Welcome!
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Lincoln, compromise and the price to pay - Daily Inter Lake: Columns

Login to DailyInterLake.com

Subscribers Click Here

Non Subscribers Click Here

Lincoln, compromise and the price to pay

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:00 pm | Updated: 12:38 pm, Thu Apr 17, 2014.

This just in — compromise to a liberal really does mean compromising your principles, and you don’t have to believe me. Just read what liberal columnist David Brooks had to say about the new film “Lincoln”:

“We live in an anti-political moment, when many people — young people especially — think politics is a low, nasty, corrupt and usually fruitless business. It’s much nobler to do community service or just avoid all that putrid noise.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers

      You must login to view the full content on this page.

      Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 406-755-7000 . You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

      Have an online subscription?

      Login Now

      Need an online subscription?

      Subscribe

      Login

      Choose an online service.

        Current print subscribers

          Welcome to the discussion.

          182 comments:

          • boredinkali posted at 6:03 pm on Tue, Dec 25, 2012.

            boredinkali Posts: 25

            There is no way hightech"cowboy" has a job, he spends all his time on this website spouting failed trickle down economics.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 10:39 am on Sun, Dec 9, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            bill....and I did! Total victory!

             
          • bill39 posted at 9:10 am on Sun, Dec 9, 2012.

            bill39 Posts: 1047

            Rob, without reading your post, I knew that would spur you to get the last post in.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 8:56 am on Sun, Dec 9, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            Gawd, bill39, you really need to read or watch something besides Glenn Beck and Rush!

            http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Cost-of-Obama-India-Trip.htm

            And if you know how to use google, search it yourself and try to get educated.

             
          • bill39 posted at 5:45 am on Sun, Dec 9, 2012.

            bill39 Posts: 1047

            Bronco: Yeah. But that was ONLY trips to his ranch...not vacations. $20 million to cut brush? The man, and his supporters, are idiots.

            You are the idiot, what about Obamas 1 billion dollar trip to India.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:35 am on Sun, Dec 9, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578163394088244224.html?KEYWORDS=Cautious+Companies+Stockpile+Cash

            By BEN CASSELMAN

            U.S. companies were sitting atop a record pile of cash at the end of September, but have slowed their saving as the economy has emerged from recession.

            American nonfinancial corporations held $1.74 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of the third quarter, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. That is $44 billion more than three months earlier and more than erases the prior quarter's slight decline.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 4:58 am on Sun, Dec 9, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            RLS Good Point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9730434/The-West-is-signing-its-own-death-sentence.html


            Good Counterpoint: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/07/1304121/low-wage-jobs-dont-just-harm-workers-they-harm-their-children/

            In this age of Electronic Finance and moving factories TO less expensive Labor and Regulatory Burdened regions, with Taxable Profit landing in Low Tax Countries far from it's original production source AND it's Wholesale destination, a modern day Bull Moose Party would have a heck of a burden explaining it all?

             
          • Bronco posted at 6:51 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328


            HTC: Bush spent that much over 8 years. Obama will have him beat before he finishes his first term.
            -----------------------
            Yeah. But that was ONLY trips to his ranch...not vacations. $20 million to cut brush? The man, and his supporters, are idiots.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 6:33 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            The false promises of redistribution/utopia once again exposed:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9730434/The-West-is-signing-its-own-death-sentence.html

             
          • Rob123 posted at 6:05 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HTC: "And Bush didn't go on a 20-day vacation with a "fiscal cliff" just 23 days away."

            Yeah Bronco! If you had telephones and computers and wifi in Hawaii, then the President could keep in touch with the House of Representatives and actually get this thing done, from Hawaii. But, you guys are just into sun and sand and surf.

            Of course, I think Congress is soon to be recessed to? At least nothing much will happen on Jan1st. It's not like a real cliff, with screams and broken bones. Yet, looking at Markets, it's already started. Just a slow motion thingy, with consequences and emotionalized metaphors up the Yin-Yang. By March, it could get ugly.

             
          • kohana posted at 5:40 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109


            HighTechCowboy posted at 3:40 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012

            I don't mind being on someone's sh*t list, but being on the "no-fly" list would annoy me. Especially if it took them a $ load of money to determine it was sand and not some other nefarious substance.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 3:45 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Bronco: Why weren't you bichen before now?

            HTC: Bush spent that much over 8 years. Obama will have him beat before he finishes his first term.

            And Bush didn't go on a 20-day vacation with a "fiscal cliff" just 23 days away.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 3:41 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Bronco: Bronco posted at 11:32 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012

            HTC: Glad to see you've finally caught up to September's news.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 3:40 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            kohana: It took about 4 times before they stopped dunning me for money. I'm sure I'm on someone's sh*t list by now.

            HTC: If they do that again, fill the postage-paid envelope with sand to make it heavy before you mail it.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:29 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            laker1 posted at 12:19 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            "....it appears that your conjecture about inflation is pretty good..."

            [wink] It wasn't conjecture. My MOS was 73C, Finance. I've just always found it interesting, and have watched it over the years. A good indicator of inflation......Yet, in 1969 a reasonably hot Mustang was about 10 months pay for an E-5/2, while today it's about 13 months.......but the financing is easier and cheaper, today.

             
          • Bronco posted at 12:28 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:38 am: our Empty Chair-in-Chief plans a $4M Hawaiian vacation
            ----------------------------
            Why weren't you bichen before now?

            http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html
            Those who criticize the cost of Obama’s Christmas vacation don’t want you to know that George W. Bush spent at least $20 million taxpayer dollars just on flights to his ranch in Crawford.
            The right wing has been outraged at the four million dollar plus price tag for Obama’s family Christmas vacation, and they constantly hold George W. Bush up as an example of how thrifty a president should be when going on vacation.
            The problem is that W. wasn’t thrifty. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.
            During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.
            If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush’s vacation numbers.
            In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation too much, the Bush administration adopted the Rovian tactic of scheduling, “work events,” while the president was in Crawford so that they could claim that President Bush’s vacations were working vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP reported that, “Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio.”
            Bush’s “working vacations” cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism that he was on vacation too often. For eight years, Bush essentially used Air Force One as his personal vacation taxi service.
            What was also not counted in Bush’s Air Force One mileage total were the vacations where Bush flew to Crawford from Camp David such as the following via Media Matters:
            In a December 27, 2001, Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel article (accessed via Nexis), national correspondent Jeff Zeleny reported “[a]fter spending Christmas at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, the president and first lady boarded Air Force One to travel to their ranch near the village of Crawford.”
            And on December 26, 2007, The Associated Press reported that Bush took “Air Force One to fly from his Maryland mountaintop retreat to his Texas ranch here to see in the new year.”

            Republicans Can’t Stop Lying about Obama’s Vacations
            Obama is not going to Paris for July 4th, and at 31 months in office, he'd had 61 days 'off' vs. Bush's 180 days away
            Jon Ponder | Jul 3, 2012
            Republicans are obsessed with lying about Pres. Obama’s vacation time. Mainly, they love to trot out the demonstrably false claim that Obama has taken more time off than other presidents...
            The idea that Obama — or any president — has taken more time off than George W. Bush should be laughable with anyone who a) was awake and paying attention to events from January 2001 to January 2009 and b) has a conscience. It was well known then that George Bush hated his job, hated Washington and, especially, hated the White House. He greatly preferred his fake ranch in Texas, and flew there whenever it was possible.
            Those who are old enough to remember the 2000s may recall that Bush was on vacation in August 2001 when he was warned by the CIA that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U.S.. He was also on vacation when the city of New Orleans was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
            This source says Bush had 967 days away from the White House during his eight years in office, which means he was on vacation 32 percent of the time he was on the taxpayers’ payroll. This included 77 vacations totaling 490 days at his “ranch” in Texas, which cost taxpayers at least $124 million, as well as 487 days at Camp David. This does not include his trips to Kennebunkport, or his wife’s and daughters’ trips overseas, like, for example, Jenna and Barbara’s drunken rampage in Argentina in 2006.
            By contrast, Ronald Reagan, the previous modern record-holder, spent 463 days on vacation during his two terms.
            Obama has taken 17 vacations in his three years in office. As of last August, he had taken 61 vacation days off. At that same point in their presidencies — 31 months in office — George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch; Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch and Bill Clinton had taken just 28 days off.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 12:25 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Hi Lakert:

            Sounds like damming with faint praise to me; but, if not, then please accept my apology for doubting your sincerity. RLS

             
          • laker1 posted at 12:19 pm on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            laker1 Posts: 110

            Rob 123,

            You posed interesting question about military pay. Combat pay is now $225 so the E-5 you describe would be making $2529.40 a month. Since he or she is in a combat zone, this would only be subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.

            The present value of $390 is $2548.14 according to the Bureau of Labor Standards calculator. I don’t know if this would have only been subject to SS and Medicare in 1969 and am I not quite OCDed to try to find out. So, without getting into all the details, it appears that your conjecture about inflation is pretty good. This leads to two further questions.

            First, I had always thought that, if the government could compel people to work, it would not need to pay them as much as if it had to compete in the market. While not all E-5’s in 1969 were drafted, a fair number had been and many who had volunteered had done so to avoid the draft. An E-5 now is a volunteer so now the government must compete. If the pay now is about the same as the pay then, it would seem that the draft did not affect the market price for E-5s. Dang, I can no longer claim that "we pretended to work and they pretended to pay us."

            On the other hand, it appears that pay has just kept pace with inflation for more than forty years. I have to smile when I use the term “productivity” to describe what E-5’s did then and do now but I would think that an E-5 now is more productive than an E-5 then. (No offense meant) For example, I knew a Marine sergeant who could, if necessary, call B-52 strikes. I think an E-5 now would be more likely to call on an armed drone and obtain more precise results at less cost.

            If this is true, then the E-5 has not gained any pay increase from his or her increased productivity but simply kept up. This is also true of civilian workers over the past 30 years who have seen their income just keep pace, if that, with inflation. The usual suspects for the theft of increased productivity on the civilians are the 1%. I wonder who the suspects are for the theft of military productivity? The generals, the government, the taxpayers?

            Well, whoever, an interesting question. Thanks for bringing it up.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 11:34 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            NOT THE ONION! Honest to goodness hardcore Southern GOP folks......

            U.S. Senator Protests Climate Talks With Activist Who Believes The UN Is The Anti-Christ

            Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the lead Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy and Public Works, held a climate-denial press conference at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on Thursday. With Inhofe was an activist who believes the UN is starting the apocalypse and a British Lord who was banned from all UN climate conferences for impersonating the representative from Myanmar.
            Senator Inhofe’s first guest was Cathie Adams, the President of the Texas Eagle Forum and former Texas GOP chair. Adams must have felt quite uncomfortable speaking at a United Nations function, as she has maintained for over a decade that the UN was the anti-Christ’s vehicle for stealthily taking over the world. From a 1999 newsletter:
            The Bible tells us that in the end times there will be a world government headed by a world leader, called the anti-Christ, who will profess a world religion, but did you ever think you would live in the day when these things would come into being? That is exactly what the United Nations is doing behind the backs of most Americans.
            Adams has singled out environmentalism as part of the UN’s sinister agenda, suggesting a fictional UN Pledge of Allegiance would require “worship[ping] the Earth.” She also believes, among other things, that the CO2 emissions do not cause climate change and that vaccination is a plot to steal American freedom.
            Senator Inhofe’s other guest, Lord Christopher Monckton, has a storied history of making things up, especially with respect to climate science. It’s a pattern Monckton fell into at the Doha negotiations, where he took the platform reserved for the Myanmarese delegation and claimed to be speaking for “Asian coastal nations.” The double pretense got him ejected from the nation of Qatar and banned from every future UN climate summit.
            One might think this clown show would embarrass the Senator, but his record suggests otherwise: Senator Inhofe has claimed that climate science is a hoax that contravenes the will of God and is currently working with the Heartland Institute — which suggests that climate change advocates are like the Unabomber — to de-fund the Environmental Protection Agency.

             
          • Bronco posted at 11:32 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:38 am: our Empty Chair-in-Chief plans a $4M Hawaiian vacation
            ------------------

            House Republicans Plan Two Month Vacation, Leaving Key Bills Awaiting Action
            By Josh Israel on Sep 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm
            House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced Friday that after next week, the House will stand in recess until November 13. His plan for a nearly two month vacation will undoubtedly allow more time for campaigning, but will leave several vital bills awaiting action. Among the important legislation the House will likely not address before the November elections:
            1. Violence Against Women Act re-authorization. Though a bipartisan Senate majority passed the a strong re-authorization bill in April, the Republican House leadership refused to allow a vote on the Senate version of the bill. The House passed a watered down version on a mostly-party lines vote, leaving victims to wait for House action.
            2. The American Jobs Act. Republicans have been blocking President Obama’s jobs legislation for more than a year. Though House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) promised in 2010 that a GOP Congress would focus on job creation, he has blocked this bill’s immediate infrastructure investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers, and aid to state and local governments to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public safety officials.
            3. Tax cuts for working families. In July, the Senate passed a bill extending tax-cuts for the first $250,000 in annual income. The Republican House leadership has refused to consider the bill, holding it hostage to their demands for a full extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires.
            4. Veterans Job Corps Act. The Senate is currently considering bipartisan legislation to help America’s veterans find jobs. The Air Force Times reports that the Republican House has “shown no interest” in the legislation to support those who served the country.
            5. Sequestration. A spokesman for Boehner said earlier this week that stopping budget cuts he voted for last August “topped our July agenda and remains atop our agenda for September.” While House Republicans have complained about the imminent spending reductions and passed a bill that would require President Obama to find offsets for spending cuts they don’t like, Republican Leader Canter could not name a single compromise he was willing to make to get a deal.
            6. Farm Bill. Despite strong support for a 5-year farm bill from even conservative groups like the Farm Bureau Association — the House leadership has not scheduled a vote on the bill. The current law expires September 30. Without passage, 90 percent of the work of the Department of Agriculture could be defunded.
            7. Wind tax credit. The Senate may act next week to renew an expiring wind energy tax credit. Despite bipartisan support — including from original author Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Examiner notes that the House is unlikely to pass the renewal. Despite GOP calls for energy independence, the expiration has threatened the wind energy industry and already led to job cuts.
            These, in addition to drought assistance, postal service reform, addressing the Estate Tax, cybersecurity legislation, fixes for Medicare reimbursement rates and the Alternative Minimum Tax, and all 12 of the FY 2013 Appropriations Bills remain unaddressed.
            Four years ago, Republicans objected when then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) adjourned Congress for a five-week August recess without bringing up their energy legislation. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) shouted “Madame Speaker, where art thou? Where oh where has Congress gone?” Now, they plan a two month vacation, even if it means allowing vital programs to expire and working families to suffer.

             
          • kohana posted at 11:10 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:30 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012

            No problem, they already have me. I'd send back their plea for money in their postage paid envelopes stating, on the return stub, "I wanted a real American for a president, not a Communist."

            It took about 4 times before they stopped dunning me for money. I'm sure I'm on someone's sh*t list by now.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:38 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            As the "fiscal cliff" draws nigh, our Empty Chair-in-Chief plans a $4M Hawaiian vacation:

            http://www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=833827

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:30 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Everyone in U.S. under surveillance?

            http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:21 am on Sat, Dec 8, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HighTechCowboy posted at 6:29 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            No problem! The feeling is mutual.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 6:29 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123 posted at 6:19 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            Thank you for proving that my low regard for political 'scientists' isn't unwarranted.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 6:19 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HTC: "That's not an exhaustive list but leads me to wonder what you're smokin' that leaves you so optimistic."

            Because opinionated knotheads like you aren't in charge, which gives me some hope. You'd just crush cr*p because it's crushable, then wait for everyone to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or die, while enjoying your Tax Rate and it's really cool 3% points less than if you had worked out a compromise for now, and solutions in the next 6 months. BUT, it's America, and the Far Right and the Far Left seem to hog the airwaves.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 6:19 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            kohana posted at 5:10 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            Any honest student of history and geography has to realize that Israel cannot afford to give back these lands that it lawfully annexed as the spoils of war, after being attacked by its neighbors. Those lands proved to be strategically advantageous to their enemies and they cannot afford to allow them to use them once again.

            But one has to possess reasonable critical thinking skills to appreciate that fact and that is one thing sadly lacking in the liberal toolbox.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 6:08 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

            HTC: One thing is quite obvious from that chart; that is, when taxes are low on the "working class" and high on the top producers, populism and socialism thrive. This is what helped to popularize the New Deal and the Great Society. Any Democratic form of government which doesn't ensure via its tax policies that every voter feels the sting of electoral decisions which lead to bigger and more expensive government, is a Democracy which won't long survive.

            This is the greatest flaw and threat to our freedoms which is inherent in a progressive tax system. It is a cancer which has already eaten much of the heart of American culture and the "rugged individualism" which made us the greatest economy on the planet, as it appears that a solid majority of Americans now favor soaking the 'rich.'

            Democrats have long resisted any efforts to establish a flat tax system or a consumption tax because they know that such tax systems would show ALL Americans how unaffordable their party and its policies really are.

            The truth is, we're not dealing with a system where the rich aren't paying their fair share. We're dealing with a system where 60%+ of Americans aren't paying their fair share.

             
          • laker1 posted at 6:07 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            laker1 Posts: 110

            Dear Rick Spencer,

            Thank you for your prompt and complete response to my questions. I cannot imagine how much time and trouble your response required. I was particularly impressed how you avoided the insulting language and cheap sophistry that some resort to on this blog. The complete failure of any to respond to the reasonable questions you pose simply shows that there cannot be any answers to them.

            I hope that you will continue to post contributions of such unique clarity and intellectual depth. I cannot tell you what insights I have gained from your postings. I am sure that future postings will only confirm the regard in which you and your principles are held.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:48 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: No.....However, the very nature of the question and the implied "I'm against......" didn't do to well in the last election. Some conservatives are trying to reorganize the formula and message. Most of the losing Republicans on this forum are stuck on feeling the joy/horror of something warm trickling down their leg and commenting on it profusely. Great stuff for small in group-out group thinking, but it obviously doesn't win elections with it's inability to articulate a positive economic message.

            HTC: Thank gawd you're not talking about me, since I've long been an independent.

            How telling that your regard righteous dismay and fear after losing a major battle to defend the Constitution, the economy and personal freedom from Marxist thugs as being "stuck on feeling the joy/horror of something warm trickling down their leg."

            But that seems to be the world of the political 'scientist' where everything's relative and the Constitution is merely an old rag which no longer applies to our 'modern' times.

            As for the GOP's alleged inability to "articulate a positive economic message", Romney and Ryan in particular did a decent enough job but their message contained an important element of truth that a large segement of the electorate didn't want to hear: You have to be responsible for yourself and your own outcomes. Government can't take care of you; in fact, government is the principle reason for our economic malaise.

            That's not a winning message in an era when government now accounts for a majority of the economy.

            Rob123: We are going over the cliff, and I have a feeling after 2 negative growth quarters, the economy will start to grow again. But, it's going to be ugly for people with mortgages and commitments and live pay check to pay check.......and all those industries that are absolutely dependent on government spending.....infrastructure and defense the biggest losers. I'm ready!

            HTC: And what do you base such optimism upon? Government is creating three times more jobs than the private sector and now accounts for 51% of the economy (meaning that government now consumes more than the private sector is currently producing); the private sector is afraid to do anything, thanks to looming tax increases and the full horror of ObamaCare going into effect in another year; our exports are shrinking as much of the world slips into recession ahead of us; everything imported into this country, which is substantial, continues to skyrocket in price as the Fed keeps printing money; household incomes continue to decline.; Social Security 'disability' applications continue to skyrocket, as do the number of people on means-tested welfare programs; the red ink from Social Security and Medicare continues to grow as more of the 80 million baby boomers retire.

            That's not an exhaustive list but leads me to wonder what you're smokin' that leaves you so optimistic.

             
          • kohana posted at 5:10 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            http://israelisoldiersmother.blogspot.com/2012/12/history-of-e1.html
            Monday, December 3, 2012

            History of E1
            The world is up in arms, as it so loves to be. What is it about now?

            No, no - not Syria and the violence there. Not Afghanistan; certainly not Iran. They aren't condemning Turkish television fining the Simpsons for mocking God; or a social club at Harvard University saying Jews need not apply. No, it isn't about Hungary cataloging Jews as they would cattle and certainly nothing about Iranian warships sailing towards Sudan.

            It's all about a mountain that sits between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem. Even left-wing papers in Israel mistakenly write that Israel is threatening to "bisect" the West Bank and the news is filled with country after country condemning Israel for damaging chances for peace. Chances for peace? We were at war two weeks ago and little has changed. There are currently NO chances for peace on the table. In fact, there is no table.

            No, no, no - what we have is a mountain - not a very tall one, smaller even than the ones next to it on three sides.

            It is barren, but for a road that snakes its way up to a midpoint where a large police station has been built - barren, but for that building. No one lives there - no one has.

            The land was once part of the Ottoman Empire - no village, no homes, no dwellings. Sheep and goats sometimes graze on the lower areas of the hills, but that's about it. When the Ottoman's made way for the British, it was under their rule, and still nothing but the camels and the sheep and the goats and, perhaps, an occasional ground hog.

            In the 1920s, England cut off 2/3 of the land that was called Palestine and gave it to the Hashemites - and thus Jordan was born. The remaining 1/3 was ruled by the British until 1947, including that land that today we call E1. In 1948, the Arabs chose war over peace, death over life. They attacked and lost - but they got E1 - the barren land between Jerusalem's eastern border and the west bank of the Jordan River.

            And then, in 1967, it was clear that Egypt and Syria were preparing for war - Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and sent a message to the Jordanians. We have no quarrel with you; stay out of the fighting. We will not attack you. The Jordanians sent back their message in two ways - in words or action, the message was the same - we fight with our brothers...and so they did. They attacked - as they had in 1948 and the result was the same - they lost.

            This time, E1 came into our hands. State-owned under the Turks; state-owned under the Jordanians, and now state-owned under Israel. Never the home of Palestinians; no villages there, no buildings but for the one we built a few years ago...and the ones we will now build.

            The history of E1 is very simple. It is but a mountain that lies between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem. Arabs regularly travel on the highway between Maale Adumim and the Dead Sea - the highway remains. There is no bisecting, no blocking, no break in the passage.

            It is a mountain, soon to be green and developed. That is the history of E1, except for one huge point that the world forgets. Before the Jordanians, before the British, before the Ottomans, before the Romans...the land was, as it is today - ours. It was the ancient land of Israel; it is the modern land of Israel.

            As for the countries of the world who say Israel threatens the peace - where were you two weeks ago when I ran with my children to our bomb shelter? Why did my son have to leave his wife to protect Israel's south from a thousand rockets?

            It is too late now to tell us of peace - speak to Hamas first. You support a Palestinian state? Clearly you do - but it is Israel that must live with it and so we shall - if we have to. We will build and the world will scream. But we have learned that the world screams easily for that which is so minor and ignores that which really matters. Dozens died today in Syria as they did yesterday and as they will tomorrow - but yes, certainly, let's discuss a barren hill across from my back yard.

            Posted by Paula R. Stern at 20:31

            If you go to this URL and scroll down, you will see a short video of the area.
            http://israelisoldiersmother.blogspot.com/2012/12/history-of-e1.html

             
          • kohana posted at 4:53 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Ah, something else again from our muslim pos sitting in OUR White House.

            Obama Promises Terrorists That He Will Stop Israeli House Construction

            Posted By Daniel Greenfield On December 7, 2012

            There’s still no promise from Obama to Egyptians that his good buddy Morsi will call off his rape and torture squads. No promise to Israelis that the Palestinian Authority will end its terrorism. But Obama has promised its kingpin that he will stop the Jewish State from building any more of those lethally lethal Jewish houses.

            Jordanian King Abdullah II conveyed U.S. assurances to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Washington will not allow a new Israeli settlement plan to pass, a Palestinian official said Thursday.

            The United States will put pressure on Israel to cancel a recent building plan, in exchange for not starting the Palestinian efforts to join UN agencies, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

            King Abdullah II, the first head of state to visit the Palestinian territories after the UN vote, told Abbas that U.S. President Barak Obama’s administration will not impose sanctions on the Palestinian National Authority.

            He also said that Washington will work on preventing the construction of new housing units in the E1 area, which connects the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem.

            So Obama will blackmail Israel with a Palestinian state in the name of a Palestinian state. That’s a plan so stupid that it’s bound to work.

            The Palestinian Authority’s terror squads fired 516 rockets into Israel. It is participating in Hamas’ 25th Anniversary celebrations. It made a major unilateral move at the United Nations. And not only won’t Obama stop giving money to terrorists, but he intends to help these terrorists pressure Israel not to build homes for Jews. No similar pressure is of course being imposed on the Palestinian Authority.

            So tell me how Obama is pro-Israel again. And skip the Iron Dome funding. The Iron Dome is the main reason why Israel didn’t go into Gaza and dismantle Hamas. It’s pain management technology that helps make increased levels of terrorism viable without an increased Israeli response.

            Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

            URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/obama-promises-terrorists-that-he-will-stop-israeli-house-construction/

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 4:45 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            And so the great drama goes on and on with El Commandte Comrade, King obama unwilling to change any part of his wacko (and undetailed) "proposal", but he would like unconstitutional power, (just as a side item ya know). Again, He did not campaign all this time in a fog of lies and empty promises to actually help America. His efforts and focus remain to transform America, and he's doing a fine job of that. By the time he's removed from office, the debt will not be fixable, employment will resemble Greece, fuel costs will drive all costs higher etc. etc. and the old folks will be left to die with no medical treatment. That will be King Obama and the destructocrats legacy. Well, pretty much half the country knew this four years ago, but a state controlled media/press is a powerful weapon against our freedom.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 4:13 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

             
          • kohana posted at 3:57 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Rob: Most of the losing Republicans on this forum are stuck on feeling the joy/horror of something warm trickling down their leg and commenting on it profusely.

            Change that to Conservatives, as I'm not a Republican, but do let us enjoy our little bit of fun teasing, as we have so little to enjoy in this continuing disaster. The idiot newscasters make these remarks without any help from us. Then, a few of the commentators on this board come up with a few of their own.

            Some good news, the premiums of my part D-Rx insurance went down, from $37.70 a month to $37.60. There are so many ways I can spend that dime! Maybe I'll save it and splurge at the end of the year.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:07 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-heritage-foundation-jim-demint-7824

            The Heritage Foundation and Jim DeMint

            Jacob Heilbrunn | December 7, 2012
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            RLS: " And that is why I asked Rob and others, "Do you really want to live under an unconstrained government that has little or no limits upon its power, and that thrives upon the lies and false promise of an utopia?"

            No.....However, the very nature of the question and the implied "I'm against......" didn't do to well in the last election. Some conservatives are trying to reorganize the formula and message. Most of the losing Republicans on this forum are stuck on feeling the joy/horror of something warm trickling down their leg and commenting on it profusely. Great stuff for small in group-out group thinking, but it obviously doesn't win elections with it's inability to articulate a positive economic message.

            We are going over the cliff, and I have a feeling after 2 negative growth quarters, the economy will start to grow again. But, it's going to be ugly for people with mortgages and commitments and live pay check to pay check.......and all those industries that are absolutely dependent on government spending.....infrastructure and defense the biggest losers. I'm ready!

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:52 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Pete: 'Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty'

            HTC: Such a deal! $21/hr. for being 'poor.'

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:48 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Pete: 73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government

            HTC: Of course this is entirely unsustainable, since only the private sector can create the wealth and economic growth needed to keep paying for those jobs. Government has to take money OUT of the private sector, in order to fund its jobs; or, it can borrow/print money and eventually destroy the economy through that process.

            Making matters even worse, most government employment is regulatory compliance-based employment, which means it CONSTRAINS needed gowth and job creation in the private sector with its over $4T per year hidden 'tax' burden on the private sector.

            To anyone with even a basic mastery of economics, this is all VERY obvious.

            So what does that say about IABD, jennydoe, Bronco, Rebel Rouser, et al?

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 2:23 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            I have been traveling and this is the first day in about a week I have 'viewed' the comments and noted one from Lakert some time back. And, it seems he has made my point in his first paragraph: Before I would attempt to answer your question, I must confess some confusion about what you mean by the phrases “constrained view of the constitution” and “unconstrained view of the constitution”. For example, if I were to say that I had an “unconstrained” view of Flathead Lake, I would mean that there is nothing in my field of vision that interferes with my sight. On the other hand, were I to say I have a “constrained” view of Flathead Lake, I would be saying, I think, that there are objects between me and the lake which do interfere with my sight.

            In that para you infer nothing would stop an unconstrained view of FLathed, and that is exactly how Liberals/Socialists view the Constitution, nothing will stop them from the nonsense they spew, So, I ask again:

            " And that is why I asked Rob and others, "Do you really want to live under an unconstrained government that has little or no limits upon its power, and that thrives upon the lies and false promise of an utopia?" I have not heard an answer to that and would like to hear some answers and reasons. After all, that has been your personal choice (in the future that may not be so); thus, you must have had principled reasons that satisfied your choice leading to a path to be a productive citizen in order to raise a family and a life of happiness. So, what are the principles underlying your choice? Simply, and before the question is asked, mine are Constitutionally based."

            I really do not think that you answered the question I asked as the truth of your answer may be too telling of your beliefs for you to acknowledge, and that would be a shameful public stance, wouldn't it?

             
          • kohana posted at 1:58 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Well, Home Land Security didn't hire my daughter with her hard earned Summa Cum Laude, must have thought she had a brain and could think for herself. She passed all the steps up to the Interview. A year and half later, still waiting for the interview. However, I guess Glacier National has all the people they need.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Since the federal debt is so often mention in comments, I thought it might be useful for all to see it visualized in physical $100 bills. Remember while watching, this is only the present debt on the books and does not include the enormous hidden debt of unfunded liabilities that would make the visualization 13 times its size piled on top! It will also help you realize that the fiscal cliff issue is something of a bogus argument when measured against the reality of the issue.

            Amazing! RLS

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-06/visualizing-us-debt

             
          • bill39 posted at 1:31 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            bill39 Posts: 1047

            HTC: In every scenario, the lying, conniving MSM will back him up.

            Fer sure.

             
          • Pete posted at 1:03 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            'Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty'

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html

             
          • Pete posted at 12:59 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government
            By Terence P. Jeffrey
            December 7, 2012

            Labor Secretary Hilda Solis (Dept. of Labor photo)

            Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

            In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.

            By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.

            In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.

             
          • kohana posted at 12:18 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            HTC: Stop it, Pete. I'm starting to get a "thrill up my leg" just thinking about it.

            Well, that brought me out of my depression! LOL

             
          • Pete posted at 12:17 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            HighTechCowboy posted at 12:07 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012[thumbup][thumbup]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 12:07 pm on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Pete: And what is the alternative? Serve as speed bumps on the road to STATE socialism and be blamed for the rough ride? Or do as Boehner is doing and collaborate with an evil philosophy? This scenario has been played out many times before and the people always end up getting what they deserve...I just want it to be sooner rather than later when the options for me and my family are more limited.

            HTC: Well said and I wish I had a confident answer to your question.

            Boenher has finally shown his true stripes and has apparently chosen to collaborate with the enemy. He's a fool for doing so, since caving at all to Obama will allow Obama to blame him and the GOP when it all goes into the crapper. All Obama will have to say is "My plan would have worked if the GOP had given me EVERYTHING I asked for." Those who voted for Obama, a slim majority who are profoundly ignorant of everything having to do with economics, are very likely to buy that line of crap. Bronco and jennydoe certainly will.

            On the other hand, if the GOP resists and tries to do right by America, then Obama will claim that we dove into a second dip because the GOP wouldn't give him anything.

            In every scenario, the lying, conniving MSM will back him up. The Founders knew that, once the majority of the press sided with a political party, the republic was lost. Many thought that the Internet and FoxNews would keep that from happening, but most liberals I know are horrible at doing Internet research and many of the search engines such as Google only return liberal propaganda-correct links for the first 15-20 pages of links. By doing so, Google provides a service for the liberal cause that goes WAY beyond political and PAC contributions; in fact, this service is priceless.

            As for Fox, the MSM, academics and Democrats have done a marvellous job of marginalizing it. That's easy to do when you're manipulating liberal morons who lack good critical thinking skills. While liberals will argue that Fox has a larger viewership than any of the other media sources, all of the other sources combined still reach a FAR bigger audience.

            Lately, what is truly significant about this coconspiratorial media is not so much how they report things but what they FAIL to report, otherwise known as lies of omission.

            Anyone who doubts the complicity of the MSM should only need to consider the fact that, during Obama's 2008 bid, the MSM who travelled with him on his campaign jet were given a long list of things they couldn't ask him. (Fox, of course, wasn't invited.)

            Did they refuse to go along with that? He// no! That's why he's America's first virtually unvetted president. None of those morons even deserves to still hold a press pass.

            So, maybe you're right. Maybe the GOP should just get out of the way and let Obama and the Dems have everything they want. They'll probably still get blamed for it, but maybe - just maybe - enough of a badly-hurting electorate will finally pull their heads of that dark, smelly place where they've been hiding it.

            Pete: There is also the added benefit of seeing the nimrods who have shilled for this nonsense caught up in the misery of their choices. Can't you just see the look on Rob's face when the STATE lowers the "rich" bar low enough to catch him in its net and he is suddenly the tallest midget on the block? Watching him fight off the "people's army" with "big dog" Bronco and Jenny "the spaghetti" leading the mob would be simply sublime.

            HTC: Stop it, Pete. I'm starting to get a "thrill up my leg" just thinking about it.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:47 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: Did you see Florida's Marco Rubio dodge a question the other day, concerning "How old is the Earth?". He refused to answer. Great politician? Arrghh.

            HTC: If dodging a question makes one a "great politician", then Obama is the greatest of them all.

            Obviously the earth is substantially more than several millenia old, but how old do YOU think it is? Before you answer, remember that there are numerous unprovable assumptions behind radiometric dating....

             
          • Pete posted at 11:46 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 10:18 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            Congrats. You are a shining example of the American electorate. Are you sure you weren't on the Howard Stern show the other day?

            Politicians pass a healthcare bill without knowing what on earth is in it.....great.

            Politicians pass on a question about the age of the earth.....bad.

            [beam]

             
          • Pete posted at 11:35 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:39 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            "We know the Democrats will never take ownership of ANY of the vast damage they've done to this country and the MSM will bend over backwards to shield them from it while running OpEds from their top propagandists such as that charlatan Paul Krugman, all of which will attempt to pin everything on the GOP."

            All of which is true.

            "And then there's the vast sea of ignorant/stupid voters who weren't able to connect the dots that the past four years of misery were Obama's fault. When the electorate is that mentally deficient, it's a BIG gamble to bet that sinking into a deep second dip would ever get effectively blamed on the Democrats."

            And what is the alternative? Serve as speed bumps on the road to STATE socialism and be blamed for the rough ride? Or do as Boehner is doing and collaborate with an evil philosophy? This scenario has been played out many times before and the people always end up getting what they deserve...I just want it to be sooner rather than later when the options for me and my family are more limited.

            There is also the added benefit of seeing the nimrods who have shilled for this nonsense caught up in the misery of their choices. Can't you just see the look on Rob's face when the STATE lowers the "rich" bar low enough to catch him in its net and he is suddenly the tallest midget on the block? Watching him fight off the "people's army" with "big dog" Bronco and Jenny "the spaghetti" leading the mob would be simply sublime.

             
          • kohana posted at 11:32 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Rob123 posted at 10:18 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            Maybe Rubio didn't really know and didn't want a "Sarah Palin" pulled on him, so he gave an evasive answer. However, I agree that catering to any religious belief vs the truth isn't going to impress anyone but the ignorant. Because of his ability to avoid being pinned down, at least 49% of his admirers will think he is a great politician.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 10:18 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            Did you see Florida's Marco Rubio dodge a question the other day, concerning "How old is the Earth?". He refused to answer. Great politician? Arrghh.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:47 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            The debate continues:

            "Three out of five scientists do not believe in God, but two out of five do, said John Donvan, opening a debate on the issue of science and religion yesterday (Dec. 5) in New York.":

            http://www.livescience.com/25303-science-vs-god-debate.html

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:39 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Pete: Michigan GOP approves right to work amid union protests

            HTC: At least the Michigan GOP has figured out that the unions darn near finished off the U.S. auto industry. Now, their public sector equivalents are close to finishing off the nation's finances as well.

            Pete: Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

            HTC: We know the Democrats will never take ownership of ANY of the vast damage they've done to this country and the MSM will bend over backwards to shield them from it while running OpEds from their top propagandists such as that charlatan Paul Krugman, all of which will attempt to pin everything on the GOP.

            And then there's the vast sea of ignorant/stupid voters who weren't able to connect the dots that the past four years of misery were Obama's fault. When the electorate is that mentally deficient, it's a BIG gamble to bet that sinking into a deep second dip would ever get effectively blamed on the Democrats.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:32 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Let's call a truce in the war on men
            By Suzanne Venker
            November 7, 2012

            Tracy McMillan, TV writer and author of "Why You’re Not Married" one the most popular articles ever to appear on The Huffington Post responded this way to the backlash her piece elicited: “The truth will set you free. But first it will tick you off.”

            In the last two weeks my op-ed about why men are retreating from marriage, hit a nerve. In “The War on Men,” which appeared here on FoxNews.com, I said women are angry. And they are. I was inundated with emails from women telling me I should be ashamed of myself for suggesting women have a role to play in the decline of marriage and battle of the sexes. One reader even told me to kill myself. No, really. Kill myself.

            My crime, apparently, is twofold. First I said men said women are no longer women. And in response, I suggested women get in touch with their feminine side. I didn’t, however, say what I meant by that statement. That’s because the article was supposed to be a teaser for my upcoming book, "How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage."

            But since the backlash has been so severe – with feminists convinced I want to set women back 200 years – I feel compelled to offer a sampling of what I meant by "surrendering" to one’s femininity. As one woman named Lia asked, “What does it mean to surrender to our femininity in today’s world? How do we reclaim our rightful gender roles without giving up our careers and independence?”

            It’s easier than you think.

            You begin by accepting that men and women are different. Equal, but different. This means you’ll have to reject feminist dogma since feminism has taught you that equality means sameness.

            Fortunately, there’s been an explosion of brain research in the past several years to help explain male and female anatomy. The best books are Dr. Louann Brizendine’s “The Male Brain” and “The Female Brain.”

            Here’s what we know: Females, in general, are nurturing and relational beings. They like to gather and nest and take care of people. They like to commiserate with other females – a lot. That’s why girls can talk for hours on end. It’s why more women stay home with their children than men. It’s why the teaching and caregiving professions are still heavily female. Not every single woman in the world falls into this category, but that doesn’t make the generalization any less true.

            Males, on the other hand – in general – are loners. They’re content to mill about in their man caves. They like to hunt. They like to build things and kill things. If you don’t have a son, this may sound strange. But again, that doesn’t make it untrue – nor does the fact that not every single man in the world is like this. Men also take pride in caring for their families. They can’t carry babies or nurse them, but they can provide for them. So let them.

            That, of course, is the gray area. Gone are the days of the breadwinning husband and the homemaking wife, right? So if I’m not referring to Ward and June Cleaver, what on earth do I mean? As Lia asked, what does it mean for “today’s world”?

            It means women shouldn’t let their success in the workplace become the biggest thing in their lives.

            If the ultimate goal is lasting love, women are going to have to become comfortable with sacrifice and capitulation. Because those are the underpinnings of a long-term marriage – for both sexes. If you don’t believe me, ask your grandparents. Or anyone else who’s been married for decades.

            Love today has become a power struggle, largely because women have been conditioned to keep their guard up – as though men and marriage will swallow them whole. As Sandra Bullock once said to Barbara Walters, “I’d always had this feeling that if you got married, it was like the end of who you were.” That attitude is commonplace, and it’s the direct result of a generation of feminists who told their daughters never to depend on a man.

            We live in a new world. But that doesn’t mean it’s a better world. Women are struggling more than ever with how to rectify their desire for independence with their desire for love. These two things can be reconciled. But you must first be open to ideas that sound blasphemous.

            Just because you make your own money doesn’t mean your guy can’t pay the bill. Just because you value independence doesn’t mean you can’t take your husband’s last name. Just because you can do the same a job a man can do doesn’t mean you need to let him know it.

            Surrendering to your femininity means many things. It means letting your man be the man despite the fact that you’ve proved you’re his equal. It means recognizing the fact that you may very well want to stay home with your babies – and that that’s normal. It means if you do work outside the home, you don’t use your work to play quid pro quo in your marriage. It means tapping into that part of yourself that’s genuinely vulnerable and really does need a man – even though the culture says you don’t.

            In other words, surrendering to your femininity means to put down your sword. It’s okay if your guy’s in charge. It’s okay if you don’t drive the car.

            In fact, it’s rather liberating.


            Suzanne Venker has written extensively about politics, parenting, and the influence of feminism on American society. Her latest book, "How to Choose a Husband (And Make Peace with Marriage)" will be published in February 2013. Visit howtochooseahusband.com for more information.

             
          • kohana posted at 9:14 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Another article on American Exceptionalism and not compromising.

            Slaughtering America's Golden Goose
            by Nonie Darwish
            December 5, 2012 at 4:00 am

            http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3480/america-golden-goose

            Immigrants in America are being told they must deny their appreciation of the capitalist system that brought them here in the first place. They are told to hate the white people; those who do not are shamed as traitors to their race. It is crushing to see an American leader talk about "redistribution of wealth" under the guise of "fairness." This kind of political talk is more suited to Haiti or Egypt, but never America. The U.S. government is on its way to becoming the nightmare totalitarian system from which we immigrants tried to escape.

            If America opens its borders without restrictions, more than half the world's population will come here. It is America's capitalist system that is still a dream come true to many who are happy to leave their stagnant, dysfunctional economies, burdened with both class envy and the redistribution by government bureaucrats of hard-earned money. Many immigrants risked their lives to trade their substandard, government-run health insurance for life in America, where hard work is rewarded with a better standard of living for most of its people than anywhere ever before.

            Immigrants in America today are faced with a dilemma: they are being told that they must deny their appreciation of the capitalist system that brought them here in the first place. Their children are taught to reject their parents' experience of hard work to get ahead and regard their parents as victims of discrimination and abuse. They are rewarded for complaining and for rejecting free enterprise, self-reliance, assimilation and all the American values that made this country the envy of the world. They are told to look at the half empty glass and are encouraged to throw out their freedoms for food stamps. They are told to hate white people, and those who do not are shamed as traitors to their race.

            Today in America, every national origin and race is encouraged to find a minority group to belong to. We are encouraged to get into a system of tribalism that turns us into factions with an "us against them" mentality, something we have suffered from in the Middle East.

            In Egypt, we suffered under socialism and the government's empty promises of equality through seizing wealth from the rich to give to the poor. We ended up with terrible unintended consequences; the rich did get poorer but the poor also got poorer: nobody won. The culture of envy and punishing the rich never brought equality or improved conditions for the poor. The great thing about America is that the poor do not have to stay poor and the rich can lose their wealth if they invest it unwisely. What immigrants see is the high rate of mobility between classes.

            Americans are left uninformed by their media on how the rest of the world lives. Try watching "House Hunters International," where Americans can see for themselves that homes and apartments around the world are both unaffordable to the general public and often unlivable by American standards.

            A wonderful, hard working Hispanic family, after years in which the mother worked as a cleaning lady and the father a construction worker, saw all their children graduated from college without ever paying a cent for their education, and now all with wonderful jobs. The children of that family are now are speaking of discrimination, how California was part of Mexico and how it is only fair to redistribute wealth. This was the lesson they learned in college.

            It should take just one visit to the Middle East to understand what America is all about. Every American teenager should get a chance to travel and live in a third world country. Some countries might provide government health insurance, but health insurance is a piece of paper; it does not mean good health care. Many countries that provide government health care have high unemployment, terrible shortages of food and apartments and lack many other luxuries Americans take for granted. In America today, politicians are moving in the same direction, possibly deliberately, for votes: high unemployment, less home ownership and more government interference in our lives from cradle to grave.

            America is heading towards a society similar to where we immigrants came from, where the government turns into the keeper of a human zoo where we all live in cages waiting for government to throw food at us every day. But even the government will not be able to sustain the zoo expenses. The U.S. government is on its way to becoming the nightmare totalitarian system from which we immigrants tried to escape.

            Left on their own, immigrants are grateful to work hard and enjoy the American system, but soon after we are here, we are told by the popular culture that we are victims, must act like ones and we must not accept what America can offer. America wanted more from us when it came time to vote. We are told that the system is rigged and that "whites", who welcomed us in the millions for centuries, are bigoted and racists. Many immigrants go along with the anti-American propaganda for the sake of approval and benefits. Immigrants are now told to hold on to their old culture, religion, traditional clothes, customs, language, and even some of the brutal, archaic laws and customs that many of us came here to escape from in the first place. The media and "conventional wisdom" now tell us that America is no better than the oppressive systems from which we fled.

            When I first moved here, no Muslim women wore the Islamic garb and you could hardly tell on the streets who was Muslim and who was not. Later many Muslims found power in banding together, going back to Islamic garb and crying victimization. When I privately once asked a Muslim professor why she started wearing the Islamic head covering in America, she answered in a whisper, "The ethnic look is powerful in America!"

            Let us preserve the great American capitalist system for our children and grandchildren and for future immigrants escaping third world tyrannies. Capitalism, like everything in life, is not perfect, but it is the best, natural and fairest system so far. Let us not fall into a culture of envy and tribalism; let us not kill the dream of unlimited opportunity.

            It is crushing to see an American leader telling his people that he will bring them "redistribution of wealth" under the guise of "fairness." This kind of political talk is more suited for Haiti or Egypt, but never America.

            America's citizens and its enthusiastic immigrants are pressured into a destructive culture of envy and empty government promises. Even the quality of free public education sank lower. As former teachers union head Albert Shanker allegedly said, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."

            We have allowed the quality of our lives to turn into a game of chess in the hands of a reckless mainstream media and politicians who want to monopolize the economy. As the economist Milton Friedman said, "Has anyone ever seen a monopoly that works in the best interests of the consumer?"

            America must resist the seduction of dependency on big government. It would be a tragedy for both America and the rest of the world, if we turn away from the values that made America great. The world looks up to us because we represent hope to the majority of young people around the world. We must continue to inspire counties to become more like us and not us more like them. Right now, we are moving in the wrong direction.

            Even though in Egypt I had a good job as a journalist and a well-to-do family with connections to the leaders of the Egyptian government, I could never have been financially independent, buy a car or rent an apartment on my own without family help. America was my outlet to freedom, economic self-reliance and escape from being surrounded by misery, injustice and poverty. I knew that if I worked hard, in America I would achieve success, and I did.

            It is hard to explain to Americans how extraordinary it felt to enjoy the simple things Americans take for granted: the satisfaction of looking at a check after a hard day's work, the ease of getting and decorating an apartment or buying a car, and dreaming of a bright future I knew could be achieved. Or how easy it is in America to do business, drive around, buy and sell whatever one needs without having to bribe, beg or threaten a lazy government worker who could not care less. Americans rarely hear about the daily difficulties faced by people in the outside world for even small comforts.

            It felt remarkable to blend into American culture while preserving the fun and best traditions from my culture, which my American friends said they loved. It was so unusual to see a smile from a perfect stranger on the street, and hear "Do you need any help?" in a store. Many Americans have no idea that such little daily acts of pleasant interaction are uniquely American, rarely seen around the world. To the new immigrant, shopping is a pleasure -- and affordable. I never envied "the rich" in America, and looked forward to achieving my own American dream – I, and many other immigrants, have done just that.

            Americans would do so much better if they learn to resist the temptations of socialism, and of government trying to be our parent, guardian and dictator. The long lines of humanity waiting at American embassies around the world to immigrate to this country should become our inspiration to preserve the American capitalist system. It is why we immigrants moved here in the first place.

            Nonie Darwish is the author of "The Devil We Don't Know", and president of FormerMuslimsUnited.org

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:14 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Remember the MSM's coverage of Obama's 'excellent' FEMA response to Sandy? It never happened:

            FEMA worker: "I worked in Katrina and Katrina was run better than Sandy.”

            Hurricane Sandy: FEMA teams told to sightsee
            By Perry Chiaramonte
            December 07, 2012

            Hurry up and wait.

            That’s what first responders were left to do after being deployed by FEMA to assist in the storm-ravaged areas in the initial days after superstorm Sandy, FoxNews.com has learned. A FEMA worker who spoke to FoxNews.com described a chaotic scene at New Jersey's Fort Dix, where emergency workers arrived as the storm bore down on the Atlantic Coast. The worker said officials at the staging area were unprepared and told the incoming responders there was nothing for them to do for nearly four days.

            “They told us to hurry, hurry, hurry," the worker, who works at the agency's headquarters in Washington and volunteered to deploy for the storm recovery effort. "We rushed to Fort Dix, only to find out that our liaison didn’t even know we were coming.”

            “The regional coordinator even said to us, ‘I don’t know why you were rushed here because we don’t need you,'” said the worker, who spoke out of frustration with the lack of planning and coordination following the devastating storm.

            After arriving in New Jersey, the worker and others waited for three full days and parts of another, even as reports dominated the television of the devastation and suffering wrought by the storm, which struck land on Oct. 29. When they asked for assignments, they couldn't believe the response, according to the worker.

            “They told us to go to the Walmart nearby or to check out the area but told us to stay out of the areas affected by the storm,” the worker said. "If our boss back at headquarters had not been alerted and didn’t make a push to get us assignments, the people running the show on the ground level would have just kept us sitting in the barracks.”

            In a Nov. 3 email obtained by FoxNews.com, an administrator back in Washington urged the regional team to get his people into the field after learning they were idled..

            "My people are being told to go sightseeing," the e-mail reads. "They may have a mission in 2-4 days .... I am asking them to reach out to contacts there that may be able to use their expertise ... We will continue to seek these opportunities as otherwise these personnel resources will be wasted ... Please advise way ahead ..."

            Told of the worker's complaints, a FEMA official acknowledged that there were delays in getting responders out into the field but said the time was mostly spent firming up training and accommodations.

            “I’m not going to say we couldn’t have done better,” Michael Byrne, a FEMA federal coordinating officer, told FoxNews.com. “I can understand the emotional commitment. They want to jump right in and start with the effort. I feel the same way.

            “The time was used to find the best place for them and for quick-training," he said. "There were logistical challenges but we have been fully engaged in the areas since then.”

            But that didn't jibe with the account of the worker, who said the much-maligned agency seemed more organized during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

            “When there’s disaster, every second counts," the worker said. "That clock starts ticking once the storm makes landfall.

            “I worked in Katrina and Katrina was run better than Sandy.”

            Even after FEMA workers were finally sent out from Fort Dix, many did not have useful information to convey to victims, said the worker.

            “They are put out in the field and they don’t know what to tell people," the worker said. "Survivors will fall through the cracks.”

            Byrne, who noted there are still 800 FEMA workers in the field helping victims recover, said the responders he dealt with were generally well-prepared.

            “If there were other people who weren’t able to help, I’d like to know who they are,” he said. "We can always do better, but they have done a great job on short notice."

            The agency has come under fire from residents and elected leaders, including Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)—who represents some of the hardest hit areas in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. He recently told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that FEMA is not prepared to respond effectively to disasters, especially in urban areas.

            "Hurricane Sandy should be a major wake-up call,” Nadler said. "When disaster strikes, our densely populated urban areas and economic centers must be able to recover quickly."

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/07/exclusive-fema-teams-told-to-ightsee-as-sandy-victims-suffered/#ixzz2ENoSuGnB

             
          • Pete posted at 8:58 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            kohana...The threat of England joining the war on the side of the south was also a major consideration in the Emancipation Proclamation. General Longstreet spoke for many southerners when he said, "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Ft. Sumter."

             
          • Pete posted at 8:53 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rob123 posted at 3:11 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            "A dirty little secret that isn't mentioned much."

            You are right...and mostly because it doesn't fit the narrative of the "progressive" NE-US. The draft riots in NYC are another prime example of this. Lots of dynamics involved, such as the rich buying themselves out of the draft, immigrant minorities viewing other immigrant minorities as job competition etc., but I find much of the regional sanctimony cringe worthy...especially when directed toward the "South".

             
          • kohana posted at 8:40 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Interesting article on compromising principles.

            http://www.citizenwarrior.com/

            How To Disarm Good People

            Posted: 06 Dec 2012

            IN THE BOOK, The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout says something really interesting. Her book is about normal, everyday sociopaths (also known by the somewhat outdated term, "psychopath"). In other words, the book is not about serial killers, but about the neighbor who drives you crazy, the spouse who seems dedicated to making your life miserable, the cruel, unfeeling boss, etc.

            A sociopath is someone who feels no empathy for other human beings. The consequences of this lack are enormous. These people are, in many ways, not recognizably human. And there is no cure for sociopathy. It is not caused by upbringing. Therapy only makes them worse.

            About two percent of the population is sociopathic, and those who are in a relationship with a sociopath need to understand what makes sociopaths tick. The more you know, the less likely you are to be fooled, used, or destroyed by a sociopath.

            But Martha Stout said something interesting for us here in our conversation about Islam. She wrote about the techniques sociopaths use to exploit people around them. Sociopaths use people. And there is one thing experienced sociopaths use more than anything else because it works so well with normal people. Their ultra-effective weapon is to evoke pity.

            Stout wrote:
            The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.

            I first learned this when I was still a graduate student in psychology and had the opportunity to interview a court-referred patient the system had already identified as a "psychopath." He was not violent, preferring instead to swindle people out of their money with elaborate investment scams. Intrigued by this individual and what could possibly motivate him...I asked, "What is important to you in your life? What do you want more than anything else?" I thought he might say "getting money," or "staying out of jail," which were the activities to which he devoted most of his time. Instead, without a moment's hesitation, he replied, "Oh, that's easy. What I like better than anything else is when people feel sorry for me. The thing I really want more than anything else out of life is people's pity."

            I was astonished, and more than a little put off. I think I would have liked him better if he had said "staying out of jail," or even "getting money." Also, I was mystified. Why would this man — why would anyone — wish to be pitied, let alone wish to be pitied above all other ambitions? I could not imagine. But now, after twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one's face, and just as difficult to see without the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity.

            More than admiration — more even than fear — pity from good people is carte blanche. When we pity, we are, at least for the moment, defenseless, and like so many of the other positive human characteristics that bind us together in groups...our emotional vulnerability when we pity is used against us...

            The reason I thought that was interesting and relevant is that pity is one of the most common techniques orthodox Muslims use, and it is the main reason they've been able to get away with as much as they have so far. They exploit the egalitarian, multiculturalist, good-hearted nature of non-Muslims. They evoke pity and then use our own kindness and our desire to "get along with others" against us.

            I was just reading the book, Tripoli: The United States' First War on Terror. The ruler of Tripoli had been seizing U.S. merchant ships, adding the ship to his own fleet, keeping the contents of the ship, and selling the captured sailors into slavery. It was a very lucrative pirating business. The U.S. wanted Tripoli to stop it, of course. The ruler of Tripoli said, "Sure, we'll stop attacking your ships if you pay us tribute every year."

            So for awhile the U.S. paid the tribute because they were a new country and had no navy to speak of, and they wanted to continue with their overseas trade. But the ruler of Tripoli decided the tribute they had agreed to wasn't enough, so he demanded more and when he didn't get it, he started seizing U.S. ships again.

            Meanwhile, the U.S. was frantically building a navy, and by this time had enough warships to put up a fight, so they did. Suddenly Tripoli's ruler wanted to talk peace. But in the negotiations, the man negotiating on behalf of the ruler asked for a gift of money. The U.S. said no, absolutely not. The U.S. said basically, "You have not been fair in any way and have only acted as our enemy, and no, we will not pay you to stop the fighting."

            Then Tripoli's negotiator tried to appeal to pity: "But Tripoli is very poor," he pleaded. "she cannot subsist without the generosity of her friends; give something then on the score of charity." In this case, Tripoli had already established a poor reputation with the Americans, so the pity plea did not work. But even after the U.S. negotiator said no, Tripoli's negotiator tried to make the U.S. negotiator feel guilty for not feeling pity. He asked, basically, "You say you want peace but you won't give this gift of charity to obtain the peace?"

            Islam uses the pity plea anywhere it can. Mohammad used it, Muslims in Tripoli were using it, and Muslims today are still at it. In their dealings with powerful non-Muslims, the basic stance of Islam is: "We are an oppressed, persecuted people. We're a minority. We're under siege. We are wrongly accused. We're the victims of bigotry, hatred, and Islamophobia." And if they can't find anything to point to that proves their oppression, they literally create something (click here for an example)
            http://islammustbestopped.blogspot.com/2008/12/example-of-islamic-self-created.html

            It's like a game they are playing, except this is a game with very serious consequences. A single sociopath using the appeal to pity can completely ruin the lives of many people. And this is, of course, nothing compared with what orthodox Muslims have done. They've killed over 270 million people since they started. They've ruined even more lives, and they are affecting the lives and livelihoods of billions of us today.

            I would like to spend my time working on productive, positive, life-affirming activities. Instead, I am spending many hours of my short time here on earth trying to stop the insidious Islamic encroachment, reading and writing about things I wish didn't exist. It's an upsetting topic. It's disturbing. But the consequences of ignoring it are even worse, so I devote a large portion of my life to it.

            And, of course, I'm not alone. Each of us has been influenced in hundreds of ways we don't even know about by the third jihad (and the first two jihads).

            It's important to understand how they are Islamizing the free world so successfully. One of the most effective techniques they use is the appeal to pity. The good news is that as soon as you see the appeal for what it is, the game is over, the magic disappears, the trance is lifted.

            The above is an excerpt from the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam by Citizen Warrior.
            http://www.citizenwarrior.com/

             
          • kohana posted at 7:56 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Rob123 posted at 3:11 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012

            Another dirty little secret that isn't mentioned much; many Southern boys didn't want to fight in a rich man's war to keep slaves but were forced to sign on at gunpoint. Many who refused were shot as traitors, and many were shot as a deserters.

            If you can find a copy, read "Tap Roots" by James Street, pub 1943. Excellent novel, based on fact about slavery hating Southerners in Mississippi, who tried to stay out of the conflict. They formed the "Free State of Lebanon" in So. MS. So many situations in the story coincided with my family's lore it prompted my mother to write to the author's son, James Street, Jr. She receive a two page typed reply that is one of my prized possessions.

            Also by James Street is "Oh, Promised Land," Look Away! A Dixie Notebook," The Biscuit Eater," and "In My Father's House."

             
          • Pete posted at 7:55 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/06/sen_rand_paul_we_should_let_dems_raise_taxes_and_then_let_them_own_it.html

            Yep. Someone with a brain.

             
          • Pete posted at 7:52 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Michigan GOP approves right to work amid union protests

            http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-michigan-right-to-work-20121207,0,6331751.story

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:11 am on Fri, Dec 7, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            kohana posted at 7:37 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            A very good article, that expresses ideas that I was taught and/or learned over the years. One thing missing, however, was the desertion rate within the Union Army following the Emancipation Proclamation. Whole companies, and at least a couple Regiments, merely packed up and went home, not willing to fight to free slaves. A dirty little secret that isn't mentioned much.

             
          • kohana posted at 7:37 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            MfgMan posted at 3:23 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012
            I think this clarifies Lincoln's thoughts about slavery.

            http://www.lib.niu.edu/1997/ihy970236.html

            Lincoln's Changing Views on Slavery

            Amber Dillon
            Unity Point School District #140, Carbondale

            Abraham Lincoln's views on slavery were formed by the times and places in which he was raised and during which he served his country. Slavery was a recognized institution in the United States throughout Lincoln's formative years. Lincoln's personal feelings about blacks and about slavery actually were quite constant over time. His political positions and actions regarding slavery changed as the national political situation changed.

            Lincoln initially recognized that slavery was a bad institution but one that was accepted and necessary for the South's economy. In Bloomington, Illinois, he stated "that southern slaveholders were neither better, nor worse than we of the north, and that we of the north were no better than they. And we never ought to lose sight of this fact in discussing the subject." Additionally, he appeared to support the belief that blacks did not deserve equal treatment of whites. This view probably resulted from the family background in which he was raised and educated. Abraham Lincoln was born in a slave state, but his father and most of the other small farmers in that part of Kentucky did not own slaves. Lincoln's homes after 1830, Indiana and Illinois, were free states, but both states were very unfavorable toward blacks and severely limited the rights of free blacks.

            Election to Congress in 1854 and the Mexican War brought the issue of the expansion of slave territory to the nation's attention. Lincoln formed a clearer position on slavery. He was opposed to black equality and had no intention of disturbing slavery in slave states.
            However, he recognized that slavery was wrong and should not be allowed to spread to new states. At Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, Lincoln stated that he thought that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which outlawed slavery in Nebraska and Kansas was wrong. He said that it also was wrong in its basic principle, that of allowing slavery to spread to every part of the world where men can take it. This apparent change in his position developed as Lincoln gained political maturity, saw more aspects of slavery such as the slave markets in the South and formed a more "national" view of issues as a result of serving in Congress.

            Lincoln ran for Senate in 1858 against Stephen A. Douglas. It was a spirited campaign, and Lincoln and Douglas engaged in seven popular and now famous debates about slavery. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, though he regarded slavery as an evil. He opposed its expansion. Lincoln said that he had no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it existed. Furthermore he said that he had no lawful right to do so and that he had no intention of doing that. He believed also that whites were superior. Lincoln said that he was not and had never been in favor of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races. Lincoln stated further that he was not nor ever had been in favor of making voters or jurors of blacks, nor letting them hold office or intermarry with white people.

            As Southerners became convinced that the election of Lincoln would be sufficient cause for secession, his views on slavery shifted again. Lincoln was for the free-labor ideology of equal opportunity and upward mobility. The true issue on slavery, he said, was the morality and future of the slaves and of slavery. Further, he now firmly believed that if the nation remained divided on the issue of slavery, the nation would not last. Lincoln said, borrowing from a statement made by Jesus, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." At the 1860 election, Lincoln's private position on slavery appeared to be moving closer to that of abolition. On the eve of his election he seemed to recognize that his public position allowing the southern states that had slavery to retain it, but not allowing any new states to have slavery, would not work.

            After the 1860 election, Lincoln made a firm public decision not to tolerate expansion of slavery into the territories. In other words, Lincoln's early position as president was slavery could remain in current slave states but could not expand to new states or territories. He promised also to support an amendment guaranteeing slavery from federal interference. Upon review, some of his views on slavery seemed to contradict one another. On the one hand, current slave states could maintain the status quo. On the other hand, he recognized that a country divided on this major issue could not survive.

            Lincoln's views at this time were politically motivated, and they focused on ending the war and preserving the Union. He felt that Southerners must not be allowed to split the nation or to further beliefs that did not support human freedom and equality for all men. Lincoln waged war for four years in support of the position that the issue of slavery must not be allowed to end the Union. In January 1863 Lincoln formed his final position on slavery when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Although this document had little impact at the time, it changed forever the way our country thinks and acts about all American citizens.

            Lincoln was not an opportunist. He seemed to be a man of great integrity and insight. He appeared to be a politician, a realist, and a visionary. His personal view of the institution of slavery was fairly constant. The evidence supports that he thought it was wrong for any group to enslave another. Lincoln had the foresight finally to see that the country could not, in fact, survive as part free and part slave. He took the action required to save the nation. Thus, his view on the volatile political issue of slavery appeared to change as his views on what was required to save the nation changed.

            [From J.M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; P. Smith, Trial by Fire; Benjamin P. Thomas, Abraham Lincoln; A. Zilversmit, Lincoln on Black and White.]
            ILLINOIS HISTORY / FEBRUARY 1997

             
          • MfgMan posted at 3:23 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            MfgMan Posts: 345

            Frank - Many years ago, I read just about everything I could get my hands on about Lincoln...it's been better than a decade, so I'll start with saying that it's certainly possible I'm in error. With that said, I seem to recall that Lincoln was more than willing to placate the slave states to avoid war. He was steadfast on stopping the expansion of slavery, but certainly there was no "refusal to compromise on the matter of slavery". He was more than willing to allow current slave states the status quo if it would avoid war.

             
          • jennydoe posted at 2:51 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            kohana:Thus all the cartoons in the world won't make rich people pi$$ on the poor, it is just your illusion
            ---------
            Actually that was HTIC's illusion, I just commented on it.

            that homeless guy lives in a Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing unit. he stashed his boots and wants to be paid for the photo. Don't you have to be a Vet to live in such a unit?

            Glenn Beck is the one who said it was pee-pee. What? He lies?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Detroit Democratic Councilwoman JoAnn Watson tells Obama "We vote for you! Now bail us out!":

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8HRGWKCRc

            Detroit is a perfect example of what happens after decades of Democratic control of government. At it's peak, Detroit had 1.8 million residents; today, it's just a bit over 800,000. Housing prices are deeply depressed due to the incredible oversupply of abandoned homes. Many such areas have become overrun with drug addicts and meth labs. Detroit has considered razing as much as 40% of the residential housing to deal with the problem.

            But have the liberal locals learned anything? Heck, no. They keep voting for the very party which ruined their city and now expect a bailout.

            There's definitely no fixing stupid....

             
          • kohana posted at 1:57 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            jennydoe posted at 12:37 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012

            You need to comprehend what is written. Glen Beck didn't use urine, he used colored water, and if you want to assume it is urine, that is your problem. A bobble head isn't a doll.

            "to animate rich people pi$$ing on the poor"

            American Heritage Dictionary:
            Animate- to give life to; To make or produce (a cartoon) so as to create the illusion of motion.

            Thus all the cartoons in the world won't make rich people pi$$ on the poor, it is just your illusion. I'm as poor as a church mouse and I have yet to have a rich person pi$$ on me. Matter of fact, in my entire life, everyone who has helped me or extended help, in every case without exception, has been a person in the upper income brackets. The poor people I have known, have lied to me, stolen from me, and conned me. The little I have had to offer, for the most part was taken without a word of thanks.

            Kind of like the guy who got a new pair of boots from a police officer because he was homeless and shoeless. The officer got a lot of thanks from strangers, but the shoeless person either sold or traded his new $100 boots, and wanted more, a "piece of the pie."
            Well, it's about that time of the year for him to break some minor law in NYC so he can get sentenced to 90 days in lockup, 3 meals and a cot, to spend the winter in shelter, at tax payer expense. Have you invited one of the homeless in Kalispell to spend the winter in your home? At your own expense instead of the taxpayers? Maybe Bronco could send at least one round trip airfare so a homeless person could at least spend the winter on a warm beach.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 1:21 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://www.upworthy.com/how-the-cia-is-kind-of-like-a-psychic?c=ufb1

            Dec 5 2012
            How The CIA Is Kind Of Like A Psychic

             
          • jennydoe posted at 12:37 pm on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            Conservatives do neither. Not cost effective.
            ------
            Glenn Beck isn't a conservative?

             
          • kohana posted at 11:08 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            jennydoe posted at 9:50 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012

            Conservatives do neither. Not cost effective.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 10:59 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HTC: "....economic drag caused by those not mature enough to realize that their "empathy" is a perverted form of socialism ......"

            Ah, the essential HTC, boiled down to a quick, little Cliff Note. All the rest seems like window dressing.

             
          • jennydoe posted at 9:50 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            I musta missed the pi$$ing part.

            The lesson I have learned today....it is better to drop a president doll in pee-pee than it is to animate rich people pi$$ing on the poor.

             
          • Pete posted at 9:42 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Reid blocks Senate vote on Obama's deficit-reduction plan

            http://thehill.com/video/senate/271255-mcconnell-calls-for-vote-on-obamas-ridiculous-deficit-reduction-plan

             
          • Pete posted at 9:40 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Justice Department meets with firms seeking Google antitrust probe

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/doj-meets-with-firms-seeking-google-antitrust-probe/2012/12/05/29a34444-3ef6-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html

             
          • Pete posted at 9:33 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Treasury Secretary Google?

            http://washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-secretary-google/article/2515054#.UMDINORlGyE

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:26 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            This is how senile old liberals while away the hours:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ZsXrzF8Cc

            Ed Asner, who voiced over this video, displays the crudity so common in his type as he asks the Fox reporter if he can pi$s on him:

            http://tinyurl.com/a7zlwkh

             
          • kohana posted at 9:20 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109


            Rob123 posted at 2:35 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012
            "Take your fellow California Engineering buddy President Morsi of Egypt. With his PhD in Engineering from USC, he was able to plan and devise the first democratically elected presidential bid in about 5000 years, in Egypt. But now that he is in power, he's just another Right Wing Engineer."

            ko: Ah yes, first democratically elected president in how many years? Right Wing? One who stands for individual liberties? Seems in his campaign he forgot to tell the people he intended to become an absolute dictator just like the president tossed out before him. Only in his case he intends to implement shari’a law in it’s fullest including a return to SLAVERY. A lying pos just like the communist POS “freely elected” in our own “democratically” election.

            http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/7_killed_hundreds_wounded_in_cairo_riots_over_morsis_power_grab.html

            December 6, 2012
            7 killed, hundreds wounded in Cairo riots over Morsi's power grab

            Rick Moran
            Perhaps more ominously, the Egyptian army has warned all demonstrators to clear the streets.

            Reuters:
            Egypt's Republican Guard restored order around the presidential palace on Thursday after fierce overnight clashes killed seven people, but passions ran high in a struggle over the country's future.

            The Islamist president, Mohamed Mursi, criticized by his opponents for his silence in the last few days, was due to address the nation later in the day, state television said.
            Hundreds of his supporters who had camped out near the palace overnight withdrew before a mid-afternoon deadline set by the Republican Guard. Dozens of Mursi's foes remained, but were kept away by a barbed wire barricade guarded by tanks.

            The military played a big role in removing President Hosni Mubarak during last year's popular revolt, taking over to manage a transitional period, but had stayed out of the latest crisis.

            Mursi's Islamist partisans fought opposition protesters well into the early hours during dueling demonstrations over the president's decree on November 22 to expand his powers to help him push through a mostly Islamist-drafted constitution.

            Officials said seven people had been killed and 350 wounded in the violence, for which each side blamed the other. Six of the dead were Mursi supporters, the Muslim Brotherhood said.
            The street clashes reflected a deep political divide in the most populous Arab nation, where contrasting visions of Islamists and their liberal rivals have complicated a struggle to embed democracy after Mubarak's 30-year autocracy.

            The United States, worried about the stability of an Arab partner which has a peace deal with Israel and which receives $1.3 billion a year in U.S. military aid, has urged dialogue.
            The commander of the Republican Guard said deployment of tanks and troop carriers around the presidential palace was intended to separate the adversaries, not to repress them.

            "The armed forces, and at the forefront of them the Republican Guard, will not be used as a tool to oppress the demonstrators," General Mohamed Zaki told the state news agency.
            Hussein Abdel Ghani, spokesman of the opposition National Salvation Front, said more protests were planned, but not necessarily at the palace in Cairo's Heliopolis district.
            "Our youth are leading us today and we decided to agree to whatever they want to do," he told Reuters.

            Meanwhile, 4 more Morsi aides have resigned over his decree and the most prominent Sunni organization in Egypt, Al-Azhar, has called on Morsi to suspend his decree and talk to the opposition.

            This isn't likely to happen. Morsi is prepared to ram the new constitution through in a referendum next week which will take the country a long way toward the imposition of sharia law. The president may indeed give up his powers that give him immunity from the rulings of the judiciary, but the fact is, he can re-issue that decree anytime and claim dictatorial powers for himself for as long as he wants to.

            We can expect that anytime the legislature becomes too unruly or the judges do something he doesn't like, that Morsi will once again place himself above the law and govern virtually by decree. That is the real significance of Morsi-s power grab and it hasn't been lost on the hundreds of thousands of protestors demonstrating against him.


            Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/7_killed_hundreds_wounded_in_cairo_riots_over_morsis_power_grab.html at December 06, 2012 - 10:02:11 AM CST

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:18 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: Yes, a ten year old is quite good at identifying their own self-interest. Which is why with good parenting and schooling, a ten year old is able to grow and even reach a degree of empathy for the other. Some, not so much, as you know and exhibit daily.

            HTC: Then, if that child reaches an adult level of maturity and wisdom, they realize that a society where everyone conducts themselves according to the principles of "enlightened self-interest", is the most prosperous society with much lower levels of poverty and dependence.

            A healthy economy is dependent upon each participant acting out of such enlightened self-interest and personal responsibility. Our real financial cliff is due to the massive debt, unfunded liabilities and economic drag caused by those not mature enough to realize that their "empathy" is a perverted form of socialism and that every pursuit of their bizarrely defined "social justice" always ends badly for everyone.

            I'd be happy to help you fill in the pieces which your own development lacked.

             
          • Pete posted at 9:15 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Big surprise....not.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/159104/unadjusted-unemployment-shoots-back.aspx

             
          • jennydoe posted at 8:51 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            fear no more.

            http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Hostess-Twinkie-Recipe/

             
          • Rob123 posted at 8:06 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            Ah Moose.....Do you kind of miss the regimented, solid style of military life, with everyone walking around with their rank on their sleeve or shoulder? Along with easily read medals so you can see where they have been and how they were rewarded ? It's tough adjusting back to what looks like mayhem and disobedience.
            But don't worry, I doubt if the Tea Party types will cut your pension. Even they have limits. Probably the most that will happen will be a 3% uptick on the taxes of the wealthiest, and their loss of Mortgage Deductions on their McMansions spread around the country, along with Entitlement Reform. And probably a cut back in Foreign Affairs. Sigh.....pretty boring stuff. Unless, of course, you become outraged over the 'Principal of it All', then you're probably going to become really depressed and full of really big and depressing scenarios. Maybe form a Militia and prepare for the End? Hopefully, the formula for Twinkies will be released by the Bankruptcy Judge and sold to a budding entrepreneur, so you can await the final assault in style?

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 6:40 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            Well anyway - To my knowledge, no there are no USAF bases in Communist countries, the exception being the United States. Or, should I say the Disunited States. Comrade Obama seems to be doing a great job stone-walling any progress about the "fiscal cliff" drama. It's pretty obvious he'll accept disaster rather than be a president, but we all know that already. Too bad. We are in the "twilight of Liberty" moving toward the dawn of communist slavery. Thanks to all the loyal worshipers of Obama. Sadly, they too will become nothing more than used-up, useful idiots.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:35 am on Thu, Dec 6, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HTC: "Even a ten-year old can identify their own self-interests most of the time, as well as that which interferes with catering to those interests."

            Yes, a ten year old is quite good at identifying their own self-interest. Which is why with good parenting and schooling, a ten year old is able to grow and even reach a degree of empathy for the other. Some, not so much, as you know and exhibit daily. Take your fellow California Engineering buddy President Morsi of Egypt. With his PhD in Engineering from USC, he was able to plan and devise the first democratically elected presidential bid in about 5000 years, in Egypt. But now that he is in power, he's just another Right Wing Engineer. Surely you understand his methodology? Of course, the cultural differences resonate in your big head, but ya got to appreciate his Engineering skills! "If only he had embraced Ayn Rand instead of Mohammed, after gaining Power!". Of course, with $1.2 Billion a year in direct U.S. Military Aid, and another $300 Million in direct U.S. Humanitarian Aid, and loan guarantees by the U.S.Government up the Ying Yang, he does have to watch his step a little. He'll probably call up John McAfee and get some pointers on Tax Havens and what can go wrong?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 6:52 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895


            Republicans Resist Reality in the Age of Obama
            Chris Stirewalt | Power Play
            December 05, 2012

            “So let's let those [tax rates on top earners] go up. And then let's set up a process with a time certain, at the end of 2013 or the fall of 2013, where we work on tax reform…”

            -- President Obama in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

            Republicans can learn a lot about dealing with Barack Obama in the current fiscal negotiations from how Obama conducted his re-election campaign.

            Obama ran an audaciously negative campaign with the intention of winning a base-versus-base election with superior resources and organization. And he did exactly that. Obama worked to shrink the electorate by driving squeamish moderates and independents out of the pool and then won the partisan grudge match among those who remained.

            Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign in the spring and most of the summer was a riff on Bob Dole’s 1996 lament: “Where is the outrage?”

            Romney demanded that the press and public hold Obama accountable for running a small, grinding and negative campaign based mostly on character assassination. Where’s the Hope and Change? Where’s the vision?

            What he found was that the public has such low expectations for politics and politicians that Obama was able to surmount the barely-there bar for public discourse. And as for the press, while Romney’s frustrations would occasionally elicit some high-minded regret from the media establishment, it was quickly excused as necessary, given the aforementioned rottenness of political life.

            Sometimes, Obama’s tactics and personal disdain for Romney were even recounted admiringly as evidence of a fierce competitive spirit within the president – a jock’s sensibility rather than the professorial attitude most Americans are familiar with.

            Romney eventually quit complaining and started working to undo the damage Obama had done to the former Massachusetts governor’s reputation. He also took a tougher tone in prosecuting Obama’s record. Rather than saying the president was a nice guy who was in over his head, Romney started saying that Obama was reckless and wrong on the economy and spending.

            But it was too late. Those persuadable voters who didn’t stay home concluded that while Romney might have a better economic plan, they didn’t trust him to look after their best interests. Republicans are scouring their souls and attempting a game of demographic connect-the-dots, but one lesson they have largely overlooked is that voters do not trust big government or big business.

            Republicans are now stunned – “flabbergasted” said the House speaker -- that Obama is bringing a similarly audacious approach to his efforts to secure tax rate increases on top earners and other liberal fiscal wish-list items.

            Republicans assumed since they came back to town, hats in hand, ready to do a deal on taxes, Obama would give them grace enough and political cover enough to get the deal done. That’s old Washington thinking. That’s Romney thinking. That’s thinking unsuited to the Age of Obama.

            The Republicans are looking for a way to cut a larger deal that trades long-term entitlement cuts and short-term reductions in the growth of spending for higher taxes. They are looking for a grand bargain. Obama nixed such a deal when he was an embattled incumbent facing re-election. Why would one suppose that he would be more inclined to do such a thing now?

            If that’s what Obama wanted, he wouldn’t be picking a semantic, ideological fight over whether tax payments came in the form of shrunken loopholes or higher rates. If Obama wanted a grand bargain or a demonstration of political graciousness, he wouldn’t be demanding tax hikes now in exchange for consideration of tax reform one year hence.

            Today, Obama will address a collection of corporate CEOs in which he will call for the debt ceiling to be lifted without conditions, perhaps even abolished. The same Obama who once voted against raising the limit is now saying that it should be scrapped.

            Republicans are shocked and stunned. “Hypocrisy,” they cry. “Bad faith,” they wail.

            The electorate is doing its best to ignore the tedium of these eternal, infernal negotiations. That leaves little chance of a popular uprising for the president to show more grace, or for the defense of limits on borrowing. It’s such a muddle and so seemingly pointless that Mr. and Mrs. America can be forgiven for tuning out.

            As for the press, what are Republicans expecting? A sudden new sense of outrage? C’mon, dude.

            Obama has outrun even some of his staunchest media supporters in this battle. When the fight started, the media focus was on Republican intransigence on taxing rich people. Norquist this and Bush-era that. Obama surprised some with his own intransigence on rates versus revenue when Republicans looked ready to give in, but that has been mostly excused as a bargaining tactic.

            There has been some more meaningful media head shaking on the fact that Obama is at most looking at some entitlement tweaks and not willing to work on a deal today that would address systemic problems. Obama wants a three-step process that starts with a tax hike and includes later negotiations over some entitlement and tax reforms.

            But whatever the Washington Post and USA Today may say today, in the end, Obama will mostly get a pass and the discussion will return to the old points: Republican obstructionism, Tea Party hostage takers and the reckless GOP. In a left-leaning media, liberal intransigence is always much more readily forgiven.

            So what are Republicans to do? Which of the options available are the least bad?

            Power Play can’t say. But whatever they do cannot be predicated on goading or shaming Obama into a less audacious stance. They will have to find a way to stick together when he is trying to break them apart and they will have to find a way to fight for every inch, even when the chorus of boos rains down from press row.

            Grueling? Yes. Unfair? Yes. But better for Republicans to face the realities of life in the Age of Obama than to do what Romney did and pretend otherwise.

            And Now, A Word From Charles

            “The only reason the president insists on raising rates is because he knows it will destroy Republican unity. It will cause a complete fracture of the Republican majority in the House. It will hand him a Congress that he can then manipulate for the next two years at least, because the Republicans will be neutered.”

            -- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 6:43 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: As for the other part of your side-splitting reaction. FU.

            HTC: Did I strike a nerve? I wasn't commenting on USAF bases in communist locations. I was referring to the fact that both you and Bronco support parties and policies which are anti-business, even though you're both business owners.

            Even a ten-year old can identify their own self-interests most of the time, as well as that which interferes with catering to those interests.
            .

             
          • Rob123 posted at 6:25 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HTC: That's what makes your shared blindness so side-splitting hilarious.

            Oh great self-righteous leader of the Pack, what do you mean? Moose said he had lived in some Communist Countries while in the service. I was curious? Not too many communist countries have USAF personnel stationed in them. More of a a service we provide to 'Our' Tyrant friends.

            As for the other part of your side-splitting reaction. FU.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:39 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123 posted at 2:40 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012

            ALL the people I know still involved in networking technology are very concerned about the U.N.'s desire to take over the Internet as well as some of this administration's own desires to suppress more of our freedoms, such as their proposal to require cell phone carriers to keep ALL text and email traffic for TWO YEARS, in order to make it easier for Big Brother to bust us for violating one of his umpteen million laws and regulations that are impossible to keep up on.

            Of course, those proposing this are smart enough to know that the real bad guys will continue to use 'burn' phones, so you may have their messages but don't know who they are. The only reason to do this is for monitoring and control of the general population's movements and actions.

            Everyone should share their concern and make it clear to their elected representatives and the White House that we do not want nor will we allow such intrusions to occur.

            One issue that does sharply divide the networking professional community is the proposal to offer tiers of service that goes beyond just offering faster connection speeds. These would be premium networks that are accessible only to premium paying members and would therefore offer much higher performance than the public Internet today, where 90% of the traffic is spam and faster local connections mean that you get to hurry up and wait on the much slower Internet backbone.

            Those who embrace leftist concepts of "equality" on the Internet, and there are many in the high tech world, see this proposal as a great 'injustice' which would create a new level of "digital divide."

            Another 'divisive' proposal would charge for generating traffic flowing out onto the Internet but not for receiving information. This would eliminate most spammers as they'd be bankrupted overnight. With them gone, people would be amazed at the enhanced performance of the international Internet backbone.

            Once again, there are those on the left who see this as 'discriminatory' and unjust.

            You just can't win with those folks.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:19 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: Ummmm....which communist countries did you live in? Oh, and by the way, Bronco and I are both Self-Employed Small Business People. And both veterans of the US Armed Forces. And Middle Class Tax Payers with Property........and employees.

            HTC: That's what makes your shared blindness so side-splitting hilarious.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:17 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: Forty nine percent of Republicans believe that President Obama won reelection thanks to the allegedly illegal work of a group that no longer exists, according to a Public Policy Polling survey

            HTC: If you think ACORN is defunct, you haven't been paying attention. The 'quashing' of ACORN has more strongly resembled a familiar scene in many Sci-Fi movies where an alien is crushed into hundreds of pieces, only to have each piece remain alive and grow to become hundreds of such monsters:

            http://tinyurl.com/all7eyj

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:17 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

            Military Pay Rates.......

            As an E-5 with 2 years service drawing combat pay in Vietnam in 1969, I was making $390.00 a month, after taxes. Plus free room and board and medical.

            Today, an E-5 with 2 years service makes $2304.40 a month, before taxes. Plus free room and board and medical.

            If nothing else, it shows the affects of inflation?

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:03 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            https://googledrive.com/host/0B2GQktu-wcTiZlAyTTFEaFVuOUk/

            Visualizing U.S. Births and Deaths in Real-Time
            (Statistical Simulation Based on U.S. Birth/Death Rates)

            Off topic, but fascinating......

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 5:02 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Bronco posted at 10:38 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012

            Well, at least I was half right in that only a fool would and did vote for hm. My bad that I overestimated the intelligence of the electorate.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 1:01 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            militart pensions - You sign the enlistment forms - you are saying OK - send me anywhere. Some are lucky and never go to hostile areas. Some are not and don't come back. It is a gamble. I survived and per the contract, I get payed. After i've paid my taxes too.

             
          • Bronco posted at 10:47 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Rob, I gotta tell ya, I'm feel unappreciated. All my taxes going to support these entitled conservatives here and they don't even give the courtesy of a reach-around. I often wish we could assign our taxes to the issue of our choice. Given the priority these greedy fellows put on the economy over the health of the biosphere, I'd go with the National Parks, clean air, and clean water. I somehow have this ridiculous notion that I am entitled to these things.

             
          • Bronco posted at 10:38 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            (A blast from the past)

            HighTechCowboy posted at 10:02 am on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.

            Bronco: You guys are delusional. You chastise and pick apart the polls when they don't support your positions or beliefs, then, when they do, you quote them as if they were the Word of gGod.

            HTC: Only a fool would still think that Obama has a chance in November after yesterday's debate. He's going to be sent back to Chicago with his tail between his legs. And you'll be just another useful idiot who will predictably blame the lost election on voter fraud or some other lame-brained conspiracy you liberals are so fond of. Romney's going to walk away with this one, I promise you. Only an idiot could believe otherwise, but then, who am I talking to?

             
          • Bronco posted at 10:23 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            President Barack Obama is expected to nominate Jesus Christ, an immigrant originally born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem, to fill the new vacancy on the Supreme Court. Although Mr. Christ is over 2,000 years old, He is immortal, so Democrats and Republicans expect that He will serve on the high court forever or until He decides to start the End Times. Republicans are expected to fight the nomination on the grounds that Mr. Christ would radically move the Court to the left. The GOP is also concerned that, despite decades of controversy and speculation, Mr. Christ has never revealed his position on abortion. Mr. Christ, according to many authorities, is expected to oppose the death penalty in all forms. Michael Steele, the head of the GOP national committee, issued a statement: "Christ is a complete mystery to us. He won't reveal His physical appearance and many of His positions are unknown or the subject of speculation. He is a stealth candidate. Why won't He reveal himself? Who does He think He is?"

            Republicans are reportedly outraged that Mr. Obama even considered Mr. Christ, who has been widely quoted for his sentiments supporting the poor over the wealthy. In a Facebook post, former half-term Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin called for an investigation into the Bethlehem chapter of ACORN because of what she termed the "highly suspicious" coincidence that both President Obama and Mr. Christ had each spent three years as community organizers. In her post, Palin also wrote that "More and more of good God-fearing smalltime Americans from hardworking smalltime towns from great parts of this real America, West, South, East, North, are seeing more and more every day that Christ is a community organizer. We don't need another community organizer in the White House!"

            Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) asked, "We're not even sure where He was born. Why is He afraid to show us his birth certificate?" Bachmann also announced that she would vote "no" when the Christ nomination came before the House of Representatives. Later, her congressional staff released a statement saying that the Congresswoman had forgotten that the House does not vote on judicial nominations.

            According to Rush Limbaugh, "Christ doesn't know anything about free enterprise. This is part of the Obama conspiracy to drag us to socialism. If this guy is approved, I'm moving to Costa Rica." Sobbing, Glenn Beck attacked Christ's support for the separation of church and state, telling his audience "You know who else wanted a separation of church and state? Hitler."

            Several Catholic priests were contacted for comment but refused to discuss the issue, and, even though they weren't asked, all empathetically denied that they had personally molested any children.

            Democrats are optimistic about their chances of shoving Mr. Christ down the throats of Americans using normal constitutional and parliamentary procedures. Many Democrats are hopeful that Mr. Christ's past associations with prostitutes will earn him at least one Republican vote, that of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

            If confirmed, Christ will be the first Supreme Court Justice who has at least one American city named after him: Corpus Christi, Texas.

             
          • who new posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            who new Posts: 367

            mooseberryinn: “The pension I earned per contract is paid by USAF.”

            Military pensions are no more sacrosanct than other government pensions and are another example of costs going out of control. Military pensions and health care for active and retired troops now cost the government about one seventh of military expenditures. Military pensions now exceed the entire military payroll.

            http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/18/us/20110919_BENEFITS_graphic.html?ref=us

             
          • Rob123 posted at 7:46 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            Moose: "The pension I earned per contract is paid by USAF...."

            They might write the check, but they don't have a single penny that is not given to them by taxpayers. Especially Bronco and me.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 7:44 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            mooseberryinn posted at 6:58 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            And you can't say any of that in relation to Republicans?

            p.s. I voted for Romney......and Tester......

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 6:58 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            Oh, and one more thing - Do not forget, these people play the game by the rule - "the ends justify the means". Like Stalin and others, there arre no limits on what tactics may be used to advance their agenda. Fear and brutality are not "off-limits". Threats of harm are not off-limits. I wonder just how the regime got Justice Roberts to come up with such a bizarre (and out of character) ruling in the Obama/Demo-care issue? Ever think about that? Keep in mind, there is no one here that the regime cares about at all.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 6:31 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            Rob - Europe and SEA in the 70's. The pension I earned per contract is paid by USAF. So, now I wonder how you two got warped into believing the propaganda from Comrade Obama and the regime? I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know he is very full of crap, and lies habitually. Then too, there's the space cadets Pelosi and Reid. How can you support them without puking?

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:40 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HighTechCowboy posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.
            Posts: 6487
            Warning: The UN is coming for your Internet
            By Arthur Herman
            December 04, 2012

            Interesting and disturbing stuff. Since I can't sleep, I reread your post and have been clicking on various groups and committees and position papers concerning this subject, and wish that Art Herman had spent more time and drawn up a classic profile, like his "Churchill and Gandhi", except focused on the adversaries in the here and now over control of the Internet.

            Please keep up us informed on this. As an insider, with a few decades in Silicon Valley, your expertise would be appreciated.

            Yet, after watching a private, secret, covert meeting between John McAfee and CNN yesterday from a secluded place in Guatemala, where he escaped to from Belize, with his girlfriend who is 47 years younger than him and quite pretty, I must ask: "Why are Uber Rich, Right Wing Engineers better than Left Leaning Government Types, when it comes to the Internet and my little business and all it's IT stuff that needs replaced and updated before I can even get it off my Depreciation Schedule?" Defend YourSelf! [wink]

             
          • Rob123 posted at 6:12 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151181490566094&set=a.324058561093.152430.83865976093&type=1&theater

             
          • Rob123 posted at 6:07 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            mooseberryinn

            Ummmm....which communist countries did you live in? Oh, and by the way, Bronco and I are both Self-Employed Small Business People. And both veterans of the US Armed Forces. And Middle Class Tax Payers with Property........and employees.

            I wonder who pays your Military Pension? No complaints, but keep it in perspective. And, Thanks for Serving.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 4:24 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            Rob/Bronco - it's a shame you can't figure it out. My guess is you've never seen a communist country, you don't know how they use coercion, corruption, crony capitalism, extortion etc. I can tell you for sure comrade Obama knows very well. You of course see nothing wrong as long as the regime gets its' way. Well, don't gloat too long because as the communist grindstone comes around, you too will be in the way. Ya see, it's not about doing good for anyone, it's control. It is all about control. The party bosses will live a life of leisure and power, and we get to work to support that. Oh, one more thing - Obama/Demo-care - you will see in the next couple of years, service jobs will mostly become part time. simple answer for you simple minded - companies like Walmart, Costco, JCP, other mall shops won't want to pay for your healthcare. Too bad. so sad (told ya so).

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:12 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            Nearly Half Of Republicans Believe Defunct Organization Stole The Election For Obama
            By Annie-Rose Strasser on Dec 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm
            Forty nine percent of Republicans believe that President Obama won reelection thanks to the allegedly illegal work of a group that no longer exists, according to a Public Policy Polling survey.
            The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was at the center of anti-Obama energy in 2008, when Republicans cited some faulty registration forms obtained by ACORN as proof of voter fraud. The charge was particularly potent, since Obama hired one of the organizations associated with ACORN to run voter turnout for him in the primary.
            But in 2010, ACORN filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, putting an end to the community organizing effort altogether. Still, the fact that ACORN no longer exists hasn’t stopped the group from serving its role as scapegoat. Fifty two percent of Republicans blamed ACORN for Obama’s win in 2008, saying that they “stole” the election for him. That number only dropped by 3 percent, and 49 percent blame ACORN this time around.

             
          • Bronco posted at 1:16 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            HTC, moosebeeryinn, JB, thank you for confirming my statements. Now that we ALL agree you guys are mean a-holes with a god--complex, perhaps we can agree on other issues too. It's a start.

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 11:42 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            HighTechCowboy posted at 11:02 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.


            Bronco: "It sickens me every morning I read the latest comments."

            Simple solution..........quit reading your own posts.

            [beam]

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 11:38 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            Speaking of compromising one's principles:

            http://www.therightscoop.com/krauthammer-robert-e-lee-was-offered-better-terms-at-appomattox-than-obama-is-offering-republicans/

             
          • Rob123 posted at 11:20 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            mooseberryinn posted at 10:47 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.
            " Yes, we are privy to the truth by the way."

            Are you sure it's not 'Truthiness'? I mean really! You, The Truth, in one sentence just doesn't do it for me. But some little kernels of truthiness do pop out, on occasion. [wink]

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:02 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Bronco: It sickens me every morning I read the latest comments.

            HTC: And yet you keep coming back. Your masochistic tendencies are showing....

             
          • Rob123 posted at 10:49 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://wikileaks.org/

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 10:47 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            Bronco - You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, even if it is wrong. Comrade Obama and the destructo-crats have been the adolescent socialist gang, not the GOP. Yes, we are privy to the truth by the way. The readers/viewers of the regime "pravda" news sites, (nbc, abc, cbs, cnn) - do not see/hear the truth. Someday you may learn. Maybe.

             
          • Bronco posted at 10:27 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            kohana: There are things going on that we, the American public do not know about, and the administration doesn't want us to know.
            -----------------------------------
            And yet, we keep bickering as if we had a thumb on the pulse of the truth. Having been in this room since Bush was president, I see no one has accomplished anything here. The Right levels insults at anyone who disagrees with them in nearly every post and looks to the most fecund insulter as their de facto leader. The Left occasionally responds in like manner when the bullying becomes intolerant or the insults get too personal.
            When it comes to mean-mouthing, the Right is the clear winner. Perhaps if they would back off and practice civility, something positive could be achieved here. Such a distasteful group of human beings. No ventures into self-perspective whatsoever, thus, no chance of self-improvement. Haters who deny hating. Class act all the way. It sickens me every morning I read the latest comments. Yet they shout it loud and proud as if they were privy to the Truth. Preachers at the pulpit revealing gGod's Word.
            It's no wonder more decent people don't contribute; and those who do enter the room are soon chastised, rebuked, and insulted if they don't wear the GOP headband.

             
          • kohana posted at 9:21 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            I think after the first debate when it looked like Romney might actually put Obama out of business, someone clued him in about the world situation, and Romney wanted no part of it. If you watch his body language in the last weeks, he was just putting on a performance for the sake of his public. I've read dozens of article about "why Romney lost" and the gist of them are because he quit trying to win. He didn't use shock tactics to show what Obama was. And all of his supporters were in denial as to why he didn't bring up Benghazi, not knowing it was a CIA operation. The senate after talking to Rice, were more concerned than before questioning her. There are things going on that we, the American public do not know about, and the administration doesn't want us to know.

             
          • kohana posted at 8:26 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/al-jazeera-owner-has-poet-jailed-for-life-for-insulting-him/

            Al Jazeera Owner has Poet Jailed for Life for Insulting Him

            December 3, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

            Obama: “I locked up a guy who made a movie about Mohammed.”
            Emir: “That’s nothing, I locked up a poet who insulted me.”

            Remember this the next time Tom Friedman or some other media talking head praises Al Jazeera and its tyrannical owner, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, for their commitment to openness or freedom of speech.

            This is what openness looks like in the Qatari tyranny.(Religion of Peace)

            Qatar has sentenced poet Mohammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami, who was arrested for allegedly inciting to overthrow the government and insulting the emir, to life in prison, Doha News reported Thursday.

            Ajami has a week to appeal the sentence, which was handed down unmotivated after a trial that Amnesty International, which is calling for his immediate release, said was held in secret, and in which the defendant was not allowed legal counsel.

            What did Mohammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami do to offend the Emir of Qatar, who controls Al Jazeera?

            While we understand that the poem recited by Ibn al-Dheeb included passages which could be construed as insulting to the Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, there is no evidence to indicate that he has gone beyond the legitimate exercise of his right to free expression. In addition, while these passages may constitute a violation of Article 134 of the Qatari Penal Code, which provides for five years’ imprisonment for criticism of the Emir, this provision of the law violates freedom of speech standards under international law.

            Oh, but don’t worry. The best joke of this tale is yet to come.

            On May 12 2012, in Middelburg, the Netherlands, Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim Al Thani collected the Roosevelt Foundation’s Freedom of Speech and Expression Award on behalf of Al Jazeera, the news channel that Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani set up in 1996.

            The Roosevelt Institute was created by merging the FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt foundations, and the Roosevelt Institute with the Four Freedoms Foundation. The first of the Four Freedoms is Freedom of Speech and Expression.

            According to its self-description; “The Roosevelt Institute is a progressive non-profit organization devoted to carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt by developing progressive ideas.”

            But it could have been worse. This is how Mohammed, the founder of Islam, treated a female poet who offended him.

            After Asmar bint Marwan, a female poet, composed verses mocking Mohammed, Mohammed proclaimed, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Because the Prophet of Islam had no problem raping 7 year old girls, but was too cowardly to take on an adult woman.

            Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No. Two goats will butt together about her.”

            And after the cowardly murder of a sleeping woman, everyone was really impressed by Islam.

            That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the “Reader”, and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.

            Religion of Peace.

            Final joke. Qatar is the terror state that is the prime mover behind the Arab Spring.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 8:24 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            HTC: "Unlike you, I think there's a good chance that Obama wasn't aware of it until it blew up, since he's been so hands-off this entire time. "

            Gee......Now why would a sitting President call in the Director of the CIA and click on Google Earth and then Benghazi and then a House and Warehouse and ask "Is this a Gun Running operation?" If asked by the President, the CIA would admit it. But if not asked.....he//s be//s!

            And why, during the 2nd debate as all the Republican-Rightists were still screaming about Benghazi and conspiracy, did Presidential Hopeful Romney just kind of drop it? A BRIEFING? Off record, of course.

            Spoks are truly spooky.

             
          • kohana posted at 8:14 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            HTC at 7:38: Our administration along with the Islamist and most of the rest of the world, want to curb our freedom of speech, so why would they protest? Us being silenced keeps them in control.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Warning: The UN is coming for your Internet
            By Arthur Herman
            December 04, 2012

            An international meeting started Monday in Dubai that could radically change how you use the Internet.

            The goal of delegates there is to grab control of the World Wide Web away from the United States, and hand it to a UN body of bureaucrats, the International Telecommunications Union or ITU. It’ll be the biggest power grab in the UN’s history, as well as a perversion of its power.

            You remember the United Nations. They’re the people who want a global income tax; who applaud whenever Iran’s Ahmedinejad appears on its stage, and who put Iran, Syria, and China on their Human Rights Committee.

            Now they want to run the Internet. That’s not just bad news for Americans;
            it’s a disaster for the 2 billion-plus users who depend on access to the Internet for messages of freedom and hope in a world where both are vanishing fast.

            The future of freedom in the 21st century may be about to be deleted, at the click of a mouse.

            Pushing the Dubai agenda are Russia and China. Their plan is to take away control over the Internet’s rules from the Los-Angeles-based non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names or ICANN, which has worked hard to keep the ‘Net as free and widely accessible as possible–something thugocrats around the world want to halt.

            The ITU, by contrast, is run by delegates appointed by their national governments instead of by professional engineers and Internet companies. That means governments like China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and the Sudan get to decide whether ICANN should help them censor ‘Net content and eliminate domain names and IP addresses of dissidents–or groups in the United States trying to help them.

            The Dubai delegates even want US-based websites like Google, Facebook, and Yahoo to pay local networks for the right to send material to foreign countries. That could make it too expensive to send data or documents to users in remote Third World countries–again, something the totalitarians gathering in Dubai won’t mind.

            Since its beginning in this country, the Internet has been the embodiment of American ways of freedom of expression, equality of opportunity for access to knowledge, and free enterprise through the Net. What’s coming these next twelve days in Dubai would wreck that forever, and turn the Internet into just one more way governments get to snoop on their citizens, and dictate what they read or see, and when.

            Leading the fight against the Dubai agenda are Google, and a host of other Internet companies and one of the Net’s original founders, Vint Cerf. Ominously silent, however, has been our own government, even as public clamor to keep the Internet free and clear grows.

            The State Department’s delegate to the conference, Terry Kramer, assures us the United States won’t agree to handing over control of the Internet to the ITU. But he also says the US won’t try to control the agenda at Dubai. “We don’t want to come across like we’re preaching to others.”

            Wrong. Americans need a delegate in Dubai who will tell the world about the Internet what Ronald Reagan used to say about the Panama Canal: We built it; we paid for it. We intend to keep it as a symbol of freedom, not a tool of tyranny.


            Historian Arthur Herman is the author of the just released "Freedom's Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II" (Random House May 2012) and the Pulitzer Prize finalist book "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age" (Bantam, 2008).

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:32 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: ...... ("Benghazi was a CIA gun running operation!", which I pointed out in September and was loudly booed by the local staunch Republicans, in the heat of the presidential race, who put it all on Obama as if he was somehow "bad", when in fact he was just being protective of certain Covert Operations-the world is very aware of them, but American's are naive as he//)....... and weave quite a web.

            HTC: You certainly weren't booed by me on that score. I've long believed that a CIA weapons operation was probably at the heart of it.

            Unlike you, I think there's a good chance that Obama wasn't aware of it until it blew up, since he's been so hands-off this entire time. Regardless, there's no excuse for lying about the incident for political purposes when he claimed that he called it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden, when he clearly didn't, and then changed his tune to "spontaneous uprising because of a stupid movie trailer" when he knew it wasn't, only to finally confim it as a terrorist attack.

            He's no 007, that one.

            There's also no excuse for lying and claiming that you were aware of increased risks as 9/11 approached while you were actually allowing security to be reduced instead. There's also no excuse for not having plans in place to protect those people and back up those Seals when they got in trouble. We now know the extra assets were available but never deployed.

            This is just another of many Keystone Cops incidents which have always plagued this administration. Adding to that list is their B.S. "red line" warning to Syria. Oh, I bet that's got Assad lying awake at night.


             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:22 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            who new: This is probably one of the few instances for which the United Nations makes sense. If, collectively, the world feels the need to act in response to perceived carnage, the United States could participate. But going in alone only serves to perpetuate the view of us as the bad guys who can’t mind their own business.

            HTC: I generally agree with you except for the U.N. 'peacekeeping' part which is also largely useless and often counterproductive with peacekeepers engaged in human smuggling, rape, theft, etc. Furthermore, we provide the vast majority of men and machines on such missions, so it doesn't really cost us much less than "going it alone."

            We do need something like the U.N. but not today's U.N. which is archaic, bloated, and completely self-serving and corrupt. When you have the world's countries which commit the worst crimes against their own people sitting on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, it's time to dissolve what you've got and build something better based upon decades of past experience and something which is based on the world as it appears today and not the old Cold War world.

             
          • kohana posted at 6:58 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/51313

            By Doug Hagmann Tuesday, November 27, 2012

            Obama’s memo on “insider threats”

            On the day before Thanksgiving, Barack Hussein Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum, or an unofficial directive to the heads of departments and agencies under the executive branch. This Presidential Memorandum, the text of which is only 183 words, directs agency and department heads to establish a program “to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security.”

            Much like all of Obama’s other directives, Executive Orders and findings, there is a disturbing level of ambiguity contained within this memorandum. One could correctly state that the obvious intent of this directive is to stop government employees from leaking classified information that would endanger the safety and security of our nation. While true, there appears to be a deliberate lack of specificity concerning the exact elements that constitute such an “insider threat.”

            There is, however, a more important aspect to this memorandum that will be undoubtedly missed by many who report on it. It is reflected by a word that appears toward the end of the directive and should be considered the “key” to understanding the intent and action of Barack Hussein Obama. The word is “centrally,” and when it is considered in the context of Obama’s agenda we’ve seen being implemented over the last four years, it is chilling.

            The key to understanding this memorandum is to understand that we are witnessing the greatest consolidation of power and control under the Executive branch of the government in recent U.S. history. This consolidation of power makes it possible for a select number of highly political “czars” and appointed officials to observe, control and report on the activities of people within their various departments to the Executive branch. This process creates a closed system of surveillance that cannot be easily penetrated by other branches of our government.

            Accordingly, it becomes a self-policing network that has the ability to silence critics and individuals opposing a particular agenda or activity, even if such dissent is lawful. Taken to its extreme, it gives Barack Hussein Obama the ability to redefine what constitutes a threat to the government, including treason. It’s no longer about the rule of law and one’s allegiance to the United States. It’s now about allegiance to the agenda of the Executive branch, assured by active surveillance of government employees by Obama’s hand-picked appointees.

            This memorandum quietly inserts yet another plank in the framework for absolute control by Barack Hussein Obama. It is he, not laws enacted by congress or the workings of the judicial branch, who will now determine who and what constitutes an “insider threat.” The mechanisms for reporting such threats are now in place, and actual or perceived threats to our government are to be identified and reported on by the very people he appointed to key government positions. It is the very essence of “Big Brother” within the government itself.

            Everyone needs to wake up and understand exactly what’s happening not only in the U.S., but across the world. We are witnessing the consolidation of power that historically precedes a war for absolute control.

             
          • kohana posted at 6:40 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            I wouldn't know if it were a Canadian conspiracy buff publishing these articles but they've got the guts to try to get the Americans aware. Getting tons of weapons out of Libya into Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood, ties in with the "fast and furious" gun running from the US into the drug cartels to get more money for the world wide operations.

            Another interesting article on "Obama's Agenda 21" and the One World Order, instigated according to this article by Bush Sr. and continued with the cooperation of both parties. This would explain the total cooperation with our State Dept, presidents, etc. with the Muslim dominated UN on shutting down free speech. Also with Obama's order to "identify" those working for the government that might cause "leaks."

            http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51397

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:14 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            kohana posted at 7:51 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Good for you! You're starting to catch on to what's actually going on, no matter who is President. But be careful, as the Internet is full of High IQ Canadian conspiracy buffs who can take some actual facts...... ("Benghazi was a CIA gun running operation!", which I pointed out in September and was loudly booed by the local staunch Republicans, in the heat of the presidential race, who put it all on Obama as if he was somehow "bad", when in fact he was just being protective of certain Covert Operations-the world is very aware of them, but American's are naive as he//)....... and weave quite a web. Big enough for Hollywood and big Dollars! But sadly, not concise enough to actually pin anything down BEFORE it happens, merely an explanation after the fact that is way deeper and more accurate than the MSM puts forward.

            Yet, they are still Right Wing Knotheads, just more aware of the geopolitics of the world than most Americans (Yanks), and able to laugh at their own Canadian Government's use of "Peace Keeping Forces" wherever their American Handlers dictate. And many are aware that what is going on in the Middle East is the overthrow of The Sykes-Picot agreement and it's 100 year history.

             
          • who new posted at 12:17 am on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.

            who new Posts: 367

            Law: “I'm actually afraid for my country. In my opinion, the threat is now mostly internal. I don't worry too much about the foreign military forces any more.”

            If only we could adopt the mentality that we are too broke to act as the world’s police force and admit there is little we can do to prevent or respond to all the atrocities that disgust us, such as chemical weapons in Syria or genocide in Africa.

            This is probably one of the few instances for which the United Nations makes sense. If, collectively, the world feels the need to act in response to perceived carnage, the United States could participate. But going in alone only serves to perpetuate the view of us as the bad guys who can’t mind their own business.

             
          • kohana posted at 7:51 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            This is something every one of you need to read. Benghazi was not an American Consulate, it was a total CIA operation, so nothing happened on "American Soil" and no security needed. There are 3 articles and it would behoove you to read them all. If true, it should scare the living bejesus out of all of you. ko

            This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.
            by Doug Hagmann

            Benghazi explained: Behind the lies - Dec 3, 2012

            http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346

            Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II) - Nov 30, 2012

            http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51400

            Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider” - Nov 29, 2012

            http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346

             
          • Rob123 posted at 5:34 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            mooseberryinn: I am amazed the collapse hasn't happened yet.
            HTC: One major reason why the collapse hasn't happened yet .......is.....because......

            well, the Federal Reserve has been working overtime sucking up all the Bonds and Junk and in the process, have eaten all the Twinkies. As you know, us survivalists depend on Twinkies, and now the shelves are empty. It's rough! We can't hunker down without Twinkies! Th apocalypse is on hold. Stay tuned, and keep the Powder Dry!

            Gaaaawwwwwddddd.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 3:52 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            mooseberryinn: I am amazed the collapse hasn't happened yet.

            HTC: One major reason why the collapse hasn't happened yet and we haven't yet begun experiencing hyperinflation is because, as one economist aptly put it, in the developed world, we're the tallest midget in the room.

            What that means is that everyone knows we're in trouble, but they also realize that almost everyone else is in worse shape. As everyone keeps trying to kick the can a bit further down the road, a lot of money has moved here and into dollars as a hedge against the rest of the developed world going down first.

            What will likely happen is that Europe will go down first and that will take the rest of us with her.

            That's exactly how the Great Depression began.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:03 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Data just released shows that U.S. manufacturing is at a 3-year low. If you wondered what an Obama 'recovery' would look like, this is it.

            Also, this administration has issued a veiled "red line" threat to Syria: "Chemical weapons are a red line. Cross that and we might get really upset. Kill 40,000 people by conventional means? Not so much."

            Tha's what 'diplomacy from power" looks like in an Obama administration.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 1:57 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            law - by all means - be amazed and afraid. there really are people who trust Comrade Obama to do the right things for America. No kidding! They think the federal gov't will actually make things "better". They are clueless in the extreme about Marxism, socialism, communism and simply cannot recognize what Comrade Obama and the "destructo-crats" are doing. Given the damage Comrade Obama has already done to America, I doubt we will survive as a free country. As for our economy, national debt etc. I am amazed the collapse hasn't happened yet. Inflation is already becoming a large problem and will get much worse. (As Comrade Obama has planned).

             
          • Pete posted at 1:28 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Law posted at 9:12 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012

            "I also follow these discussions in amazement. The naivety of some here astounds me, but it is worse in other parts of the country."

            Don't make the mistake of translating what you see here as a "naivete about".... it is a much more a proactive "faith in". They aren't simply temperate observers but rather true believers, proselytizing the doctrines of the STATE.

             
          • It's a beautiful day posted at 11:27 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            It's a beautiful day Posts: 1832

            HighTechCowboy posted at 8:47 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
            "Stupidity does indeed come with a very high price tag."

            IABD- You should display this legal disclosure in your company's firearms brochures.

             
          • Pete posted at 11:22 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            "Law: I have to ask: I appreciate Frank's insights, and those of many others here, but, why do you try to have a discussion with those that clearly won't or can't hear you?"

            It is more akin to placing our objections into the historical record. :-)


             
          • Pete posted at 10:57 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            As I've said before, it is high time conservatives/libertarians get out of the way and let the American electorate depend on the moral and constitutional restraint of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the progressive cabal as they push their socialist agenda forward. Progressives have convinced the American public that secular state socialism is the panacea...so let them live with it. Only do it quickly, I would hate to think that those who have so ardently advocated this diabolic philosophy would escape the certain pain; after all, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Right?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:33 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Law: I have to ask: I appreciate Frank's insights, and those of many others here, but, why do you try to have a discussion with those that clearly won't or can't hear you?

            HTC: First of all, thank you for your service and I wish you a healthy, happy and LONG retirement.

            I'm not really having a discussion with these morons; I'm responding to them because I know that there are many, many more who read the comments but never post. The left's insanity, especially because the liberal blogosphere they quote gives them so much seemingly credible ammunition, cannot go unchallenged with the facts.

            In addition, I do enjoy shaking the snow globes they live in once in awhile.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:22 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            jennydoe: The Democrat house gained 12 seats, while the Republican house lost 6 seats.

            HTC: I did mispeak earlier, having failed to check for final results on the as-yet undecided House races that had long been predicted to go to the GOP.

            But, it appears that only 8 of those 12 seats are 'settled' outcomes, although the Democratic candidates appear to have a good chance of narrowly winning them.

            Regardless, while the Dems have picked up more seats, the GOP remains in control of the House, unlike the situation the electorate gave to Bush in 2004 which enabled him to move his agenda forward, while Obama will have a really tough time moving his pieces on the board.

            But more importantly, with the data so clear on the tax cut issue, why are you gleefully supporting those whose tax and economic policies are the antithesis to what history screams that we need?

             
          • Law posted at 9:12 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Law Posts: 3

            HTC: I know people who've received this training.

            I have provided this training. I'm retiring after 26 1/2 years in the military, but I leave with my head hung pretty low. I'm actually afraid for my country. In my opinion, the threat is now mostly internal. I don't worry too much about the foreign military forces any more.

            I also follow these discussions in amazement. The niavety of some here astounds me, but it is worse in other parts of the country.

            I have to ask: I appreciate Frank's insights, and those of many others here, but, why do you try to have a discussion with those that clearly won't or can't hear you?

            It doesn't work in Afghanistan, and it won't work here.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:06 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            jennydoe posted at 8:46 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012

            No, you don't understand the 'rules' because Bush and Obama never ran against each other. The margin of victory is only relevant within each election. Your comparison of Bush to Obama is entirely meaningless unless you're emotionally insecure and feel a need to magnify Obama's win, even if by purely artificial means.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:02 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            jennydoe: While progressives attack the Bush tax cuts and President Barack Obama wants to let them expire for families making over $250,000, figures released by the IRS show the wealthiest 1% actually paid more in taxes after the Bush tax cuts were passed, and the bottom half of taxpayers actually paid less in income taxes.

            This begs the question, ghost, then why all the mayhem over letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

            HTC: I've pointed out many times that such cuts to marginal tax rates have ALWAYS resulting in the 'rich' paying more and lower income households paying less, while increases in the marginal rates have the exact opposite effect. Surely you can recall me several times saying that, if you want to "soak the rich", cut their taxes!?

            So the question you should be asking is, with the historical record so clear on this matter, why are the Democrats working so hard to run in the WRONG direction. You vote for them, so why don't you ask them?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:56 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: Since Republicans control the House? You two need to back off the personal psychology and just let it all get simple and straight forward.

            HTC: It IS simple and straight forward. I've ALWAYS acknowledged that it is Congress which controls the purse strings. That's why the budget surplus which Clinton is fond of taking credit for really belongs to the GOP controlled Congress that America saddled him with in 1994. That's why the increased spending and growing deficits that liberals like to attribute to Reagan really belongs to the Democrats who controlled Congress during his tenure.

            Obama had a Democratically-controlled Congress for nearly two years into his first term. They wasted nearly a trillion dollars we didn't have on a failed 'stimulus' package which Americans didn't want, and also rammed ObamaCare down our throats which the CBO estimates will add approximately $5T to the deficit during the first ten years that all of its provisions are in effect.

            But somehow the Democrats couldn't pass a budget as the Constitution requires, even though they controlled both houses. After the midterms, they and the MSM have coerced the GOP into one interim spending bill and debt ceiling increase after another, threatening to blame the GOP for the economic disaster that would occur if government suddenly stopped paying its bills. Within the Congress, this is essentially tyranny by the minority.

             
          • jennydoe posted at 8:55 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            HTIC posted at 818. thanks.

            We are all in this together. For best results, overpower your neighbor.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:47 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: [Quoting http://www.cnbc.com/id/50027184] "In Germany, where wealth is more evenly distributed, the needs are not as high."

            HTC: I can't help but wonder what parallel universe that author lives in. The bottom half of the German population has virtually ZERO in the way of net assets. The wealthiest 10% of Germans control over 60% of the personal wealth. Due to their high taxes for their social systems, most Germans who do have a positive net worth have the majority of it in real estate (their home(s)) rather than in financial assets.

            The German government's own "core indicators" show their poverty rate to be higher than ours (16%) at over 18% and growing. While our child poverty rate is 20%, theirs is nearly 30%.

            Wages and salaries are in decline in Germany and the poor are especially hard hit. In the past 10 years, the poorest 50% of wage earners in Germany saw their share of income drop from 30.4% to just over 25%.

            But those who understand such things from an economic perspective, realize that these inequities have always been made more dramatic by the very policies of wealth redistribution which claim to address it. What is sad is that so many of its victims continue to support the parties and policies which only make it worse. Stupidity does indeed come with a very high price tag.

             
          • jennydoe posted at 8:46 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            64,143,352 Obama
            -61,837,000 Bush
            ___________

            2,306,352

            As it stands now Obama has received 50.8% of the vote, and your loser got 47.5%.
            The Democrat house gained 12 seats, while the Republican house lost 6 seats.
            And I won't even mention the senate.

            Yes, you've changed the rules.
            And I can do math.
            You just need to stop relying on Fox for your information.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:18 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            jennydoe posted at 6:55 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012

            Except for the finge element on both ends of the political spectrum, I don't believe that most people want any kind of civil war. I hear some, on both sides, talk about secession. There are some on the right who'd like to secede and others on the left who'd support that because they consider those "fly over" states to be a monkeywrench in their socialist machinery.

            If civil war does eventually visit us again, it will likely be due to the collapse of our economy, which is inevitable when the nanny state brings with it approximately $200T in unfunded liabilities. If we try to continue the entitlement state, as Democrats have sworn to do, we'll soon enough not be able to borrow enough money to fund our massive deficits, because everyone knows we'ere bankrupt, leaving us only one other option: printing money.

            Either way, either entitlement payments suddenly end or they become effectively worthless due to hyperinflation from running our printing presses in overdrive. This is what I've been calling the return of "libertarianism via bankruptcy."

            When the half of America that has become dependent upon our government's redistribution of wealth can no longer keep a roof over their heads nor food in their bellies, what do YOU think they will do next?

            There's only one practical answer to that question: They'll go looking for what they need, prepared to use force if necessary to obtain it. Law enforcement will only be able to contain them for a short while, at which point things will get bad enough in the face of their growing numbers (Remember - they make up nearly half of our population) that peace officers will abandon their jobs and go home to protect their own families and stores.

            The DHS and the DoD know this is coming and have been preparing for it. They've been stockpiling ammunition and running around the country training local law enforcement in riot, crowd control and urban warfare techniques. They've been selling armored personnel carriers and other military equipment to local law enforcement, as an urban warfare will require special tools as well as technique.

            I know people who've received this training. ALL have told me that their local citizens are only kidding themselves if they think they're going to risk their lives for them while their families sit at home, vulnerable and without them there to protect them.

            This is what's coming if we don't all pull our heads out of our azzes and come to grips with our gross national insolvency. It is coming, even if some are too stupid to see it.

             
          • jennydoe posted at 8:05 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            rob [beam]

             
          • jennydoe posted at 8:04 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            While progressives attack the Bush tax cuts and President Barack Obama wants to let them expire for families making over $250,000, figures released by the IRS show the wealthiest 1% actually paid more in taxes after the Bush tax cuts were passed, and the bottom half of taxpayers actually paid less in income taxes.
            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/30/Bush-Tax-Cut-Secret-Rich-Paid-Even-More-Despite-Rate-Decrease
            --------
            This begs the question, ghost, then why all the mayhem over letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:01 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            jennydoe: Back in 2004, we were told by Bush himself that he had a mandate. When did you change the rules?
            President Obama was elected with a popularity vote larger than Bush's by at least a million.

            HTC: Yes, math clearly isn't your strong suit. Bush actually won reelection by nearly 1 million more votes than Obama, getting 61,837,000 votes to Kerry's 58,895,000. Bush got 50.6% of the popular vote as opposed to Kerry's 48.1%.

            Additionally, Bush's party picked up more seats in Congress to help him enact his agenda, whereas Obama saw increased gridlock due to GOP gains in the House, making it very difficult for him to achieve his socialist agenda.

            No one changed the rules. You just don't understand them.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 7:52 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/november_2012/48_recognize_need_to_cut_entitlements_defense_to_reduce_federal_deficit
            48% Recognize Need to Cut Entitlements, Defense to Reduce Federal Deficit

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2012/68_want_both_tax_hikes_and_spending_cuts_in_budget_deal
            "68% Want Both Tax Hikes and Spending Cuts in Budget Deal"

             
          • Rob123 posted at 6:58 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            jennydoe posted at 6:55 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            It's been written, and is finally all in one place!
            http://www.theonion.com/topics/philosophy/

             
          • jennydoe posted at 6:55 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            IABD, how come I keep hearing talk of a civil war, repubs against dems, as of late. Is this really what the right wing fanatics want? Or believe? I kinda get that impression from Frank's2cents. Are we gonna rise up against each other or against the government, which is made up of our neighbors and elected by the same. Are we gonna be better armed? Does the younger stronger party with just as many guns win. Do the old farts think they are the only ones that aren't afraid of shooting? Is the zombie apocolypse nearer than we all thought? Your post yesterday afternoon sure has me wondering....will the destruction of this country be the results of paranoid fear?

            Pete?JEB?Moose?HTIC? anyone?

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 6:43 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            Comrado/King Obama's "offer" - give him the authority to raise the debt limit without congressional approval? Ya sure you betcha! I'm wondering when he's going to declare himself supreme dictator for life.

             
          • jennydoe posted at 6:42 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            jennydoe Posts: 2198

            HTIC says, "instead, you morons proclaim that you have a "mandate" which clearly does not exist."
            --------------------
            Back in 2004, we were told by Bush himself that he had a mandate. When did you change the rules?
            President Obama was elected with a popularity vote larger than Bush's by at least a million. Oh and the electoral college by 91 larger than Bush's "mandate" You keep pointing out that less people voted for him.
            Well then way lesser people voted for your loser. But keep on sucking that binky.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 4:44 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            Rick Spencer posted at 6:25 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
            laker1 posted at 9:59 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
            [thumbup]

            Excellent input! Thank you!

            It's like looking at google Earth for the first time, and flying over the landscape. Yet every time I double click I fly right into my own backyard and am stuck in streetscape and only allowed a 360 panaroma? In order to increase my view and sense of beauty, I need to ask a neighbor and the USFS to thin some trees. The neighbor looks out, and says cutting 'that tree' is no problem. 6 months later, the USFS comes up with an EIS plan that includes a 40 acre clear cut that butts up to my property line. "WHOA! Can't you just thin it a little?" "No! Bottom line Economics dictates what we can do!".

            Reality is messy ......it' will remain so.

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 12:01 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            It's a beautiful day posted at 11:42 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            .........but, if we were to eliminate all the bed sores.............

            Wouldn't you become awfully lonely............???

             
          • laker1 posted at 9:59 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            laker1 Posts: 110

            Dear Rick Spencer,

            Before I would attempt to answer your question, I must confess some confusion about what you mean by the phrases “constrained view of the constitution” and “unconstrained view of the constitution”. For example, if I were to say that I had an “unconstrained” view of Flathead Lake, I would mean that there is nothing in my field of vision that interferes with my sight. On the other hand, were I to say I have a “constrained” view of Flathead Lake, I would be saying, I think, that there are objects between me and the lake which do interfere with my sight.

            I don’t know about you but I would prefer my views of the Constitution and Flathead Lake to be as unconstrained as possible. Just as I would not build a fence across my view of the lake, I would not blot out Article III with a piece of paper say, while reading the Constitution.

            It may be that you are attempting to apply the distinction Thomas Sowell made between the constrained and unconstrained visions of man in his book A Conflict of Visions. New York: William Morrow & Company (1987). Typically, we do not use “view” as a synonym for “vision”, e.g. “HTC has views” does not mean that “HTC has visions.” According to Sowell, humans may be seen as essentially good and have no need of constraint or may be seen as inherently self interested and in need of constraint depending on the intuition of the observer. I believe he argues that the constrained vision requires compromise in political matters.

            Constitutions are a different matter. The constitution of a unitary state, such as Montana’s, is a constraint on the power of the government. The constitution of federal state, such as that of the United States, has the implicit or explicit constraint that powers not delegated to the government are reserved to the people. To talk of an “unconstrained constitution” is an oxymoron like military intelligence or jumbo shrimp.

            If you are trying to identify kinds of constitutional interpretation, the terms “narrow” and “broad”, “strict” and “liberal”, or “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” are commonly used. It would be easier to understand what you are asking if you were to use one of these.

            As easy way to determine what kind of interpretation of the constitution one favors is the following test. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress “. . . To raise and support Armies. . .; To provide and maintain a Navy;. . .” In addition to these, Congress also supports the United States Air Force. Is such support is constitutional or unconstitutional? Why? I think there are three possible answers but there could be more. Have fun.

             
          • SorrySOB posted at 7:51 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            SorrySOB Posts: 484

            HTC: Has any of the real adults in the room had time to check this out?

            Just curious, when you refer to "adults" are you talking about those of you who are over 70? If so, don't get too excited and let us younger folk work it out.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 6:25 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            There are two major political parties in the U.S. and even though I have stated they act mostly in their own self interest there is a major difference in their philosophies and actions.

            The tradition inherent to the unconstrained view is the conviction that immoral or foolish choices explain the evils of the world and that wiser social policies are the solution to create a more humane society. In other words, the social engineering that seems to come naturally to academics, journalists, and Progressive politicians as they deem themselves wiser then the individual to make decisions about how one should live. They believe that a larger, centrally controlled apparatus is better for the individual than the individual is for himself. It is always found in fascism, communism, and socialism. In fact, it is the central theme for each of these and the end result has always been a disaster for those subjected to it, and seldom bloodless. It is the false promise of a utopia failed. These are the Democrats among us.

            The constrained vision sees freedom as finite and that government power is accumulated at the expense of private freedom. Hayek, Smith, Hamilton, Burke, and our Founders were proponents of the constrained vision of governance for those to be governed and thus it became the basis for our Constitution. Those who value free trade, limited government, rational decision-making, are Constitutionalists, and believe that the bigger the government, the less free the society, make-up the present day body of citizens favoring a constrained view of governance. They are viewed as the Conservatives among us.

            As opposed to the unconstrained view, the constrained view accepts its citizen’s own private stock of reasoning as appropriate guidance for life’s concerns. That was the basis for our revolution, for our Constitution, and for our nation’s guidance until about 100 years ago when the Progressive movement and their ideology of 'big' government was ushered into our political world.

            So, as one can see there is a huge difference and compromise upon each set of principles will not work for either party or the country. That is too expensive with too much economic uncertainty, and with constant gridlock as each party maneuvers for more power. This choice is becoming a fight to the finish for the country with the end result being either we live as free men under the principles elucidated by our Constitution, or we live in a state of serfdom to the government. Ultimately, only one can survive as the political power struggle becomes so intense that both cannot survive. That has been the history of the world and the 20th century. I, personally, wish that were not true but there is scant evidence against such an ugly outcome, especially when a democratic country begins its turn toward one of the 'isms'.

            And that is why I asked Rob and others, "Do you really want to live under an unconstrained government that has little or no limits upon its power, and that thrives upon the lies and false promise of an utopia?" I have not heard an answer to that and would like to hear some answers and reasons. After all, that has been your personal choice (in the future that may not be so); thus, you must have had principled reasons that satisfied your choice leading to a path to be a productive citizen in order to raise a family and a life of happiness. So, what are the principles underlying your choice? Simply, and before the question is asked, mine are Constitutionally based. RLS

             
          • Bronco posted at 5:28 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Rob:
            How much wealth or income would you need to feel happy?
            -------------------
            I'm happy now but another million would make me ecstatic.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 4:11 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://www.cnbc.com/id/50027184

            The Perfect Income for Happiness? It's $161,000

            But there was a wide range of answers depending on the country. Dubai residents need the most to feel wealthy. They said the needed $276,150 to be happy. Singapore came in second place, with $227,553, followed by Hong Kong, with $197,702.

            The region with the most modest needs for happiness is Europe. Germans only need $85,781 to be happy, placing them lowest on the list. The French need $114,000, while the British need $133,000.

            The survey doesn't ask about total wealth needed to feel happy. But it does ask about the amount of wealth needed to feel "wealthy." Globally, the average amount needed to feel wealthy was $1.8 million.

            Singaporeans took the lead on the "wealth" needs, with $2.91 million needed to feel wealthy. Dubai ranked second with $2.5 million, followed by Hong Kong with $2.46 million.

            Surveys show that among Americans, most say they need $1 million or more to feel wealthy.

            All of this shows that wealth and financial happiness is not an absolute number, but is relative to your peers and surroundings. Living in Dubai, with all those oil barons and oligarchs, the needs are higher. In Germany, where wealth is more evenly distributed, the needs are not as high.

            How much wealth or income would you need to feel happy?

             
          • Bronco posted at 3:57 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Rob posted: "No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress."
            -------------------
            Do you really believe these name-callers and blamers here are going to own that?

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:54 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            "No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress."

            Since Republicans control the House? You two need to back off the personal psychology and just let it all get simple and straight forward. Unless: "The dirty little secret is that the foremost interest of a political party is its own power, with little in the welfare of its followers. "

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:32 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            who new posted at 2:20 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012

            Andrea is correct - it's time to ensure that Obama and his party are left standing over the economic wreck they created as we step aside and let them drive right off the cliff.

            Only then will the idiots that voted for this man begin to realize that there are consequences to their choices and that nothing in life is ever 'free.'

            So, let's give the keys to the economic bus to the Sandra Flukes of this country and let the race to the cliff begin.

             
          • It's a beautiful day posted at 2:28 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            It's a beautiful day Posts: 1832

            If an uncompromising extreme right-wing secessionist movement doesn't succeed in their desire for Montana leaving the union, a civil war would most likely precipitate. Flathead County would immediately become a strategic ground zero target due to our firearms manufacturing industry base and imported reactionary extremist cultists. Sorry, but not in my hometown...

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 2:23 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Rob123: President Obama, a true Democrat, has offered $1.6 Trillion in Tax increases and $600 Billion in Spending cuts. All the Republicans have to do is stop whining, grab the bull by the horns AND accept responsibility next Election Cycle, and come up with $3.4 Trillion in additional cuts in order to satisfy the formula.

            HTC: Huh?

            One thing we do know for certain is that Obama, being a "true Democrat", cannot be trusted where promises of spending cuts are concerned. No agreement shoud be made by the GOP regarding new taxes because they will have a recessionary effect and we have a spending problem, NOT a revenue problem But if they do agree to some increases, it should only include deep cuts in spending as well.

            Every time the Democrats have promised to do that "later", if the GOP would agree to tax increases, those cuts never occurred but spending increased instead.

            The historical record shows that their promises are meaningless.

            Obama initiated the process which gave us the Simpson-Bowles agreement, then immediately put the hard-earned fruits of that effort into the round file. That agreement called for $2 in spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes. So the ball is in Obama's and the Democrats' court to put forth a COMPLETE proposal per that prior agreement. Anything less is simply not serious and should be dismissed out of hand.

            Since Obama is calling for $1.6T in tax increases, let him and his party come up with the $3.2T in spending cuts. It isn't the GOP's job to complete their proposal for them.

             
          • who new posted at 2:20 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            who new Posts: 367

            “…unless people are affected by the gluttonous spending in Washington in a personal way, they are unlikely to wake up and support any kind of real reform.”

            It's time for Republicans to let Obama own the fiscal crisis

            By Andrea Tantaros

            Published November 30, 2012 FoxNews.com

            If you thought the bulk of our gridlocked politics would end in November, think again. The prospect of our country going off what’s referred to as the “fiscal cliff” has both the right and the left staking out their territory in a battle over how to handle our very unbalanced books.

            President Obama and a good chunk of Democrats want to raise taxes on the nation’s highest earners. Though the president says he also wants to have a conversation about reforming entitlements, he hasn’t put any type of proposal on paper. Nor is the president or his party interested in serious spending cuts, aside from cuts to the Department of Defense, something Republicans argue would hurt our national security muscle in a time when we need it the most.

            At the same time, Republicans have put forth plans to tackle the biggest driver of our debt—entitlements—and even had a presidential ticket that ran on those reforms. The House of Representatives has passed some version of these plans and Speaker John Boehner has adopted a Mitt Romney -- idea to eliminate certain deductions in order to raise revenue to pay down our debt. Raising taxes, however—on anyone—is not an option, they say. Unless one side caves, we’re slated to dive off the so-called "cliff" in December.

            So why don’t Republicans just get out of the way and let it happen? It sounds crazy, but there is a case to be made.

            Let Democrats bring a bill to increase spending on what Obama calls a second stimulus, raise taxes on high earners (including many small businesses) without doing a thing to fix Medicare and Social Security for current and future generations. Republicans can take a page of Obama’s playbook and vote present as he did when he was a senator. When the nation falls off the fiscal cliff, he can own it.

            The tax increases that happen will be the Obama tax increases. When spending spikes, it can be the Obama tax and spend plan. And we slide into recession as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts will happen, it will be the Obama recession. In other words, it's time for the right to call Obama's bluff.

            Doing so would only further highlight the Democrats' fiscal cliff irresponsibility, especially that of Obama. He almost quadrupled federal spending to that of President George W. Bush, refused to make any changes to entitlements during the debt ceiling debate and has been pushing for higher taxes for years (even though in 2011 he said raising taxes on anyone in a recession would be a mistake when he extended the Bush tax cuts).

            What’s worse? Many who voted for Obama would be disproportionately affected, and low income Americans will be affected the most. According to the Wall Street Journal, “a single unemployed person making less than $10,000 would see his or her taxes rise 55.2%. Loss of benefits for the working poor is a big factor. Many unemployed people also face loss of extended unemployment benefits.”

            “An average married couple making $20,000 to $30,000 would sees their tax go up $1,423, from receiving a $15 refund to paying $1,408. Big factors include the loss of the Bush-era 10% bracket, the loss of relief from the so-called marriage penalty and reduction of the child credit. Average tax rate under the proposal: 5.5% Average federal tax change: Up $1,423, or 9,809%.”

            College students would face an increase of 37.9% and the highest tax increase would hit retirees making around $40,000 at a whopping 42.4%.

            Just this week, Warren Buffet argued that tax rates need to be more progressive. Many people don’t get that the Bush tax cuts already are. They created that beneficial 10% tax bracket for lower middle class earners and took a lot of poor Americans off the tax rolls altogether. The rich are paying more now than ever in taxes because they are making more, despite their rate being slightly lower.

            Just like in Greece, unless people are affected by the gluttonous spending in Washington in a personal way, they are unlikely to wake up and support any kind of real reform. Plus, the economy is likely to correct itself even in a recession. It’s often the actions taken to prevent a recession that can do the most damage rather than letting it happen.

            If a majority of the country elected Obama to four more years in the White House, then let them have it their way without GOP support.

            Perhaps our nation needs to dive off the cliff in order to realize how dire our debt problem really is. Then maybe they'll support real change.

            Plus, Republicans will get blamed anyway. The president’s current public relations tour across country on the fiscal cliff is designed for that exact purpose. It’s much easier than leading.

            If as Obama has said, “the buck stops” with him, then let it. America will soon realize that elections do have consequences.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 2:04 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Rob, that promise of trading tax increases for spending cuts was tried in my lifetime, and maybe yours, during the Reagan years. It is easily noted that the Party that made the promise to cut spending did not! Thus, the good faith efforts of compromise around the principle of limiting government expenditures in this singular instance were nullified by the Democrats in order to retain their Party power with their constituents who are composed of the Devil's acolytes, the Progressives. Need one say more about compromise with those kinds of people who outright lie about their motives from the beginning, at least on this issue, I think not!

            The constrained vision sees freedom as finite and that government power is accumulated at the expense of private freedom. Thus, I have to ask you and those that agree with you, "Do you really want to live under an unconstrained government that has no limits upon its power, and that thrives upon the lies and false promise of an utopia?" Wouldn't that create a home for the devil and his unprincipled acolytes, and thereby label you as such as well? Is that how you really want the country and its citizens to be governed? I certainly hope not, but the rhetoric more often says 'yes', rather than 'no'. I am always shocked by the mere thought of what I hear from the Progressives and their quest for power over the people. I guess you are not, and it is their sorry attribute that they profess the principles of our Constitution as outdated and not relevant in the present day. It is destructive for the people, it is destructive for the country; and, it is especially destructive for the progeny of all. They are the ones that will have to live out the false promises, not those presently advocating such. RLS

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 1:55 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            IABD: No magic about it...Has any of the real adults in the room had time to check this out?

            HTC: Let me guess: You accidentally put a pair on your head - right?

             
          • SorrySOB posted at 12:37 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            SorrySOB Posts: 484

            HTC: "Only a logic-challenged progressive would consider that victory for their side";

            And only a conservative who lost a election he so badly wanted and needed to win would put a positive spin on the hopeless situation he faces.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 12:35 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            So, it appears that the political rhetoric of the campaign, in which a promise was made by one party along the lines that "for every $1.00 in tax increases $2.50 in spending cuts" has been forgotten already?

            President Obama, a true Democrat, has offered $1.6 Trillion in Tax increases and $600 Billion in Spending cuts. All the Republicans have to do is stop whining, grab the bull by the horns AND accept responsibility next Election Cycle, and come up with $3.4 Trillion in additional cuts in order to satisfy the formula. As the party of 'Less is More', what the heck is so difficult about it? Unless Dr. Rick Spencer (PhD Econ) is correct? "The dirty little secret is that the foremost interest of a political party is its own power, with little in the welfare of its followers. "

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 12:03 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            My views concerning compromise revolve about the two visions of governing existing from the beginning of self-governance : Governance Constrained by a constitution, or Governance with Unconstrained powers. Our country fought for its freedom from the unconstrained powers of a King and created our Constitution that is predicated upon a governing body that was to be constrained/limited in its powers upon its citizens. But, we have fallen far from our Constitutional tree that represents, among others, the principles of individual and economic freedoms; as aptly noted by one Congressional representative proudly braying In donkey like fashion, "...who pays any attention to our Constitution up here". Thus, suggesting they do not act upon principle but upon garnering personal and party power.

            Since the Constitution has not been used as a baseline document for legislation for several decades seemingly by neither by the legislators or the Federal Courts, the context of present political rhetoric/legislating has turned into a free for all devoid of the principles that Frank speaks about. Compromise is now the acceptance of less by each side and the outcomes are normally twice as costly to the citizens who pay the bill. It also exposes the participants to political danger or disgrace. Avoiding such is loosely known as 'kicking the can down the road'. The problem gets bigger, the dangers become more apparent, and the representative continue to dominate the discussion by their false promises garnered through their so called compromises.

            I would surmise, given the history of worldwide governance, that there is a better chance that the U.S. will not solve its present dilemma of a fiscal cliff,at least in the larger sense of its true fiscal problems. That has been true for all Progressive/Socialist governing bodies and the endings have all been bad, very bad, for the people who have put their personal faith in their elected representatives.

            The dirty little secret is that the foremost interest of a political party is its own power, with little in the welfare of its followers. Unfortunately, the followers of the Progressive’s utopian mantra continuously fall prey to the most ancient folly of mankind as promised by its party leaders; the Faustian bargain to live without working. Presently, we are experiencing the failure of these ‘great’ programs that promised equal lifestyle through the forced redistribution of individual wealth. The utopian dream is disintegrating; and, that is creating a troublesome and chaotic personal, fiscal, and political situation here and abroad! Europe being a real time example.

            With over half the U.S. ‘taxpayers’ paying no federal income taxes and 80 million individual federal payments per month, who is going to compromise? There have been no underlying Constitutional principles for these Progressive programs, so what would discussion be based upon? And, please note that the discussion about these conflicts only indirectly speak to the indiscriminate spending of our moral capital largely caused by the reckless abandon that we have been spending our financial capital.

            Thus, in agreeing with Frank, I am not optimistic about a pleasant national ending to this Progressive disease/dream of the past 100 years foisted upon the Republic mostly through a lack of thought/principle about the danger and undesirable consequences that led to their abstract views of social justice. Frank's notes, and rightly so, " — compromise is not an answer; it is just a guarantee that when we hit the wall of truth later, when principle finally collects its price, there will be hell to pay". We may be there as Faustian bargains are just that, a bargain with the devil and he always collects his due! RLS

             
          • It's a beautiful day posted at 11:42 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            It's a beautiful day Posts: 1832

            No magic about it...Has any of the real adults in the room had time to check this out?

            http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/electric-undies-shock-away-bedsores

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:28 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Why Obama could lose this round as fiscal crisis grows
            By Liz Peek
            November 30, 2012

            President Obama, fresh off his victory lap, is about to overplay his hand.

            The most recent proposals from the White House aimed at averting the fiscal cliff included not only the president’s cherished tax hikes, but other demands that will strike any neutral observer as absurd.

            Even the liberal media couldn’t swallow the fantasy launched by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; the New York Times described the plan as “loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts.”

            Mr. Geithner, acting as the president’s missionary, proposed extending the payroll tax cut (something both parties earlier opposed), $1.6 trillion in tax hikes – way beyond previous demands -- extension of unemployment benefits that already exceed any previous coverage – and also a “permanent” ability to raise the debt ceiling, independent of Congress. There was no significant effort to rein in our bloated spending.

            The president is also demanding a new $50 billion stimulus program – a request that threatens to remind voters of just why it was they gave Republicans control of the House after Mr. Obama’s first two years in office.

            The president is feeling feisty. He has been energized not only by victory, but also by returning to his comfort zone: campaign-style events in which he’s touted his tax hikes on the wealthy. But -- his approval ratings have already started to sag (Rasmussen has his approval index and minus 7 compared to a post-election high of minus 2), and the number of people convinced the country is heading in the wrong direction is again on the increase.

            President Obama appears very confident that if the budget talks fail, Republicans in the House will attract most of the blame. That may be, but he should remember that his own approval ratings collapsed to an all-time low in the aftermath of the failed debt ceiling negotiations last year. Voters may hold GOP leaders responsible, but they won’t be happy with their president, either. If he hopes to follow through on his campaign promises -- including tackling immigration reform, for instance – he needs the backing of the people. Otherwise, his legacy will be trillions in new debt, and a failed recovery.

            Mr. Obama also seems to think that by reelecting him, voters gave a rousing thumbs-up to his fiscal choices, which so far have focused primarily on raising taxes on rich people. While polls show the latter to be popular, they also indicate that cutting spending and reining in our budget deficits remain a high priority for Americans. Indeed, recent (post-election) Gallup polling indicates that a growing number of Americans (45%, up from 32% last year) want to mend our fiscal wound through equal measures of tax hikes and spending cuts. The number that favor only raising taxes (which seems to be Mr. Obama’s main thrust) has stayed unchanged at just 11%.

            According to Gallup, some 99% of Americans think a strong economy and job market should be President Obama’s number one goal in his second term. The number two priority (88% of those polled) is taking “major steps” to ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare. Those necessary steps are, of course, opposed by Democrats. Most people (92%) consider “major cuts” to federal spending an important objective as well.

            On that front, they are likely to be disappointed. For October, the deficit soared 22% year-over-year, to $120 billion; spending increased 16% from the year-earlier period. Imagine; even as President Obama boasts of cutting spending, actually outlays are rising at 16%. Funny how the September report, released just before the election, showed a surprising $75 billion surplus. The September figure (mostly reflecting “shifts in the timing of certain payments” according to the CBO) was hailed by the left-leaning Daily Kos website with this headline: “Democrats, As Usual, Better at Deficit Reduction.” Not really.

            Another quite recent Gallup poll shows Americans want compromise – from both parties; eight in ten think that averting the fiscal cliff is very important. Astonishingly, given the ideological divide today, 68% of respondents say that both sides should “compromise equally.” That doesn’t sound like a mandate to steamroll the GOP.

            How important is a reasonable compromise going forward? Extremely important. Despite all the excitement over parking-lot scuffles, which have become as much a part of Thanksgiving as stuffed turkey, consumers did not shop with enthusiasm this year. Self-reported data collected by Gallup indicates that consumers spent on average $67 per day the week ended November 25, which included Black Friday weekend, down from $83 a year ago and $79 in 2010. In fact, the figure is equivalent to the depressed 2009 total. Upper-income (self-reported) spending has been trending down since September. This is not too surprising, since wealthier Americans worry that their taxes will go up next year. Since it has been higher-income Americans that have had the capacity to boost spending, this is not a positive trend for the economy. Overall, just-reported consumer spending in the third quarter was disappointing, rising only 1.4%; the figure was revised down from an earlier estimate of a 2% gain.

            Bottom line: the country’s prospects may have brightened recently, as housing has staged a modest bounce off its bottom, but the consumer, and the economy, remains extremely fragile. This is not a good time to undermine the uptick in confidence by resorting to extreme measures – or by trying to score political points.

            President Obama may enjoy accolades from liberals for trying to push through income-equalizing tax changes, but most Americans want to see progress on putting our fiscal house in order, and reasonable compromise. They want to see the economy pick up steam and the unemployed go back to work. They are looking for leadership; it’s time they found it at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


            Liz Peek is a financial columnist who writes for The Fiscal Times. For more visit LizPeek.com.

             
          • It's a beautiful day posted at 9:09 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            It's a beautiful day Posts: 1832

            HighTechCowboy posted at 7:37 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
            "It's time for the real adults in the room to take charge."

            IABD- Good Morning America and be very very careful today as HTC has new batteries installed in his magic underwear?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:56 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Our country doesn't need an Obama nor a Romney - it needs a Churchill:

            Winston Churchill predicted the future -- many times
            By James Humes
            November 30, 2012

            November 30, 1874 is the birthdate of the greatest statesman in history. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan deemed him so. Just his indomitable leadership in World War II rallying a beleaguered Britain to triumph over Nazi tyranny would alone earn him this unique distinction.

            But the world is not aware that Churchill was a modern Nostradamus in his prophetic wisdom. Among other things, he predicted two World Wars and the Cold War. Even today’s headlines are the stuff of predictions he made close to a century ago. In 1905, he foresaw the creation of the Israeli State. Churchill was the first non-Jewish Zionist. Twelve years before the Balfour Declaration, in 1917, Churchill called for a Jewish State. It was not as if he represented New York’s Lower East Side or Miami populated by Jews.

            Then in 1921, in a speech to the House of Commons, he spoke of a militant Islam sect, the Wahabis, more violent than any in history, which would kill their own sisters for wearing the wrong attire. These fierce zealots would terrorize the West with bomb-carrying Jihadists who would burn embassies and destroy buildings by their passion to sacrifice their lives for guarantee of Islam heaven. Winston Churchill II would read his grandfather’s speech to President George W. Bush in the White House in 2007. If Churchill didn’t exactly predict 9/11, he described its radical extremist perpetrators.

            President Nixon once told me that Churchill was the only leader who seemed to have a crystal bal|. He had “the mind of an historian and courage of a soldier.” A scholar of history, he could see patterns replicating themselves. Like a soldier, Churchill would risk political death by telling the people what they didn’t want to hear. Spineless politicians or cover-your-azz bureaucrats will never state the ugly truths. Churchill, however, didn’t worry about repercussions. He didn’t talk in euphemisms or evasions. He delivered the unvarnished facts.

            The English did not want to hear, after the decimation of a whole generation in World War I, the need to arm for another war threat by the Germans in the 1930’s.

            A decade later, Americans and British turned deaf ears to Churchill’s warning that their recent ally, the Soviet Union threatened the democracies of Europe. Even The Wall Street Journal—no left-wing newspaper—denounced Churchill’s Iron Curtain Address. Eleanor Roosevelt called Churchill a “war monger.”

            In that same year, 1946, Churchill told Europeans gathering in an assembly in Zurich that Germany, whose armies had only recently devastated their countries, had to be welcomed back into its community for the future prosperity of Europe. Boos accompanied his unwelcome message. The Europeans were appalled that their World War II hero would suggest such an idea.

            For those who ask what relevance Churchill’s predictions have to today’s world, they should keep in mind that he predicted the Energy Crisis in 1929. He warned that the West needed new sources of fuel to escape from being beholden to the oil oligarchies of the Middle East. And then in 1957, this writer heard Churchill state that the U.N. was a feckless organization, maimed by a congenital deformity—the Soviet veto— and that it was increasingly dominated by one-party autocratic states. One only has to note President Calderon who stuffs ballot boxes and jails dissidents in Columbia while his country serves on the U.N. Human Rights Commission; or even worse, President Assad of Syria who is slaughtering thousands of his citizens while his country joins Columbia on that Human Rights Commission that is attacking the U.S. for, among other things, using capital punishment and the many African-Americans serving in prison.

            On his 138th birthday, the world should not only recognize Churchill’s championship of freedom, but also study his many predictions that still endanger our liberties and freedoms.


            James C. Humes , a former White House speechwriter, is the author of the new book, Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2012.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 8:34 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            Rob123 Posts: 6588

            http://blogs.discovery.com/inscider/2012/11/why-we-want-to-believe-in-doomsday-predictions.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:18 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Bronco posted at 10:59 am on Sat, Dec 1, 2012: Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

            HTC: I know it's a bit early to go off topic, but I just had to respond to this outrageous bit of progressive B.S.

            First of all, the study being referred to is the Berkeley Earth Surface Termperature (BEST) report and it does NOT address the cause of its reported warming. Muller himself stated: "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

            This report basically ONLY states that their review of ground-based temperature measurements, once they'd adjusted for the effects of Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and other anomolies, shows an increase in temperature of nine-tenths of a degree Celsius over the past 100 years. It does NOT attempt to address the cause for that increase.

            Naturally, the liberal media that you suck down like pablum have completely spun and distorted the report, claiming, among other things, that it 'proved' AGW and that it had 'debunked' UHI, ALL of those claims being false.

            Furthermore, as a scientist and engineer, I can assure you that much of that ground-based data fails by the proverbial country mile to meet the standards of precision required for science and engineering, much of it from older equipment which had a margin of error of as much as plus or minus 2 degrees Celsius.

            Then there's the fact that the HadleyCRU and the UK's MET, the keepers of the raw sensor data, have refused to release that raw data to other scientists and provide only 'processed' data which we now know, thanks to the Climategate leaks, was heavily massaged in order to produce Al Gore's infamous "Hockey Stick" chart which the isn't supported by the raw data. This scandal forced the MET to bring in outside scientists to review the raw data, leading them later to announce that the raw data showed NO increase in global temperatures for the past 15 years. Their investigation led to the firing and resignations of several scientists at the MET.

            Unfortunately, our own 'investigation' of our side of that fraud wound up being nothing more than a coverup with NO outside scientists being brought in to conduct the investigation.

            REAL climate scientists know that the only global temperature measurements which do meet accepted scientific standards are those from the satellites which NOAA and NASA have been putting in place over the past 30 years in order to get that needed level of accuracy. Those satellites show an actual cooling in the past 12 years of four-tenths of a degree Celsius; additionally, they show that the AGW climate models' predictions of warming in the troposphere, due to the "greenhouse effect" also has not occurred.

            But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we are warming. Is that necessarily a bad thing as the AGW alarmists insist?

            Absolutely NOT, as the earth's own paleoclimatolgical record clearly shows. In the Epocene period alone, when millions more species existed than is the case today, the earth's CO2 levels were ten times higher, the earth was much warmer and three-fourths of the earth's surface was tropical or subtropical. This period is what led to the rise of the mammals. Without it, we wouldn't exist.

            So you can stop the hand-wringing and fear-mongering about climate change and get yourself some education in the physical sciences instead; or, you can continue to let the liars on the left do your thinking for you.


             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:43 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            Another great opinion piece, Frank. You've done an excellent job pointing out what a cesspool is that thing called "progressive morality."

            It is compromise with the Democrats which has indeed brought us to our current state of national bankruptcy; therefore, more compromise cannot save us. The GOP must hold firm to our Constitutional principles of limited federal government and the powers ascribed to the states and the people in the Tenth Amendment. They must hold firm to the fiscal principles which every household and business must live or die by.

            Doing so will make them VERY unpopular with many on the left, but so what? It's time for the real adults in the room to take charge.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:37 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9895

            SorrySOB: GOP hero Romney and and the gang sure didn't do any crushing of the opposition and the GOP's refusal to succumb with all of the filibusters and sable rattling pretty much sealed thier fate in the last election.

            HTC: "Sealed their fate?" Is that what you call eliminating 80% of Obama's margin of victory in the popular vote which he enjoyed in 2008? Is that what you call increasing their hold on the House, ensuring that Obama faced grdilock with his unAmerican Marxist pusuits?

            Only a logic-challenged progressive would consider that victory for their side; if anything, the outcome ensured that Obama was in position to be hoisted by his own petard over the next four years. This is obvious to those of us who can connect the dots and should be to you and Obama as well; instead, you morons proclaim that you have a "mandate" which clearly does not exist.

            These "stubborn old fools" have made significant headway since 2008, but you're too blinded by your progressive mental fog to see it.

             
          • mooseberryinn posted at 7:20 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.

            mooseberryinn Posts: 2678

            To compromise with the tyranny of communism pretty much insures that such tyranny will win. It is in progress now, through Comrade Obama and the democratic Marxist cabal. America had its' chance and either by indifference, propaganda, or wholesale fraud, that chance was lost. Now, we will pay for that mistake.

             
          • SorrySOB posted at 9:24 pm on Sat, Dec 1, 2012.

            SorrySOB Posts: 484

            "he crushes his opposition both with his skillful maneuvering AND his refusal to succumb to arguments about why he should meet in the middle."

            That's where your rhetoric goes south Frank. GOP hero Romney and and the gang sure didn't do any crushing of the opposition and the GOP's refusal to succumb with all of the filibusters and sable rattling pretty much sealed thier fate in the last election.

            So let's sum up. Your team loses pretty much because many people see you as stubborn old fools, but you still keep saying how proud you are to be that way. Looks like a lose-lose situation with no way out. I'm sure not going to try talking you out of it. You and the gang just keep doing what you do best.

             
          rss

          Warren Illi: Flathead Outdoors

          Premium Hunting-tag change zooming through Legislature

           Two weeks ago I wrote about the apparently unjust Fish, Wildlife and Parks citation issued to a Minnesota hunter for not affixing his tag to his bull elk until 26 minutes after arriving at the kill site. 

          More From Warren Illi: Flathead Outdoors