realizing what actions come under the broad heading of income redistribution. Read an article about MSNBC having a panel discussion-their conclusion-income redistribution is just another word for welfare-so Obama’s use of the term means nothing more than what we have always done in this Country-helped the poor. But it is pretty obvious that Obama isn’t talking about JUST giving people a Hand UP but instating a permanent nanny state.

          • charlieopera says:

            Theft is when someone “earns” $600,000.00 an hour without getting his or hands dirty and the people making his or her products are earning 6 figures …

            workers of the world unite!

            And Go Bills!

            • Charlie,

              Someone is giving that person $600,000 – he isn’t stealing it. Other people are putting that money in his pocket.

              You complain about those other people – you have enormous conceit to argue about who they give their money too!

  60. Good lord. Never been of fan of this (always angry) Steven Smith and the just reinforces my thinking.

    Have a great weekend SUFA! Beautiful fall day in WI and I need to get outside and enjoy it. Later!!

  61. MSNBC Caught Doctoring Clip From Romney/Ryan Rally

    Greg Hengler
    Greg Hengler

    Sep 28, 2012 12:55 PM EST

    This breaking story comes straight from The Blaze.

    A clip from a recent Romney/Ryan rally has recently been played over and over at MSNBC highlighting what appears to be an embarrassing moment on the campaign trail for Governor Romney. Originally aired on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe,” the clip shows Paul Ryan introducing Romney as the MSNBC-added text appears on the screen proclaiming that the crowd is shouting “Ryan!” Romney gets the mic and asks the crowd to say “Romney/Ryan!” Joe Scarborough covers his face and grumbles out the words, “Sweet Jesus.”

    Then the Blaze received a call from one of the rally attendees:

    During Thursday‘s edition of TheBlaze TV’s “Pat & Stu,” one caller gives her account of the campaign rally.

    “The crowd was yelling,” caller Sherry recounts, “the crowd was screaming ‘Romney! Romney!’ and Romney, being the gentleman [he is], we can‘t get in his head because he’s so stinking nice, he stopped us to add ‘Romney-Ryan.’”

    I stitched together the MSNBC clip and the clip of The Blaze caller with Pat and Stu’s reaction to her claim–and their reaction to the rally footage as they play it again without the MSNBC-added text. I also stitched together the original Romney/Ryan clip that I pulled from C-SPAN.

    What appears to be an unpopular Romney seeking appreciation and attention from a Paul Ryan-infatuated audience is really a man who is generously deflecting attention away from himself onto his VP nominee.

    Go to link to actually hear the clip-what are they chanting? I hear Romney

  62. charlieopera says:

    Buckley on the ultimate hypocrit.

    • The only thing this shows Charlie, is that Republicans aren’t really TRUE Ayn Randers-they simply agree with some of her basic points about the importance of individualism as it relates to FREEDOM. So your over-the-top screaming about RYAN is ridiculous.

  63. I find -I simply MUST repeat this.

    “ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps”

    “ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps”

    “ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps”

    “ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps”

  64. Hmmm-this might be interesting to discuss based on the two listed exceptions to free speech.

    In general, I don’t think one should be able to stop freedom of speech because someone might become violent or destructive. Would seem to encourage violence and destruction in order to get your way.

    Heckler’s veto: NYC subway authority bans ads that might “provoke violence”
    posted at 4:01 pm on September 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

    Pop quiz: Where does the boldfaced language in the excerpt below come from? Con law junkies will know, but anyone who’s been reading this site for the past two weeks should have a hunch.

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved new guidelines for advertisements on Thursday, prohibiting those that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

    The 8-to-0 vote by the authority’s board came three days after pro-Israel ads characterizing Islamist opponents of the Jewish state as being “savage” began appearing in subway stations, setting off vandalism, denunciations of the authority and calls for the ads’ removal…

    “We’ve gotten to a point where we needed to take action today,” Joseph J. Lhota, the authority’s chairman, said at a news conference on Thursday.

    Give up? Re-read this post for the answer. It’s the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, the trojan horse by which anti-blasphemy laws and other fun “sensitivity” regulations will eventually be smuggled into American law. Here’s how the Supreme Court described the standard for “fighting words” when it first announced the doctrine in 1942:

    Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

    The “fighting words” exception, as I’ve said before, amounts to a heckler’s veto to your freedom of speech. It’s pernicious in two ways. One: It makes your First Amendment rights contingent upon the sensitivities of others. If the object of your criticism is prone to responding violently, then it’s incumbent upon you to shut up and not offend them. A “right” that disappears when someone gets especially angry about your exercise of it ain’t much of a right. Two: In practice, it operates as moral sanction by the state for vigilantism. The point of the “fighting words” doctrine is to let the cops step in and arrest an offensive speaker before any violence goes down; it’s essentially a form of appeasement to the insulted party, signaling that they don’t have to do anything crazy because the state will punish their enemy for them. (Seems familiar.) Needless to say, the incentive this creates for an offended audience to resort to, or at least threaten, violence is high. Between Mona Eltahawy spray-painting a pro-Israel ad that she didn’t like and the MTA responding the way they have today, you’re seeing a nifty example of “fighting words” logic in action. Obviously this isn’t a criminal case, just a new state policy on which subway ads they’ll run, but the dynamics are the same. Some people saw the ads and couldn’t control themselves, and therefore it’s the ads that must be silenced. Grotesque.

    But wait, you say — isn’t this actually the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard at work, not the “fighting words” exception? Nope. That was the point of the post that I asked you to re-read. The Brandenburg case is supposed to cover situations where the speaker is trying to rile up a mob that’s on his side. There’s no heckler’s veto at work; on the contrary, the speaker in a Brandenburg scenario is trying to use the mob to silence his enemies by intimidating them. Note the Supreme Court’s language in the original opinion:

    These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

    “Advocacy,” not insults. Brandenburg has nothing to do with offending an audience and everything to do with, say, an Islamist demagogue telling a roiling mob of fanatics that it’s time to go burn down the local U.S. embassy. In fact, offhand, I can’t imagine a fact pattern where a fixed ad like the “Support Israel, Defeat Jihad” posters in the NYC subway system could meet the Brandenburg test for incitement. Even an ad that’s overtly violent, e.g., “Burn down the Supreme Court,” isn’t “likely” to result in anyone taking “imminent” action. The whole point of Brandenburg is to give speakers a wide berth in using incendiary language, with the state permitted to step in only at the last minute if some sort of riot or violence is already brewing. Whereas the whole point of “fighting words” is to limit a speaker’s ability to use incendiary language by letting his political enemies dictate what he is and isn’t allowed to say. If anything, the legal paradigm should be reversed: Force the guy who’s riling up a mob to be circumspect with his language and force the audience that’s prone to violent reaction to be extra tolerant of people with whom they disagree. Instead, we have the system we have. The sooner the Supremes change it, the better.

  65. Obama is again telling people to IGNORE the law-go ahead, don’t worry about it-we’ll make the tax payers pay the fine!

    Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices
    By Jeremy Herb – 09/28/12 07:25 PM ET

    The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.

    The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

    But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

    The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

    Senate Republicans, who accused the White House of trying to hide job losses after the first guidance, said Friday that the new OMB statement “puts politics ahead of American workers.”

    “The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”

    The fight over WARN Act notices began in June when Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said his company might send the notices to all 123,000 of its employees.

    Some companies were hesitant to follow Lockheed, but several others told McCain in letters earlier this month they might send the notices, too, despite the Labor Department guidance.

    But the new guidance would appear to address one of the chief concerns from the companies — that they could be liable to compensate employees who were laid off if the companies don’t issue the notices.

    The GOP senators complained, however, that this tactic would push the cost of the layoffs onto taxpayers.

    A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told The Hill that the company is still reviewing the documents.

  66. I swear, Hillary sounds like a Republican. To bad she seems to care more about helping other Countries-than she does her own.

    Hillary: ‘Loosen Regulation’ Because ‘Too Many People Still Can’t Find Jobs’-In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya
    By Terence P. Jeffrey
    September 28, 2012
    Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey’s posts

    Hillary Clinton

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

    ( – Speaking to a group of foreign ministers from Arab nations at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed support for loosening regulations, particularly on small businesses, because “too many people still can’t find jobs”–in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

    In Libya, according to an estimate published in May by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], real Gross Domestic Product is expected to grow this year at a rate of 20.1 percent—or about 15 times the 1.3 percent annualized rate at which real GDP grew in the United States in the second quarter of this year. The OECD further estimated that Libya’s real GDP would grow by another 9.5 percent next year.

    Libya, the OECD estimated, will have budget surplus equal to 13.6 percent of GDP this year. So far, this fiscal year, the debt of the U.S. government has increased by more than $1.2 trillion.

    “In Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, people rose up against their dictators because they were fed up with governments that served the interests of a few at the expense of everyone else,” said Clinton. “But economic and social challenges did not disappear with the dictators. Too many people still can’t find jobs, and young and growing populations crave a sense of opportunity and self-determination.

    “On the economic front, we are zeroing in on small and medium-sized enterprises because they are the growth engines in any economy,” Clinton said. “They create the bulk of new jobs and they spread wealth more broadly through more communities. And when people have the opportunity to unleash their talents and create something of their own, they are more invested in their communities, their countries, and their new democracies.

    “So the OECD is helping emerging democracies find ways they can loosen regulations and make it easier to start or expand a small business,” she said. “Several partners are setting up funds to help small businesses gain access to loans and financing. People of the region need to see that their governments can be fair and just. So we are stepping up our efforts to return billions of dollars that were stolen or siphoned away over decades of cronyism and corruption.”

    As a result of its civil war, Libya went through a dramatic economic contraction in 2011. But, according to the OECD, it is bouncing back from that.

    “Libya’s civil war hugely disrupted the economy by cutting oil output, the primary source of revenue, to virtually zero,” said an OECD analysis of Libya’s economy published in May. “As a result, the economy contracted 41.8 percent in 2011 but as oil production recovers, it should expand 20.1 percent in 2012 as reconstruction takes hold, followed by a gain of 9.5 percent in 2013.”

    According to the OECD report, Libya had a 17.1 percent budget deficit in 2011, while going through its civil war. However, according to the report, Libya ran budget surpluses in each of the six years before that and is expected to run a 13.6 percent surplus in 2012 and a 12.2 percent surplus in 2013.

  67. Don’t know if I get this channel, but it might be worth the effort to tune in.

    • I loved the euphemisms the media uses “lost track of”, “slipped out of their hands”. I think at this point that it is fairly obvious that there never was a plan to track any of the weapons. First of all, how could you? Once out the door, across the border, without a micro tracking device, there was no way period.

      It is pretty obvious and logical that the weapons would be “tracked” when they were found. Since this did nothing at all to locate the bad guys before they did bad stuff, there could in fact be only one purpose. That was, showing that the weapons came from, the US without conveniently mentioning that they were a gift from the US Government.

      I, for the life of me don’t know how anyone involved with that program knowing that there never was a tracking mechanism, can ever get a good night’s sleep again. Blood on your hands. As guilty as if you shot them yourselves because you could have stopped them but you, for nefarious purposes, looked the other way.

  68. “According to the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, an unidentified district student who is non-religious and the student‘s unidentified parent who is an atheist felt excluded because of the monument’s presence on school grounds.”

    Getting so tired of one unidentified person complained-seems to me -the complaining person should have to be named.

    “However, as notes, they’re also asking that it not be allowed to be placed at a nearby church. Nearby Connellsville Church of God has become a focus of the debate due to its location, which would still place the symbol in view of students attending the school.”

    Now this is new- they think they have the right to demand it not be moved to a Church’s private property.

    Atheists Sue Over 10 Commandments Display at PA Middle School & Demand it Not Be Moved to Private Church Property

    Posted on September 28, 2012 at 5:46pm by Billy Hallowell Billy Hallowell

    The Ten Commandments are under fire, once again, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a church-state separatist group, is taking yet another school system to court. This time, it’s the Connellsville Area School District in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, that has caught the ire of secularists who are suing to have a display featuring the biblical code of conduct taken down.

    The lawsuit, which the FFRF filed on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, was waged on behalf of an unnamed parent and child (referred to as Doe 4 and Doe 5). Doe 4 is purportedly a student at the junior high school.
    FFRF Suing Connellsville Area School District Over 10 Commandments

    The focus of the complaint is a six-foot stone monument that is displayed at the Connellsville Junior High School. According to the FFRF and its clients, the structure violates the First Amendment, so they are asking the court to order that it be removed from the school’s property.

    The FFRF offers more about the monument and the case at hand:

    The monument, which is between 5 and 6 feet tall, is near the main entrance by the Junior High auditorium. When the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument in 1957, the building was the high school.

    The complaint states that the continued presence of the Ten Commandments on district property is an unconstitutional advancement and endorsement of religion. The complaint also notes that the display “lacks any secular purpose,” citing Stone v. Graham, a 1980 Supreme Court decision which ruled the Ten Commandments may not be posted in public school classrooms, because “The pre-eminent purpose“ for doing so ”is plainly religious in nature.”

    The Post-Gazette adds even more about the ongoing debate over the symbol:

    The foundation and district had been in talks that led to a tentative decision to remove the monument to the grounds of a nearby church. But the district put that action on hold Sept. 12 when members of the public demanded that the monument be retained.

    According to the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, an unidentified district student who is non-religious and the student‘s unidentified parent who is an atheist felt excluded because of the monument’s presence on school grounds.

    However, as notes, they’re also asking that it not be allowed to be placed at a nearby church. Nearby Connellsville Church of God has become a focus of the debate due to its location, which would still place the symbol in view of students attending the school.

    According to Pittsburgh attorney Marcus B. Schneider, who is working with the FFRF on the case, students who play athletics on the school’s fields “cannot avoid” the Ten Commandments.

    While the school district made previous attempts to cover up the monument, the efforts were unsuccessful and atheists decided to take to the courts to solve the matter.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      Amazing how we have come this far! From freedom OF religion all the way to freedom FROM religion, to the point of a nearby church. Also the above 1st A. reads “Congress”, and not some school in PA.

      I had thought I was becoming numb to the bizarre, but this silliness woke me up at least for the moment.
      “They felt excluded” please………..

    • You are right about the unidentified stuff. If you don’t have the cojones to stand up and name yourself for fear that you actually may have to suffer ridicule, scorn or even be called the jerk you are for your beliefs, then you are frankly beneath contempt. Good men died to give us the freedom to post those commandments. Again, it is like Charlie says, the 99% are screwed by the 1%. The majority have no rights in this country.

  69. Oh my. Put this one up there with Madonna’s shameful act and again, just how far our society has fallen.

  70. Found the fabulous depression era Mickey Mouse “socialist” cartoon that the McCarthyites were so set against. It has all the classic elements, poor people, greedy landlords, the law acting in concert with the landlords and finally the poor putting it over on the Sheriff and preventing the sale of their property.

    Whatever you do, don’t miss Goofy singing the little ditty “The World Owes Me a Living” about two minutes into the toon. This must have been before Uncle Walt became a sell out.

%d bloggers like this: