Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 23, 2018, 07:49:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106801 Posts in 2400 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 497 498 [499] 500 501 ... 841
24901  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stand Strong Tea Party! on: July 18, 2011, 07:21:19 PM
Second post, posted here because of connection to Tea Party

The Debt Battle Is Good for the GOP
Tea party Republicans speak for a large group of voters who have been swinging back and forth between the parties for more than a decade..

Watching the debt-ceiling battle on Capitol Hill—and even more the battle between the tea party young guns and older House Republicans—feels like déjà vu, or, rather, 1995, all over again.

Sixteen years ago, in the middle of the government shutdown, I found myself racing up Capitol Hill in a car filled with Republican congressmen. I had expected to hear talk of standing firm, of arguing their case for spending cuts on the House floor, of raising banners with bright, bold colors.

As I'd learned from years in the Reagan White House, confidence, clarity and consistency were essential to winning such high-stakes showdowns. Instead, these seasoned politicians were wringing their hands, snapping at any stalwart suggestion, and asking, "How did we get ourselves into this mess and how do we get out?"

Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich takes criticism to this day for surrendering too quickly in his face-off with President Bill Clinton. Exhibit One has been the incredulous jubilation of Clinton staffers when Mr. Gingrich accepted an offer they regarded as the start of serious bargaining, not the end. But the speaker was dealing with what I saw in that car ride up the Hill—a majority that could not hold. Too many members were melting under White House and, even more, media heat. Raising the white flag reflected no more than a bow to reality. The GOP retreat could be orderly or chaotic. Mr. Gingrich prevented panic.

Today, again, the GOP caucus is divided, but with a difference. The tea party freshmen are insisting on a strong negotiating stance. They want real spending cuts without tax increases. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has become their voice in the budget talks. Reflecting uncertainty about holding non-freshmen in line, both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner have signaled readiness to accept cosmetic compromises.

Mr. Boehner in particular is responding to House members desperately in search of cover from fallout over the president's threat to delay Social Security checks if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Many are terrified of Democratic attack ads painting them as would-be destroyers of Medicare. The GOP defeat this May in the special election in New York's 26th District shook them, which is a sign of how badly they've defended their positions.

View Full Image

Associated Press
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
.After all, if Social Security tax receipts don't cover all the checks in any month, the Social Security Trust Fund can sell its government bonds, bills and notes, as Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C), recently suggested. The holdings are enormous, and sales, even at a discount, could cover the system's needs for years, much less the time to finish budget parlaying.

So, if the checks stop coming, it will be the president who decided to stop them. That's not a hard message to get across.

Meanwhile, messaging on Medicare should be in Republicans' favor, not against them. Without reform, the system is doomed—and sooner than used to be thought, thanks to the half-trillion-dollar cuts written into Mr. Obama's health-reform legislation last year.

So, if Democrats don't like the budget reforms proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, they should propose something else. There will be lots of ideas put on the table before this is done. Medicare's only enemy is Dr. No, those who say "no" to exploring any reforms—and Dr. No is the role congressional Democrats and the administration are playing today.

Congressional tea party Republicans hold a stronger hand than anyone realizes. They speak for a large group of voters who have been swinging back and forth between the parties for more than a decade, determined the last three elections, and are likely to determine the 2012 outcome.

As early as 2005 at least one pollster—Kellyanne Conway—reported that part of the Bush 2004 vote was becoming disaffected over revulsion at federal spending. After the 2006 GOP debacle, then Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told his troops they had got out their vote, which, as he said, then voted for the other guys.

Those same voters stayed with the other guys in 2008. But by 2010, the new Obama administration's multiple trillion-dollar bailouts and stimulus packages had driven them back toward the GOP, with one hitch. They still didn't trust the party and its officeholders.

The national tea party movement is just the most vocal element in this much larger wave. By and large, polling has not captured it. Pollsters follow the movements of demographic groups or the changing preferences of party loyalists and independents. They typically do not try to identify something like Bush voters of 2004 who became Obama voters in 2008 and GOP House voters in 2010. The tea party is the first broadly based American political insurgency since California's Proposition 13 in the 1970s. Sure, its fervor will make the old guard uncomfortable, but intensity is what the GOP needs.

In short, the tea party movement is Reaganism updated. A contest has been fought over and over in Washington since Republicans embraced cutting tax rates and nondefense spending under Ronald Reagan in the early '80s. When Republicans have united behind these priorities, they have won elections. Nervous Republicans should bear that in mind when they begin to go wobbly on something as basic as reining in spending and refusing to raise taxes. And achieving that unity has always been difficult.

Global markets must receive a clear signal that Washington has the political will to reduce spending radically. If market jitters over U.S. government debt do not convince congressional Republicans that, in the days ahead, they should hold firm for spending cuts, politics should.

Mr. Judge is managing director of the White House Writers Group and chairman of Pacific Research Institute. He was a speechwriter and special assistant to the president during the Reagan administration.

24902  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 70% coming soon? on: July 18, 2011, 07:17:33 PM

President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes. With unemployment stuck at 9.2% and a vigorous economic "recovery" appearing more and more elusive, his timing couldn't be worse.

Two problems arise when marginal tax rates are raised. First, as college students learn in Econ 101, higher marginal rates cause real economic harm. The combined marginal rate from all taxes is a vital metric, since it heavily influences incentives in the economy—workers and employers, savers and investors base decisions on after-tax returns. Thus tax rates need to be kept as low as possible, on the broadest possible base, consistent with financing necessary government spending.

Second, as tax rates rise, the tax base shrinks and ultimately, as Art Laffer has long argued, tax rates can become so prohibitive that raising them further reduces revenue—not to mention damaging the economy. That is where U.S. tax rates are headed if we do not control spending soon.

The current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phase-out of itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare (no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split between employers and employees, the employers' share is ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.

But there are also state income taxes that need to be kept in mind. They contribute to the burden. The top state personal rate in California, for example, is now about 10.5%. Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages combining all these taxes is 44.1%. (This is a net figure because state income taxes paid are deducted from federal income.)

So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013, the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the president's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a stunning 58.4%.

But wait, things get worse. As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes. To cover the Congressional Budget Office projection of Mr. Obama's $841 billion deficit in 2016 requires a 31.7% increase in all income tax rates (and that's assuming the Social Security income cap is removed). This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%. Government, in short, would take over two-thirds of any incremental earnings.

Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that's before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.

Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.

Some argue the U.S. economy can easily bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. They point to the 1930s-1950s, when top marginal rates were between 79% and 94%, or the Carter-era 1970s, when the top rate was about 70%. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers and kicked in at much higher income levels relative to today.

There were also greater opportunities for sheltering income from the income tax. The lower marginal tax rates in the 1980s led to the best quarter-century of economic performance in American history. Large increases in tax rates are a recipe for economic stagnation, socioeconomic ossification, and the loss of American global competitiveness and leadership.

There is only one solution to this growth-destroying, confiscatory tax-rate future: Control spending growth, especially of entitlements. Meaningful tax reform—not with higher rates as Mr. Obama proposes, but with lower rates on a broader base of economic activity and people—can be an especially effective complement to spending control. But without increased spending discipline, even the best tax reforms are doomed to be undone.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

24903  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ against BBA on: July 18, 2011, 07:10:46 PM
This makes a lot of sense to me:

Republicans this week plan to force votes in the House and Senate on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The last time Congress voted on a BBA was in 1997. It failed. The first unsuccessful BBA was proposed in 1936. All efforts between now and then to vote a balanced budget amendment into the Constitution have failed. This one will as well, as there are sufficient Democratic votes in the Senate to block it.

What, then, is the point?

The point is that many Republicans—and we suspect silently more than a few Democrats—are frustrated and sickened at the spectacle of the nation's debt bursting past $14 trillion, with the prospect that the debt soon may reach 100% of GDP. They are upset as well that the Obama Presidency has pushed federal spending upward, from its historic postwar level around 20% of GDP to near 25% this year. Proponents of the BBA argue that only a spending limitation embedded in the Constitution can stop the U.S. fisc from going over the cliff.

These pages bear enough scars from the spending wars—against both political parties—to have won Milton Friedman spending-limitation citations many times over. But we have been writing since at least the 1995 vote on a balanced budget amendment that we do not believe this mechanism can achieve its desired result. Its effects may even prove perverse. We see no reason to change that view now.

The newest versions of the BBA include a strong provision requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote to increase taxes. That said, we doubt the historic 1981 Reagan tax cuts within the Kemp-Roth bill, once subjected to Congress's revenue-neutrality accountants, could have survived the balanced budget mandate. Even with deficits, the U.S. grew strongly for seven years, adding to GDP as much as the entire West German economy.

View Full Image

Getty Images/Stock Illustration Source
 .Nor is it clear that the amendment could avoid unintended consequences. In the current fight over spending and the debt, the GOP Congressional leadership has worked well to protect the defense budget from a President who constantly cites the need to cut it. But under a mandated need to balance spending, the inevitable horse-trading would likely default to cutting defense while ducking fights on domestic programs.

The Senate and House versions both contain waivers in times of military conflict, but these are fraught with problems. The supermajority requirement for taxes is waived if a "declaration of war" is in effect, or if a majority votes to support spending for a conflict "which causes an imminent and serious military threat" as described in a joint resolution of Congress. Sounds complicated. Would Ronald Reagan's spending that did so much to end the Cold War have survived these hurdles?

Tea party Republicans, to their credit, want to pass a BBA that would include the supermajority tax limitation. But it has no chance of passing, and absent that rule, political pressure could turn the amendment into a driver for the entitlement state as successive Democratic governments raised taxes, most likely with a European-style value-added tax to balance spending commitments.

The new Members who are intent on fiscal responsibility should visit with Congressional historians to discover a root cause of this modern spending catastrophe—the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the most laughable title ever placed on a federal law.

Passed amid Richard Nixon's struggles over spending with Congress, the law eviscerated the President's ability to impound Congressional spending. The law itself was an act of rage against Nixon's impoundments. "Control" over spending tipped into the hands of Congress, as is clear from the upward path of federal spending post-1974. This was the start of the infamous "baseline" budgeting rules, which automatically ratchet up spending from one year to the next.

Rather than trying to scale the impossibly high cliff of a Constitutional amendment, younger Members should revisit that bad law and fix it. Tom DeLay never wanted to fix it, but Paul Ryan does. The goal of an achievable reform act would be to put spending on a downward slope. That would include getting rid of baseline budgeting, restoring the Presidential impoundment power (if liberal Congresses hated it, it must have been good), and requiring the two-thirds majority for tax increases.

The BBA's supporters are right that the U.S. is riding a runaway entitlement train. That train, however, is the product of politics, and politics is the way it will have to be stopped. The main political impact of the BBA, however, will be to give "moderate" Senate Democrats up for re-election next year a chance to enhance their prospects by voting "for" spending control they don't believe in.

We certainly support the House GOP's plan today to vote to cut spending by $111 billion in fiscal 2012, and to cap spending in future years at a gradually smaller share of the economy. They should make this plan their main political argument, and leave the Constitution out of it.

24904  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: July 18, 2011, 06:30:39 PM
Ahem , , ,  cheesy

"If anyone wants to take this further please use the Legal Issues presented by the War with Islamic Fascism thread."

24905  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: European “Gathering of the Pack” 2011 on: July 18, 2011, 06:28:52 PM
"Over 50 fighters on the day, 65 registered but for many reasons several people couldn't attend." 

Perhaps a last minute mini-epidemic of vaginitis?  evil cheesy

24906  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cain's statements on blocking mosques on: July 18, 2011, 04:25:30 PM
24907  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / And so it goes on: July 18, 2011, 04:23:56 PM
Libyan rebel forces claimed Monday that they had taken the eastern town of [Marsa el] Brega, a lucrative port town home to key oil-related infrastructure. The rebel spokesman who made the claim said that rebels are currently trying to clear the city of landmines while the Libyan army continues to attack their positions with missile fire from the west. Even if the rebel claims are true, there is no evidence that they’ll be able to hold Brega, much less push further west along the coast towards Tripoli. Meanwhile, the push towards a political solution to end the Libyan war continues. The longer this goes, the more likely the NATO countries leading the campaign — France, the U.S. and the U.K. — are to seek a negotiated settlement, something to which Gadhafi will be reticent to agree.

This is not the first time that rebels have taken the town of Brega. It actually happened last April as well, shortly after the NATO air campaign began. Rebel forces made it all the way to the eastern outskirts of Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte in April before being pushed back in April, and Gadhafi’s forces may very well push them back this time as well. There has yet to be a true military shift on the ground in Libya. NATO jets have been bombing the country for four months but the fundamental problem remains, and that is that the rebel forces are not able to make any meaningful advance on Tripoli.

There are three fronts in the Libyan war. The main one is in the east, where Brega is located. Then there is the pocket of rebellion in the western coastal town of Misurata, and finally there are the Berber guerillas in the Nafusa Mountains southwest of the capital. Rebel forces have made advances on all three fronts in the last month, but on none of these fronts do they stand any good chance of pushing through in the near future.

Problems of proper arms and equipment, sufficient military training and, perhaps most importantly, good leadership continue to create problems for the rebels. The terrain on the approaches to Tripoli also creates problems for any invasion of the capital: flat ground that is devoid of any natural defenses gives the advantage to the heavily fortified Libyan army. It’s true that Gadhafi’s forces have been degraded as well by the months-long NATO campaign, but nothing short of a complete implosion of the regime will open up the door to Tripoli.

The rebels’ military deficiencies will play a big role in the path towards finding a solution to the war in Libya. NATO has displayed a commitment to maintaining the bombing campaign for the next few months at least, but its member states are not willing to send in ground troops. And so the coalition seems to be hoping for one of two things: that an airstrike can assassinate Gadhafi, which is an unlikely scenario, or that continuous military pressure will lead to the implosion of the Gadhafi regime. This is why the western powers currently bombing Libya are simultaneously laying the groundwork for a political solution, just in case the military option doesn’t work. All of these countries are still in agreement that Gadhafi must go but the question is how to enforce this.

Certainly the issuance of an ICC warrant for Gadhafi’s arrest will only decrease his willingness to step down in any sort of negotiated settlement. And the talks that will inevitably begin, should things continue to follow the current trajectory, will most likely involve other members of the Gadhafi regime rather than the Brother Leader himself. But where it goes from there will be dictated in large part by the force the Libyan rebels are able to bring to bear.

24908  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "Flexible monogamy" on: July 18, 2011, 03:44:16 PM

"[M]arriage, redefined to include homosexuals, is now open to further redefinition to suit the homosexual lifestyle. Just a week after the New York law passed, the New York Times ran a piece promoting the practice of 'flexible' monogamy, or infidelity with permission -- a common practice in 'committed' homosexual relationships. The thesis? It 'works' for the homosexual community, so heterosexuals should try it too. ... Societies that legitimize substitutes for traditional marriage (homosexual 'marriage,' civil unions, cohabitation) inevitably witness the decline of authentic marriage. And as marriage declines, family structures weaken, producing cracks in the bedrock of a stable society. The result? Children suffer. ... Be unequivocal with your children. This is not about 'fairness' or 'equality.' It's about morality and the strength of civil society. Homosexual behavior is wrong. And homosexual relationships are not equivalent to heterosexual marriages, no matter what the New York legislature says." --columnist Rebecca Hagelin

24909  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / SEIU tactics on: July 18, 2011, 03:39:10 PM
24910  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Remix of Carter Malaise Speech and His Glibness on: July 18, 2011, 03:36:23 PM
24911  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Jew thanks Glenn Beck on: July 18, 2011, 03:22:59 PM
A Jew Thanks Glenn Beck

Posted By Ben Shapiro On July 18, 2011 @ 12:45 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 9 Comments

Since Glenn Beck’s dramatic rise to prominence two years ago, he has been portrayed by many members of the left as a kook.  The members of the left condemning Beck most loudly, to my utter dismay, have been Jews.  Jon Liebowitz, aka Jon Stewart, has dedicated his show to mocking Beck as a religious freak and a nut job; in his episode on Beck’s departure from his Fox News show, Stewart donned Beck-like glasses and then scoffed, “Glenn Beck was sent here by Jesus to take the 5:00 p.m. slot between Neil Cavuto and Shepard Smith for 27 months.”  Rob Eshman of the atrocious Los Angeles Jewish Journal said that Beck’s expose of self-hating Jew and anti-Israel fanatic George Soros was “the verbal equivalent of a Der Sturmer cartoon.”  Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, which spends far less time targeting radical Muslims who want to murder Jews than commentators who love Israel, condemned that same Beck vs. Soros episode as “completely inappropriate, offensive, and over the top.”  The Jewish Funds for Justice, a far-left Jewish organization, ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal taking on Beck.

Let me say this: I stand with Glenn Beck, and against these Jews.

Glenn Beck is a friend of Israel.  He is a friend of the Jewish people.  And anyone who argues otherwise is either lying or ignorant.

Beck possesses a moral clarity with regard to the Jewish State that has no equivalent in the leftist Jewish community.  He recognizes that Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians is not a conflict over land or over population exchange, but over fundamental values.  This week, Beck travelled to Israel, where he spoke eloquently about the Fogel family butchered in its sleep by Palestinian terrorists earlier this year.  “There’s something bigger than politics here,” he stated.  “I don’t think in my lifetime I’ve seen a more clear definition of evil that has been dismissed.”  In fact, Beck dedicated several segments on his Fox News show to explicating the Fogel family slaughter, exposing the American people to the true face of moral monstrosity as embodied by the Palestinians who celebrate such murders.

In his speech to the Knesset, Beck explained that he understood the conflict between Israel and anti-Semites the world over:  “I got my first death threat, because I came back and said the truth – the conflict is about the destruction of Israel and the end to the Western way of life …. What’s disturbing is that if a guy gets on television or the radio and says the truth, and that’s so unusual, then Israel and the Western way of life are in great danger.”

More impressive than his speech to Knesset is the fact that Beck does tell the truth to the American people about the Israel situation.  Too many on the conservative side of the aisle – Israel supporters! – will not label the conflict in pure moral terms.  They grant legitimacy to President Obama’s attempts to leverage Israel into concessions, or to the mad musings of Thomas Friedman, who believes that a few bucks can buy off Palestinian radicals.  They pretend that if the conditions are made just right, then peace will be achieved.

Beck, on the other hand, sees the conflict as it is, in its stark contrast between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.  And he stands with the forces of light in that battle.  “Where you go, I will go,” he told Knesset, quoting the Book of Ruth.  “Where you lodge, I will lodge.  Your people are my people.  Your God is my God, and where you die I shall die.”

Israel has never had friends like Glenn Beck before the religious conservative movement in America.  Jews are afraid to embrace Beck because he is so overtly religious, so utterly unafraid of mentioning God in public or with regard to Israel.  That that is why Jews should embrace him.  The Judeo-Christian notion of God is the unifying factor between America and Israel.

Beck sees the war, even though many Jews do not.  Some Jews are too cosmopolitan for Beck – Jon Stewart, for example, doesn’t bear any great love for Israel, since that would presumably be “ethnocentric” and unprogressive.  Some Jews are too parochial, like Eshman, thinking that Beck represents an old-school religion that will result in pogroms, or at the least, closed country clubs.

Those Jews are dead wrong.  Beck is an ally, and a very real one.  He represents millions of Americans who ally with Israel and the Jews.  Jewish Americans ought to roll out the welcome mat to Beck.  He’s certainly rolled out the red carpet for Israel.

locations change
24912  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Drug tests for welfare. on: July 18, 2011, 03:10:39 PM
Third post of the day:

No matter where we stand on the War on Drugs, I think we can all agree with this one.

We need this in all the states.
Florida is the first state that will require drug testing when applying for welfare (effective July 1st)! Some people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional yet it's okay that every working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare?
Re-post if you… agree. Let's get Welfare back to the one's who NEED it, not those who W A NT it... 
24913  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: July 18, 2011, 11:41:03 AM
JDN:  Doug is right.  My statement did not take sides.  Please read more carefully.

PS: But not to duck the issue.  I do have sympathy for the point that Cain makes:  As Doug notes, the we do not have the full version of his views on this subject, but generally I regard it as valid to note that Islam theocratic i.e. both a religion and a political ideology-- and the political ideology is seditious to the American Creed.  This I think needs to be stated plainly, openly, and fearlessly.

PS:  I also oppose freedom of religion for the Aztec religion of human sacrifice.

If anyone wants to take this further please use the Legal Issues presented by the War with Islamic Fascism thread.
24914  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Patriot Post: Bullet Train to Bankruptcy on: July 18, 2011, 10:49:19 AM
Second post of the morning:

The Foundation
"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." --Patrick Henry


Bullet train to bankruptcy"The country is on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy (the only kind of bullets liberals approve of), and the Democrats' motto is: Spend! Spend! Spend! Democrats are at an advantage in the 'should the U.S. go bankrupt or not?' debate because, based on their economic policies so far, they obviously favor bankruptcy. This allows them to sit back and demand that Republicans propose all the spending cuts and then turn around and scream that Republicans have declared war on the poor and disadvantaged. It's a nice trick, especially considering Republicans control only the House. Meanwhile, the Democrats control all other branches of our government: the Senate, the White House, and The New York Times op/ed page. What's their plan? Their plan is to keep spending, while blaming tax breaks for corporate jets for the entire $14.3 trillion deficit. The Democrats will never suggest any cuts to a budget that has put the country another $4 trillion in debt only since Obama became president. So Republicans keep proposing cuts and Democrats keep riling up the increasingly large number of people who get checks from the government. Nothing ever gets cut, but more people hate Republicans for having proposed any cuts at all. ... If Republicans cut government spending, recipients of government checks come after them with pitchforks. If the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling to force spending cuts, the economy collapses. In general, the trend seems to be in the direction of higher spending and endless debt." --columnist Ann Coulter

Essential Liberty
"The depressing debate over the debt ceiling underscores just how recklessly the ruling class has squandered America's sacred heritage -- a heritage I had the privilege of revisiting up close this past week on a family vacation. The contrast between the sublime historical locations we experienced during the day and the alarming news we ingested each night about the dire state of our nation's financial condition couldn't have been starker. Upon witnessing the majesty of our historical sites, it's difficult not to be outraged at the irresponsible stewardship of our do-gooder ruling class. These elites are on the final leg of their long journey to uproot our founding principles and remake the nation in their quest for moral self-realization through public acts of philanthropy with other people's money and liberty. In the name of compassion, they have systematically undermined our founding ideals of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and equal opportunity under the law. ... I am more convinced than ever that words alone are insufficient to express the richness of America's heritage and the debt we owe our Founding Fathers and all others who sacrificed so much so that we could be free. As we measure the forces determined to structurally change this nation, divest us of our liberties and, in the process, inevitably bankrupt us, let us always be mindful of the sacrifice of these great men, who bequeathed to us our liberties, and honor them and our posterity by redoubling our commitment to fight to the end to preserve them." --columnist David Limbaugh

Opinion in Brief
"[P]resident Obama's statements that he may have to stop Social Security checks, veterans' checks and disability checks shows just how bankrupt our country is. If we literally don't have the cash to pay those checks out of our current stockpiles, how is borrowing more money going to cure the problem? ... By tacitly admitting that government benefit schemes are month-to-month, [Obama's] admitting that the underlying structure of these systems is not self-sustaining. That's a major shift for a man who, in August 2010, proclaimed, 'Social Security is not in crisis.' ... President Obama has now embraced a binary choice: either he can screw current taxpayers or he can screw past taxpayers. Those who depend on their Social Security check to pay the rent are now being asked to suffer a double burden: The burden of paying their original Social Security tax as well as the burden of forgoing their expected return. The alternative is asking those who currently pay taxes to suffer a double burden: paying a higher tax rate and then forgoing their check somewhere down the road." --columnist Ben Shapiro

Political Futures
"Rarely ... has any administration been so disconnected from Reality as is the one now lecturing us. Who strong-armed through Congress a health insurance measure on the supposition that somehow we, the taxpayers, will cough up the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions necessary to pay for it forever? As everyone and his dog knows, the Affordable Care Act was the Obama administration's bright idea. Ironically, the president plans next year, while seeking re-election, to pat himself enthusiastically on the back for winning passage of the very measure that makes control of federal spending so devilishly hard. Having told us to eat our peas, he plans next to remind us how good they tasted." --columnist William Murchison

Re: The Left
"In the midst of testy debt-limit negotiations, Obama told House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, 'Don't call my bluff.' The first rule in bluffing is to keep it a secret that you're bluffing. So, technically speaking, that's like a con man saying, 'Don't give any weight to the fact that I'm lying.' ... His remark about not calling his bluff notwithstanding, Obama has at least demonstrated the political professionalism to read his lines. His refusal to sign a short-term debt-ceiling extension is, according to him, an act of moral leadership, high-minded pragmatism and flat-out bravery. 'I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this,' Obama reportedly said about his determination to have a long-term deal. He says he wants the deal because America can't continue to kick the can down the road, even though that's what he did during his entire presidency until the GOP got in the way. My suspicion is that if he read his stage direction instead of his lines, it would sound very different. Something like: 'I want to be positioned as if I'm taking the high road, but I'm really just trying to kick this can past the 2012 election. I want to keep asking for things Republicans won't agree to so I can paint them as irresponsible. So, whatever you do, don't call my bluff.'" --columnist Jonah Goldberg

For the Record
"Let me start by saying American should pay its debts. If the debts are really, really large -- that's too bad. We owe the money and we have to pay it. We're the richest, most blessed nation in the history of the world and we have to pay what we owe. Period. ... On Wednesday a company known as a ratings agency, Standard & Poor's, weighed in on this debt limit business by putting the whole U.S. of A. on what it calls a 'credit watch.' If we slip into the Wayback Machine we will see that S&P along with its partner in crime, Moody's Investor Services, were two of the major players in pretending that all those securitized mortgage instruments that were being bought and sold up until the whole world went broke had 'AAA' ratings even though they turned out to have the accumulated value of a bucket of beach sand. Standard & Poor's either lied about the value of all those mortgages, or it didn't understand how to value them, or it did understand that they were worthless but it (and Moody's) collected fees from the geniuses who almost made our ATM cards as useful as baseball cards in our bicycle spokes. ... If I were in a position to do so, I would haul the heads of Moody's and S&P in front of Congress, make them swear to tell the truth, and ask them if they had any conversations with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or any of his people prior to issuing this warning. My strong suspicion is that the White House, looking for leverage, told Geithner to call his buds at Moody's and S&P and get them to issue a warning hoping it would weaken the resolve of Congressional Republicans." --political analyst Rich Galen

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." --British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

The Gipper
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment's would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress." --Ronald Reagan

24915  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: July 18, 2011, 10:46:13 AM

I like to think I read with above average reading comprehension.  My comments were directed at what you said, not the article you quoted.
24916  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: July 18, 2011, 10:28:12 AM
Well, for me he was already ruled out due to shocking levels of ignorance and lack of thought on foreign affairs.

Separately, I saw a report that he said something to the effect that communities should be able to prevent mosques?  Were he being taken more seriously as a candidate, this might get some more play.
24917  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Poverty in the US on: July 18, 2011, 10:25:35 AM
Posted here because of its connection to govt programs and spending:

What Is Poverty in America?

As Congress struggles to find a way to cut spending as part of raising the $14 trillion debt ceiling, they should take a close look at the more than $1 trillion spent every year on welfare. You'll be surprised to learn that many of the 30 million Americans defined as "poor" and in need of government assistance aren't quite what you'd expect—rather than homeless and on the streets, the average poor American household has luxuries like air conditioning, cable TV, and X-box video game consoles.

In their new report, What Is Poverty?, The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield analyze what it really means to be poor in America. The reality they found is much different than the picture painted in movies and on TV:

According to the government’s own survey data, in 2005, the average household defined as poor by the government lived in a house or apartment equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. The family had a car (a third of the poor have two or more cars). For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR.

If there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a microwave, refrigerator, and an oven and stove. Other household conveniences included a washer and dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. (Note: That’s average European, not poor European.) The average poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

By its own report, the family was not hungry. The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from children in the upper middle class and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age in the late 1950s and are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than American soldiers who fought in World War II. The major dietary problem facing poor Americans is eating too much, not too little; the majority of poor adults, like most Americans, are overweight.

That's a far cry from the images the news media conjure up on TV. But it's the reality of those who are defined as poor in America.

To be sure, the average poor family does not represent every poor family, and there are some who are better off and some who are worse off. Though most of the poor are well-housed, at any given point during the recession in 2009, about one in 70 poor persons was homeless, and one in five experienced temporary food shortages. Those individuals have serious concerns. But the fact remains that U.S. government statistics on poverty misrepresent the reality.

That misrepresentation has international implications. Rector and Sheffield explain that U.S. government poverty statistics portray a misleading negative image around the world. Al Jazeera, Iran's Teheran Times, Chinese and Russian media have latched on to U.S. poverty statistics to depict the United States as a failed, nightmarish society. And nothing could be further from the truth.

President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new "poverty" measure that deliberately severs all connection between "poverty" and actual deprivation. Rector and Sheffield say that the goal is to measure income "inequality," not poverty—giving the President public relations ammunition for his "spread-the-wealth" agenda.

Rector and Sheffield write that when it comes to making policy, the broader reality of what poverty in America means should be taken into consideration: "Sound public policy cannot be based on faulty information or misunderstanding . . . In the long term, grossly exaggerating the extent and severity of material deprivation in the U.S. will benefit neither the poor, the economy, nor society as a whole."
24918  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Destruction of America by Hollywood et al on: July 18, 2011, 09:39:08 AM
Underlining my point and my anger is this:

Hat tip to GM.
24919  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Madison, Federalist 14; 1787 on: July 18, 2011, 09:33:12 AM

"Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness." --James Madison, Federalist No. 14, 1787

24920  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: July 18, 2011, 12:11:56 AM
Forgive me JDN, but what pleasant sophistry that seeks to ignore the elephant in the room!  We don't share a border with Japan, which is not in a state of war with its narco gangs, nor do we have 12-20 million illegal Japanese here who think the Southwest of the US should belong to them.
24921  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / The Destruction of America by Hollywood et al on: July 17, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Woof All:

As many of us have commented, Hollywood (and related entertainment folks) have been a source of unremitting hostility to America and as a result of much anti-Americanism. Much of what the world thinks it knows about America it gets from Hollywood.

I enjoyed the Bourne movies, but isn't the plot line (the evil CIA run amuck) one we have seen time and time again (e.g. Robert Redford's  , , , Day of the Condor I think it was).  Evil businessmen, evil right wing politicians, warmongering soldiers, patriotic kooks and Christian nutjobs (often protrayed as latently gay) etc etc. The heroes are those who turn upon that from which they come.  Leftists are heroes of the oppressed (endless list) yet never is told a story based around the evils of Stalinism, the oppression of East Europe by the Soviet Empire etc etc.

There is also the matter of values portrayed positively, adultery as a joke, promiscuity and the debasement of sex, binge drinking, romanticization of criminals, etc etc.

I could go on, but I think most of us here already recognize what I am getting at.

So this thread is a chance to vent (and perhaps strategize) about particularly egregious examples.

Recent ones that come to mind for me are

a) Sex and the City 2:  One of the most offensive, ugly American culturally arrogant movies I have ever seen.

b) and the proximate cause of my starting this thread, the movie "Machete", a genuinely seditious work.  Staring Danny Trejo, who has brought a certain intensity to a variety of minor roles over the years, the movie's style is a sort of gloriously bad "B Movie" of the sort which most of us enjoy.  What offended me though was its seditious message of disloyalty to American sovereignty.  I am not going to deconstruct the movie's plot such as it is (right wing politician, murderous minuteman border patrol groups, Mexican narcos conspiring to create circumstances so there will be demand to build a big electric fences the length of the border so money can be made on the construction contracts and drug scarcity can be created so as to increase profits) but the movie's grand finale, including US ICE Agent going to a higher law and forming violent alliance with a illegal alien network to obliterate the border.

The following actors who participated in this movie should be ashamed and their patriotism questioned.

Danny Trejo
Robert DeNiro
Jessica Alba (breaks my heart to say this because I think she is hot)
Steven Seagal
Jeff Fahey
Cheech Marin (hard to be mad, I love his Cheech and Chong character, but this movie is of a piece with his Born in East LA, which also concludes with overwhelming the border with illegals)
Don Johnson
and Lindsay Lohan

24922  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: July 17, 2011, 07:12:39 PM

Well, maybe so, but over the sweep of time, his point is not without merit.
24923  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Unions on: July 17, 2011, 05:37:55 PM

Good in depth read on the subject.
24924  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: July 17, 2011, 05:32:53 PM

Concerning Baraq and Fannie & Freddie, in a mere 18 months in the US Senate he become the #2 all time recipient of donations  shocked and the Franklin Raines mentioned in the piece (who, IIRC acclerated Fannie earnings so he could get an even huger bonus) was selected by Baraq to , , , something important, but I forget what.
24925  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: July 17, 2011, 05:28:01 PM
I noted that when I read about the case.  A powerful example for your POV.
24926  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Prudent Bear: Sovereign Debt Crisis Learning Curve on: July 17, 2011, 01:57:31 PM
Mehtinks this one deserves extra attention , , ,
The Sovereign Debt Crisis Learning Curve:
During the second-half of his reign, Alan Greenspan became fond of trumpeting the U.S. economy’s newfound resiliency.  This was a theme peppered throughout his “Age of Turbulence” memoir, published in the pre-crisis year 2007.  Greenspan cited computer and telecommunications technologies; monumental productivity advancements; a flexible workforce; the financial system’s superior capacity to effectively invest limited savings; and, of course, enlightened policymaking. 

Back when I wrote more colorfully, I was fond of saying, “Financial crisis is like Christmas.”  In hindsight, it would have been more accurate to write “private-sector financial crisis is…”  Whether it was banking system debt problems from the early-90s; the series of “emerging” market Credit collapses; the unwinding of LTCM leverage; the bursting of the tech Bubble; the 2002 corporate debt crisis; or the spectacular collapse of the mortgage/Wall Street finance Bubble - the Fed would reliably respond to each and every crisis with the “gift” of reflationary policymaking. 

And, no doubt about it, “inflationism” was the market gift that kept on giving.  Crisis, in the Age of Activist Central Banking, created momentous opportunities to harvest speculative returns.  Those that best understood and exploited these dynamics (our era’s “titans of industry”) accumulated incredible fortunes – and vast AUM (assets under management).

It’s becoming increasingly apparent these days that public (government) debt problems are a whole different kettle of fish.  Rather than a “gift”, they instead present extraordinary challenges for both policy making and the markets.  European policymakers are today at a complete loss.  In Washington, politicians are making a sad mockery out of responsible debt management – and the markets have yet to even lower the boom.

From my analytical vantage point, the U.S. economy’s “resilience” was always more about New Age Finance than it was some New Paradigm economy coupled with sagacious economic management.  The Fed’s pegging of short-term interest rates, along with timely market interventions, created powerful incentives for private-sector Credit expansion - in the real economy and throughout the financial sphere.  System Credit, resilient as never before, was at the heart of it all.  Over years evolved a most powerful dynamic encompassing a historic private-sector Credit boom and speculative financial Bubble - both backstopped by the GSEs and aggressive fiscal and monetary management. 

Wall Street finance provided the nucleus of the private sector Credit boom:  asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, “repos,” derivatives, CDOs, CLOs, etc.  New Age risk intermediation - “Wall Street alchemy” – created seemingly endless “safe” higher-yielding and liquid securities, the perfect fodder for the mushrooming “leveraged speculating community.”  The structures both of the financial architecture and policymaking incentivized aggressive leveraging by the hedge funds and proprietary trading desks.  And when the markets occasionally caught the leveraged players overextended and vulnerable, Washington was quick with market bailouts.  These dynamics nurtured history’s greatest expansions of “private” sector debt and system leverage.

Of course, Fed rate cuts played a pivotal role in prolonging the Credit Bubble.  Greenspan’s asymmetrical approach – transparent little “baby-step” tightening moves and aggressive rate-slashing in the event of mounting systemic stress – was a godsend for leveraged speculation.  The critical role played by the GSEs has never received the Credit it deserves.  Beginning with the faltering bond Bubble in 1994, the GSE’s became aggressive (non-price sensitive) buyers of MBS, mortgages and miscellaneous debt instruments anytime market liquidity became an issue (when the speculators needed to deleverage).  GSE assets expanded $151bn (24%) in 1994, $305bn in 1998, $317bn in 1999, $242bn in 2000, $344bn in 2001, $240bn in 2002, and another $245bn in 2003.  With effectively parallel “activist” central banks backstopping the markets – the Federal Reserve and the GSEs down the road - the mortgage finance Bubble inflated to historic proportions.  This dynamic will not be repeated in our lifetimes. 

Sovereign debt crises are altogether different in nature to those “private” affairs that we’ve become rather comfortable with over the years.  Keep in mind that crises of confidence in private debt securities are quite amenable to rate cuts, the public sector’s explicit or implicit assumption/guarantee of private obligations, and system Credit reflation through public debt issuance and central bank monetization.  If sufficiently determined to do so, policymakers have the capacity to resolve about any private debt issue.  And, of course, the short-term benefits can be irresistible:  i.e. buoyant asset markets, reduced unemployment, bolstered confidence, economic expansion, inflating tax receipts and reelection (or, in the case of central bank chairmen, hero status). 

The great longer-term costs – which can remain “long-term” as long as policymakers perpetuate Credit Bubble excess – include mispriced finance, dysfunctional markets, the misallocation of resources, increasingly fragile financial and economic structures, social disquiet, geopolitical risks, and an unmanageable accumulation of public-sector debt and obligations.  Importantly, the mechanisms that work all too well in dealing with private debt crisis are not readily available come that fateful day when the markets question the creditworthiness of the government’s debt load. 

There is more attention paid these days to sovereign debt ratios and such.  At about 150% of GDP, Greece finances were (belatedly) recognized as an unmitigated disaster.  At 120%, Italy is too vulnerable.  Here at home, the National Debt Clock shows federal debt surpassing $14.3 TN.  Federal borrowings have expanded at a double-digit to GDP rate for the past three years, with total debt increasing more than $5.0 TN in short order.  There is today no realistic prospect for meaningful fiscal reform.

And while Europe is briskly moving up The Sovereign Debt Crisis Learning Curve, complacency still abounds here at home.  And the more hideous things appear in Europe and Washington, the more confident our markets become that policymakers will soon come to their senses and resolve the ugliness.  Such wishful thinking is a holdover from the good old private debt crisis days.

Avoid thinking in terms of sovereign debt in isolation.  The massive accumulation of public-sector debt is almost without exception symptomatic of deep systemic problems.  Whether we’re discussing Greece, Spain, Italy, the U.S. or Japan, enormous deficits and public debt loads are reflective of a post-private-sector Credit Bubble environment.  This is a critical issue.  Not only are governments running up huge debts, the underlying economic structure has already been heavily impaired from years of Credit abuse.  And as much as policymakers hope and intend for their borrowing, spending and monetizing programs to promote sound economic and financial recoveries, the reality is that expansionary policies exacerbate deleterious Credit Bubble effects.  It’s a case of aggressive monetary stimulus thrown at systems already way out of kilter. 

The empirical work of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff demonstrates conclusively that heavy debt loads negatively impact growth dynamics (they have found 90% of GDP an important threshold).  This is no earth-shaking revelation, especially if one comes from the analytical perspective that huge accumulations of public debt are generally associated with an extended period of private and public sector Credit excess.  And years of Credit-related excesses will almost certainly foment acute financial fragilities and economic impairment. 

It’s no coincidence that the greatest expansion of public debt comes late in the cycle when the economy’s response to additional layers of debt becomes both muted and uneven.  Indeed, a precarious dynamic evolves where enormous amounts of (non-productive) government debt are required just to stabilize increasingly fragile economic structures.  In the meantime, late-cycle stimulus will most certainly distort and dangerously inflate highly speculative securities markets – especially when higher market prices are the direct aim of policy.

There was a Financial Times column today that posited that Italy’s problem was that it was stuck with the ECB rather than the Federal Reserve!  If only the Fed were purchasing Italian sovereign debt as it does Treasurys, Italian debt service costs and deficits would be much lower.  Crisis resolved.  Well, monetary policy certainly does play a critical role in sovereign debt Bubbles and crises.   

Back in the autumn of 2009, Greece could finance its massive deficit spending program for two-years at less than 2%.  Portuguese yields were about 125 bps and Ireland 175 bps.  Spanish and Italian 2-year yields were around 1.5%.  The Fed’s, ECB’s and global central bankers’ moves to slash interest rates to near zero were instrumental in the marketplace’s accommodation of unprecedented government debt issuance at artificially  low yields.  The European “periphery” markets were part of the expansive Global Government Finance Bubble.  And the market perception that monetary policy would ensure ongoing low sovereign debt service costs was instrumental in the market disregarding – and mispricing - Credit risk throughout the eurozone.  Even last spring, after the Greek crisis’ initial eruption, markets held to the assumption that policymakers would sustain low sovereign borrowing costs and insulate bondholders from significant losses.

Not only has monetary policy fostered the rapid expansion of government debt at artificially low rates, it has also set the stage for a very destabilizing change in market perceptions.  Particularly after many years of interventionist policymaking (throughout the protracted private Credit boom), the markets naturally turn complacent when it comes debt crisis risks.  Yet as Europe is confronting these days, there are limited available options when crisis finally arrives at sovereign debt’s doorstep.  At some point, fiscal and monetary stimulus comes to the inevitable end of the road.  At some point, markets say “no mas.” 

Piling on additional government debt is then no longer a solution, inaugurating the debilitating and depressing “austerity” cycle.  And, as we continue to witness here at home, having the central bank monetize federal debt only worsens market distortions and delays desperately-needed fiscal (and economic) reform.  As much as there was an element of certainty in the marketplace with regard to the mechanics of private-sector debt crisis resolution, sovereign debt Bubbles and crises just seem to foment uncertainty.  Policymakers are destined to look incompetent, while markets will appear fickle and unstable.  Meanwhile, fragile recoveries will turn increasingly vulnerable.  And throughout, there will be a growing disconnect between what the markets have come to expect from policymakers and what they can now realistically deliver.

As witnessed in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, there comes a point where the market recognizes debt trap dynamics and begins to price in sovereign risk.  And it is not long into this process of risk re-pricing that the marketplace comes to view huge debt loads as unmanageable albatrosses.  This destabilizing process has now commenced with Spain and Italy.  Once unleashed, sovereign debt crisis momentum can prove difficult to contain. 

To be sure, the debt situation in these economies remains manageable only as long as the markets are content to finance sovereign borrowings at monetary policy-induced low rates.  Or, stated differently, Italy’s (and others’) debt load is viable only if the marketplace disregards risk.  Well, the market is today rather keen to risk and debt dynamics - and has been determined to push borrowing costs significantly higher.  This not only imperils the government debt and Credit default swap (CDS) markets, but casts an immediate pall on the Italian and European banking sector with their huge exposures to increasingly problematic sovereign debt.  As an analyst quoted in the Financial Times put it, “A banking sector is only as strong as its sovereign.”

European Credit and inter-bank lending markets are faltering.  The resulting de-leveraging and de-risking – and tightened general finance - will likely further pressure markets, overall confidence and economic activity – adding further pressure to the unfolding debt crisis.  And as China and Asian central bankers witness the spectacle of an unraveling Italy, they must view the unfolding U.S. debt debacle with heightened trepidation.  Perhaps this was on ECB President Trichet’s mind this past weekend when he referred to “the global debt crisis.”
24927  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The Power of Word on: July 17, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
 cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry
24928  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Jefferson, letter to Judge Roane, 1821 on: July 17, 2011, 11:23:41 AM

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821
24929  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Catching up on: July 17, 2011, 11:20:52 AM

"The steady character of our countrymen is a rock to which we may safely moor; and notwithstanding the efforts of the papers to disseminate early discontents, I expect that a just, dispassionate and steady conduct, will at length rally to a proper system the great body of our country. Unequivocal in principle, reasonable in manner, we shall be able I hope to do a great deal of good to the cause of freedom & harmony." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1801

"[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community." --Benjamin Rush, letter to David Ramsay, 1788

"Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society." --John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, 1776

"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." --Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position." --George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
24930  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Keep your booger hook off the bang hook on: July 17, 2011, 11:12:42 AM
24931  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Baggy Pants Moron on: July 17, 2011, 08:29:15 AM
24932  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Shifty; an action in Afpakia on: July 17, 2011, 08:15:31 AM
If you watched the series, “Band of Brothers”, you will remember Shifty as the guy who was the best shot in the company. He was called upon several times in the series to take care of a German sniper or to give cover so other troops could maneuver.

SHIFTY DIED JAN 17, in peace.                                                                                            
 "Shifty" By Chuck Yeager

Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st  Airborne Infantry.  If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty.  His character appears in all 10 Episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in several of them.

 I met Shifty in the  Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who he was at the time.I just saw an elderly gentleman having Trouble reading his ticket.I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and noticed the "Screaming Eagle," the symbol of The 101st Airborne, on his hat.
 Making conversation, I asked him if he d been in the 101st Airborne Or if his son was serving.  He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I  guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was in until sometime in 1945 ... " at which point my heart skipped.

 At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training Jumps at Toccoa, and then jumped into  Normandy ..    Do you know  where  Normandy is?"At this point my heart stopped. I told him "Yes, I know exactly where  Normandy is,and I know what D-Day was."

At that point he said "I also made a second jump into  Holland , into  Arnhem ."
 I was standing with a genuine war hero ....And then I realized  that it was June, just after the anniversary of D-Day. I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from  France , and he said "Yes...  And it's real sad because, these days, so few of the guys are left, and those that are, lots of them can't make the trip."My heart was in my throat and I didn't know what to say.

I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said that I wanted to switch seats.  When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.

 He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat.  Just knowing that there are still some who remember what we did and who still care is enough to make an old man very happy."  His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as I write this.

Shifty died on Jan. 17 after fighting cancer.
There was no parade.
No big event in  Staples   Center ..
No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.
No weeping fans on television.
And that's not right!!

Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way.
Please forward this email to everyone you know.  Especially to the veterans.
                                          Rest in peace, Shifty.

Chuck Yeager, Maj Gen. [ret.]
P.S.  I think that it is amazing how the "media" chooses our "heroes" these days... Michael Jackson & the like!    

Please do me a favor and pass this on so that untold thousands can read it.....

                    We owe no less to our REAL HEROES

24933  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Looking for the exits , , , on: July 17, 2011, 07:13:26 AM
Libyan Coalition Shifting Toward The Exits

The international contact group on Libya will meet for the fourth time Friday in Istanbul. It will be the contact group’s first meeting since the NATO bombing campaign entered a new phase this week.

The idea of pursuing a negotiated settlement to end the conflict — once an initiative only seriously championed by players not involved in the air campaign — is no longer a non-starter with the NATO members directing the military operations. Air strikes will continue for now, but the United States, United Kingdom, France and Italy are looking for other possible avenues to end the conflict. Regime change remains the goal, but after nearly four months, the tone of the operation has changed.

No one has dropped the demand that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi exit office. But the level of commitment to the use of force varies among the member states of the restricted NATO coalition. These countries probably did not think, when they agreed to begin bombing Libya months ago, that they would still be discussing in mid-July a Libya controlled mostly by Gadhafi. Thus, the search for alternative exit routes has begun.

“It is only a matter of time before the West seeks to begin a formal negotiation with members of the Gadhafi regime.”
After being the last of a coalition within NATO to join the air campaign, Italy was the first country to break ranks and signal in June that it wanted out. Although it has not withdrawn entirely from the NATO mission, Italy has cut funding by more than half in recent weeks. Rome also dispatched its foreign minister to Algeria, a known Gadhafi ally, where the Italian minister openly warned of the potential for Sahel-based militants to take advantage of Libyan instability to acquire weapons. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi himself recently said that had it been up to him, he would have followed Germany’s example and abstained from the air campaign altogether. With so much of its energy supply coming from Libya, Italy seems to be regretting its push for an indictment by the International Criminal Court, and has begun a gradual return to its hedging strategy, just in case it has to deal with Gadhafi again in the future.

France was Italy’s opposite from the start. It has been the country most dedicated to the mission of regime change, and it was the first to recognize the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council (NTC) as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. Alongside the United Kingdom, France played an instrumental role in bringing the United States into the war — a critical step in helping the mission get off the ground. France also has energy interests in Libya (though not on the same scale as Italy) and French President Nicolas Sarkozy has used the Libyan war to demonstrate France’s strength among European militaries.

Paris still wants Gadhafi out, but its resolve has diminished. On the weekend of July 9-10, quite a few French officials issued the first open calls for a political settlement in Libya. French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet even went so far as to say that France had proven military force alone would not work in this situation. Longuet said the NTC needed to come to the table and drop its demand that Gadhafi first step down. His stance was later complemented by similar statements from the French foreign minister and prime minister. The collective message from Paris represented a stark reminder that the resolve to bomb Gadhafi into submission is not limitless among the NATO states participating in the Libyan mission.

Although these same French officials shortly thereafter sought to reaffirm their dedication to the air campaign and to Gadhafi’s ouster, Paris has shown its hand. It is willing to accept that force alone may not complete the mission. It is only a matter of time before the West seeks to begin a formal negotiation with members of the Gadhafi regime.

The question is, what triggered France’s change of heart?

This is where Russia’s role in the matter becomes interesting. France is in the midst of developing a greater relationship with Moscow as a means of balancing the warming ties between Russia and Germany — a country with which the Kremlin is actively pursuing a relationship. France and Russia have found common interests in Libya. Russia has been trying to position itself as a mediator ever since it became clear that the conflict in Libya represented more than just an opportunity to create distractions for the Americans. If France senses a growing possibility that the bombing campaign may fail, it only makes sense for Paris to use the moment as an opportunity to work with Russia, giving Moscow a chance to wield its influence in Libya. The timing of France’s public shift gives credence to this possibility: it occurred just days before Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov traveled to the United States on July 11-12 to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.

Obama used Lavrov’s visit to voice the first public U.S. support for Russia’s role as a mediator in Libya with Clinton delivering statements along the same lines. At the same meeting, Lavrov stated that Russia has unambiguously entered the camp advocating for Gadhafi to step down (it’s unclear whether or not his words reflect what Moscow actually wants). Although the United States has allowed the NATO operation to be labeled as “Europe’s war,” Washington has played a critical function in the logistics of the conflict, and like everyone else, Washington is trying to secure an alternative exit strategy should air power not suffice. Whether anyone can convince members of the Gadhafi regime (to say nothing of the leader himself) that giving up power won’t simply land them in The Hague, of course, is another matter.

24934  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Romeny advisor backs exchanges of Obamacare on: July 17, 2011, 06:32:11 AM
This could go in the Health Care thread, but given its political implications for the Romney campaign I put it here:


SALT LAKE CITY — Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, a top supporter and adviser of Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney, strenuously backed the core piece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law and urged the states to move forward together in adopting health insurance exchanges.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney greets voters after at a town hall meeting campaign stop in Derry, New Hampshire, Friday.Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors at the National Governors Association,  the former Republican governor who served as secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration, called the exchanges where individuals and small businesses can purchase health plans “a very practical solution to a problem that needs to be solved.” He warned governors who are reluctant to move forward with their state-level exchanges that their intransigence will only empower federal regulators.

And he said the health care law that passed is a compromise that gives the states the flexibility they need.

“This is a profoundly important time for the states,” said Mr. Leavitt. “States need to lead.”

The comments came at a time when every major Republican presidential candidate has pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the president’s health care law. For former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, the issue is extra sensitive: the health care plan he secured for Massachusetts included an exchange almost identical to the federal law. He has tried to tightrope through the issue, blasting the federal law as he defends his own.

The federal law gives the states until January 2014 to set up their own exchanges, with federal oversight. If they fail to do so, their citizens will get access to a federal exchange.

But some Republican governors have been reluctant. They oppose the federal law and say they hope it will be repealed by a Republican president in 2013.

Mr. Leavitt urged them to get moving anyway. If all 50 states move forward, they will compel the federal Department of Health and Human Services to give them the flexibility to tailor their exchanges to their state needs. If only 20 move forward, the other 30 will “give license” to HHS to be inflexible in designing regulations governing the exchanges.

He urged the governors not defend their “partisan flags” over the interests of their states.

Republican governors pushed back hard. Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska called the law a huge, unfunded mandate.

“There’s no way to get people to take charge of the health care issue if they think the federal government is going to take charge of them, if they think the states are going to take care of them,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.

Cindy Gillespie, a Washington lobbyist who helped Mr. Romney design the Massachusetts plan, also raised a red flag.

“Between the exchanges and Medicaid expansion (in the law), there will be a complete upheaval of the insurance market in every state,” she warned.

But in an interview with Washington Wire, Mr. Leavitt said the problem of access to health insurance for individuals and small businesses will not disappear if a Republican president wins repeal.

24935  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Steyn: The Great Charade on: July 16, 2011, 11:51:36 PM

JULY 16, 2011 7:00 A.M.

The Great Charade

The spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with.   

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” — at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States government is spending twice as much as it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the August 3rd check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten, stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it?

For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending.

How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke Communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!”

The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises $2 trillion but spends $4 trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is a testament to where we’re headed:

“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World — And At What Cost?”


The authors’ answer is yes, technically, there is enough money in the world — in the sense that, on current projections, by 2020 all it will take to finance the government of the United States is for the rest of the planet to be willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. Which Kitchen and Chinn say is technically doable. Yeah. In the same sense that me dating Scarlett Johansson is technically doable.

Unfortunately, neither Scarlett nor the rest of the planet is willing to do it. It’s not 2020 and we’re not yet asking the rest of the planet for a fifth of its GDP. But already the world is imposing its own debt ceiling. Most of the debt issued by the Treasury so far this year has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve. That adds another absurd wrinkle to the D.C. charade: Washington is negotiating with itself over how much money to lend itself.

Meanwhile, the World’s Greatest Orator bemoans the “intransigence” of Republicans. Okay, what’s your plan? Give us one actual program you’re willing to cut, right now. Oh, don’t worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he’s offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every ten hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he’s already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time.

In order to fund Obamacare and the other opiates of Big Government dependency, the feds need to take 25 percent of GDP, now and forever: The “new normal.” It can’t be done. Look around you. The new normal’s already here: flatline jobs market, negative equity, the dead-parrot economy. What comes next will be profoundly abnormal. His name was Obamandias, King of Kings. Look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.

Do they still teach Shelley in high school? Or just the “diversity manual” about “social justice” the Omaha Public Schools paid for with $130,000 of “stimulus” funding?

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2011 Mark Steyn.
24936  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Training Camp August 12-14 on: July 16, 2011, 10:40:28 PM
Damian will be doing one hour plus on both Friday and Saturday evenings after the day's training is over.  Damian is an interesting guy.  I think everyone will be pleased.
24937  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Euro on: July 16, 2011, 05:06:11 PM
Portfolio: The Question of the Eurozone's Future
July 14, 2011 | 1336 GMT
Click on image below to watch video:

Vice President of Analysis Peter Zeihan explains the existential difficulties that lie ahead for the eurozone.

Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

It’s hard to be bullish on much in Europe these days. The government bonds of Ireland, Portugal and Greece have all been downgraded to junk, the Europeans been sent back to the drawing board by the markets on their new bailout regimen and now the markets are talking about Italy being the next country to suffer a default. It’s easy to see why: next to Greece, Italy has the highest debt in Europe at about 120 percent of GDP. Its government is, shall we say, eccentric, and it has the highest debt relative to GDP of any country in the world with the exception of course of Greece and Japan. The sheer size of that debt, some 2 trillion euro, is larger than the combined government debts of the three states that are currently in receivership combined. In fact, it’s more than double the total envisioned amount of the bailout fund in its grandest incarnation.

Italy certainly deserves to be under the microscope, but STRATFOR does not see it as ripe for a bailout. Unlike Ireland or Portugal or Greece, Italy has a strong and large banking system, or at least healthy as compared to say, Ireland. So while Italy’s debt load is 120 percent of GDP, only 50 percent of GDP needs to be handled by outside investors, the banks handle everything else. But let’s keep such optimism in context. It’s now been 16 months since the first bailout of Greece back in March of last year and it’s becoming ever more apparent that the fear isn’t so much that the contagion from the weak states will infect the strong ones, but there are just a lot more weak states out there than anybody gave the Europeans credit for when this all started. So long as there is no federal entity with the political and fiscal capacity of dealing with the crisis, this is just going to get worse and it’s only a matter of months before what we think of as real states such as Belgium, Austria and Spain, are to be starting to flirt with conservatorship themselves.

Ad hoc crisis management can deal, has dealt, with the small peripheral economies, but it’s not capable of dealing with the problem that is now looming: potential financial instability and multi-trillion euro economies. With the illusions of stability that have sustained the euro to this point being peeled away one by one with every revelation of new debt improprieties, it’s only a matter of time before the euro collapses. This is of course unless one of three things happens. Option one is for the stronger nations to just directly subsidize the weaker nations, basically having the North transfer wealth in large amounts to the South year after year after year. Conservatively, that’s one trillion euros a year, and it is difficult to see how that would be politically palatable in a place like Germany.

Option two is to create something called Eurobonds. Right now the markets are scared of anything that has the word Portugal or Greece attached, and Greek debt is currently selling for about 16 percent versus the 3 percent of Germany. Eurobonds would allow European states to issue debt as a collective, so the full faith and credit of the European Union would back up any debt, which means that this 13 percent premium on Greek debt would largely disappear overnight. Of course that would mean that the European whole would be ultimately responsible for those debts at the end of the day, which means after a few years we’d be back in the same situation we are right now, with the debt ultimately landing on Germany’s doorstep once again. In STRATFOR’s view, the only difference between direct subsidization in the Eurobond plan would be when the Germans pay, now or later.

The third and final option is to simply print currency to buy up the government debt directly, either via the ECB or with the ECB granting a loan to the bailout fund to purchase the debt itself. This is an option that the Europeans are sliding toward because it puts off the hard decisions on political and economic power to another day. However it comes at a cost: inflation. Printing currency is a seriously inflationary business and for Europe this would put them in a double bind. Europe already has to import most of its energy, it already has a rapidly aging labor force and it already has very little free land upon which to build. Combined, this already makes the European Union the most inflationary of the world’s major developed economies, and that’s before you figure in printing currency.

24938  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Another Operation Gun Runner- out of Florida? on: July 16, 2011, 05:01:46 PM
I don't remember where, but I heard something about the Operation Gun Runner in Texas-Mexico apparently has a correlary in Florida running guns to Central America.  Anyone heard anything about it?

There is a brief reference to it in the piece below:

Guns Gone Wild -- ATF's Good Intentions Gone Bad
Obama's Solution: New Gun Control Measures
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." --James Madison

Obama's ATF Political FollyIn January of this year, Federal Judge John Roll, a Republican nominated by President George H.W. Bush, was among six citizens murdered by a psychopath in Tucson. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among 14 wounded in that attack.

Predictably, Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist cadres in the Democrat Party were quick to convert the Tucson tragedy into political fodder to formulate a new round of "common sense" gun control legislation. Indeed, Obama claimed the Tucson assault should "at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." He went on, "I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way [to confiscate guns]."

But Obama's nefarious plan to undermine the Second Amendment was well underway many, many months prior to the Tucson murders -- and well below the radar. In fact, anti-gun activist Sarah Brady said that Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Why would Obama want to be so clandestine with his anti-2A agenda?

In recent decades, Democrats have suffered serious electoral and judicial setbacks when trying to enact gun control measures. Given the lack of broad support for such measures, Obama is silently advancing the Socialist agenda to disarm Americans and, ultimately, neutralize our ability to defend Essential Liberty.

In March of this year, I detailed insider accounts regarding Project Gunrunner, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation begun in 2005, which originally had the objective of tracking weapons transfers between the U.S. and Mexico in order to expose Mexican drug cartels.

However, in early 2009, the Obama administration determined that the original purpose of Gunrunner could be altered in order to provide a new mandate for implementing their gun control rationale: Stopping the flow of "assault weapons" into Mexico. To facilitate that agenda, Attorney General Eric Holder authorized operation "Fast and Furious," that set into motion an ATF plan to encourage and enable "straw purchase" firearm sales to arms traffickers, and allow the guns to make their way into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartel assassins.

Holder determined that he could manufacture a case that guns purchased in the U.S. were responsible for all the violence in Mexico. Then Obama could use that "evidence" to make the argument that, in order to stem the violence, more stringent gun control measures were necessary, starting incrementally with restricting gun sales in Border States. As Demo Rep. Carolyn McCarthy put it, "[Obama] is with me on [gun control], and it's just going to be when that opportunity comes forward that we're going to be able to go forward."

Border Patrol Agent Brian TerryThe "opportunity" was moving forward unabated until one of the ATF's Fast and Furious guns was used last December to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and other guns were used in the February ambush of Immigration and Customs Agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila by Los Zetas Cartel soldiers in Mexico. Agent Zapata was killed in that assault.

I should note here that in all accounts from my sources within ATF, clearly the agents involved at the tactical level of Gunrunner and F&F were under the impression that these operations were legitimate efforts to identify transit lines between the U.S. and members of Los Zetas and other Mexican drug cartels.

However, at the strategic (high-level management) levels of the ATF in Arizona and Texas, it was well understood that Holder had a scheme to use this operation to jumpstart Obama's gun control scheme. (In a March 2010 ATF memo, agents reported that the managers in charge of Fast and Furious were "jovial, if not giddy" over news that ATF guns were associated with murders in Mexico.)

There is new evidence that Holder even used "stimulus debt" to launch "Operation Castaway" in Florida -- putting guns into the hands of the world's most brutal transnational gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) -- to generate additional "supporting evidence" for Obama's gun control mandate.

Recall if you will, Democrat outrage when Oliver North, working for the Reagan administration, ran a clandestine operation selling arms to Middle East bad guys so they could kill other bad guys over there, and then used some of the sales proceeds to fund the good guys in Central America fighting against Marxists south of our border. No such Democrat angst is evident this time.

Obama and Holder are moving forward with their subterfuge with no concern about rebuke. Moreover, they are doing so as if agents Terry and Zapata were still walking the line.

Last Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced, "The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans' safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights. That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues. And we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."

Well underway, indeed. Lost amid the din of all the extra-constitutional federal tax-n-spend debates this week, Obama spared Democrat congressional action on gun control by unilaterally circumventing the Second Amendment via an Executive Order. You guessed it -- he decreed new restrictions on gun sales in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Holder's Deputy Attorney General, James Cole, claimed that Obama's EO would help the ATF disrupt illegal weapons trafficking networks between the U.S. and Mexico.

Meanwhile, there's a growing list of serious crimes committed in the U.S. with ATF guns that were thought to be in Mexico.

Parents of Agent Jaime ZapataAs Obama ramps up additional gun control measures, I would remind him that the first shots of the American Revolution were fired in response to the government's attempt to disarm American colonists, specifically to capture and destroy arms and supplies stored by the Massachusetts militia in the town of Concord.

As reflected in James Madison's words regarding the "ultimate authority" for defending liberty, our Founders fully understood that to secure Liberty, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

As Madison's Supreme Court appointee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The Second Amendment was and remains "The Palladium of Liberties."

Those who are foolishly willing to compromise Essential Liberty to pursue Obama's illusion of safety, in the timeless judgment of Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

24939  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Vacation Travel on: July 16, 2011, 04:59:22 PM
It’s travel season in many parts of the world. In fact, our own Scott Stewart is traveling, so in lieu of this week’s regular Security Weekly, we bring you a valuable piece for anyone with an upcoming trip. Fred Burton, former special agent and STRATFOR’s VP of Intelligence, discusses tips on how to stay safe while traveling.

STRATFOR does not endorse or recommend any commercial products. The brands mentioned by name in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of STRATFOR.

Editor’s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Hi, I’m Fred Burton with STRATFOR. We get a lot of questions at STRATFOR regarding personal safety while traveling on vacation. We would like to address three specific points with this video. The first is vacation preparation, the second is how to choose and be safe in your hotel and the third is situational awareness.

I have laid out some items that I always pack whenever I’m going on vacation; the first is a surefire tactical flashlight. You can utilize this for a range of different emergencies. I like it to be used as a possible weapon where you can blind an assailant on the street in the event of a robbery at night. It’s also a great tool to help you get down emergency stairwells and exits in the event of emergency at your hotel. The other thing that I routinely carry with me on vacation is a very good knife, I like the Benchmade Griptilian Knife that has a locking blade. Paracord is wonderful with multiple uses to tie off anything that you want to utilize it for. It can also help you in the unfortunate event, in case you need to attempt to rappel off your balcony. Another item that’s wonderful, is a rescue belt, this one is by Bisons designs. I like it because you can wear it, and it’s always there. You could utilize this is as a tourniquet. Another thing to always remember is make sure you bring enough medicines with you, and any kind of specialty kind of medicine. In my case, I always carry an Epipen in the event of, or to help prevent anaphylactic shock. The last thing I would like to bring your attention is a company called Global Rescue, they will come to your aid anywhere around the world in the event of an emergency. They will help you get out of the country, they will medevac you, they’ll physically send people to help you.

Before your vacation, you need to research the specific area that you intend to travel to with an eye towards the hotel that you’re going to stay. Make sure that this is a low crime area where there hasn’t been any violence, such as robbery or terrorists plots or previous attacks. When traveling I always try to stay on the third floor. I pick a hotel room that’s on the interior of a property with a balcony. The balcony affords you the opportunity, if you needed to, in the case of a fire or another emergency, to rappel off, utilizing either your emergency belt, your paracord or even sheets from the bed.

After getting into your hotel room, the first thing I always do is make sure once the door shuts, that it has a very good locking mechanism that is going to work. If it doesn’t, you should request another hotel room. After checking the locks on the hotel door I always walk the emergency fire exit to show me where it’s going to go, with my flashlight so I have a good mental reference as to how things are going to look in the event of an emergency and I have to utilize the stairwell to get out. Another important factor to take a mental note of is whether or not you have sprinklers in your hotel room and in this case we do which is a very good thing. Situational awareness while on vacation is key. You want to stay observant and alert, don’t carry a lot of cash and I always carry a throw-down wallet. That’s a wallet that in the event of an unfortunate robbery on the street, you could give that to the bad guy and yet you have other cash in your pocket and credit cards. Whenever I venture out into the local economy or into a city, I’m always carrying my pocketknife, my flashlight as well as my paracord, just in case.

24940  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: The Older Warrior on: July 16, 2011, 04:32:55 PM
Other things I do for preparation for and/or recovery from long trips:

1)  Massage.  There is an AWESOME Chinese place in my neighborhood that does great work for $20 per hour.  I get 90 minutes a day or two before my travel.  Sometimes both days! My body is the tool with which I generate my living and tools require upkeep and maitainence.  Some people might regard this as wimpy, my attitude is I am worth it.

2) Airplane travel becomes an ever more challenging experience.  Crummier seats, less leg room, no entertainment on some airlines (included in this Hall of Shame are , , , ahem , , , US Airways on its domestic flights and Iberia).  The seats are really, really tough on my hips and lower back and so in addition to the massage, I have particular workout routines that focus on alignment of the hips.

3) When big time zone changes are involved LOTS OF DRUGS cheesy  but not alcohol (I have maybe 2 or 3 drinks per years, I find it to be very counterproductive) specifically 10 mgs of melatonin (that is considered a big dose) and a Benadryl.

4) If I need the caffeine I will have a diet Coke or a coffee.  Because I only drink caffeine on special occasions (to fire up for a seminar in another time zone, to stay awake when driving) one Diet Coke and I am seriously wired.

5) Both before and after a long trip I make a point of a session at Bluff Cove.  This entails about 40 to 445 minutes of LSD aerocis with variable heart rate.
24941  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: European “Gathering of the Pack” 2011 on: July 16, 2011, 02:17:18 PM
I thought C-Gong Fu Dog did a fine job of integrating into his fighting the 3SS ideas that we worked only the day before.  As he has time to bubble and ferment inside with them and the experience of the Gg with them, I look for his game to move forward nicely.  Similarly I look for good things out of him in Kali Tudo  wink

C-Spartan Dog:  Do not confuse success with progress.  Sometimes we move forward more from a challenging day than a "successful" day.  Also, as you note, emotion plays a big role in fighting.  For example, when I heard that George Forman would be wearing the shorts he wore the night he lost to Mohamed Ali when he challenged Michael Moore to retake the Heavyweight title, I bet on him because I knew he would be bringing EVERYTHING in his soul to that fight.  I made a lot of money that night  grin
24942  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Scotland Yard, the dog that did NOT bark , , , on: July 16, 2011, 01:30:51 PM
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Saturday, July 16, 2011 -- 1:38 PM EDT

Taint From Tabloids Rubs Off on a Cozy Scotland Yard

For nearly four years, six overstuffed plastic bags containing possible evidence of phone hacking by the British tabloid, The News of the World, collected little more than dust in the evidence room of Scotland Yard.

During that time, British police officials assured Parliament, judges, lawyers, potential hacking victims, the news media and the public that there was no evidence of widespread hacking by the paper. But that assertion has been reduced to tatters in the last week, torn apart by an avalanche of contradictory evidence, admissions by newspaper executives that the hacking was more widespread, and a reversal by police officials who now admit to mishandling the case.

In an article in the Sunday New York Times, Don Van Natta Jr. explains how the British police agency and News International, the British subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the publisher of The News of the World, became so intertwined that they shared the goal of containing the investigation.

Read More:
24943  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afpakia: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: July 16, 2011, 10:53:14 AM

If you were the American Commander in Chief, what would you have us do?

24944  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: July 16, 2011, 10:48:55 AM
True!  Pravda on the Hudson most certainly lives in a big glass house, but the question presented here is the WSJ.  I think I posted here at the time that Murdoch took over of my concerns; also to be noted is that the Pravdas will be using all this to continue their attack on non-Pravda sources and beliefs.
24945  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Who pays that? on: July 16, 2011, 10:46:06 AM
"Further, regarding your high tax rates quote , , , my accountant friend laughed; his quote was "who pays that?""

JDN, I think you miss a key point here.  OF COURSE few people actually pay that!!!  The reason is that they jump through the tax code's inducements to invest in the places to which the government wishes them to invest a.k.a. their special interest friends.  THIS is one of the meanings of "public-private partnership" so often blathered about.  This is one of the faces of economic fascism. 

The net result is malinvestment and is an insidious and invidious destructive force acting upon the American economy.
24946  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: European “Gathering of the Pack” 2011 on: July 16, 2011, 10:06:56 AM
Ron Balicki tried getting me a job once as one of the bad guys/things but at 6'1" I was 1" too tall for the maximum allowed for the costume.
24947  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Venezuela Pol?tica on: July 16, 2011, 10:02:34 AM
?Que/Quien viene proximo?
24948  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ has become Fox-fied on: July 16, 2011, 09:48:59 AM
Although as my inserts below indicate I have some disagreements with the following POTH piece, I do agree with its general thrust that Murdoch has been bad for the WSJ, a paper which I used to love dearly.

It’s official. The Wall Street Journal has been Fox-ified.
Earl Wilson/The New York Times

It took Rupert Murdoch only three and a half years to get there, starting with the moment he acquired the paper from the dysfunctional Bancroft family in December 2007, a purchase that was completed after he vowed to protect The Journal’s editorial integrity and agreed to a (toothless) board that was supposed to make sure he kept that promise.

Fat chance of that. Within five months, Murdoch had fired the editor and installed his close friend Robert Thomson, fresh from a stint Fox-ifying The Times of London. The new publisher was Leslie Hinton, former boss of the division that published Murdoch’s British newspapers, including The News of the World. (He resigned on Friday.) Soon came the changes, swift and sure: shorter articles, less depth, an increased emphasis on politics and, weirdly, sometimes surprisingly unsophisticated coverage of business.  (Marc: Agree!)

Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. (Marc: Disagree!  Lots of Dem blather that would never have seen the light of day began appearing!) The Journal sometimes took to using the word “Democrat” as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, “War at The Wall Street Journal,” Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase “assault on business” in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification.  ("Conservative" does not mean "pro certain busienss interests, and as noted the papaer moved leftward, not rightward)

The other half is that Murdoch’s media outlets must shill for his business interests. With the News of the World scandal, The Journal has now shown itself willing to do that, too.

As a business story, the News of the World scandal isn’t just about phone hacking and police bribery. It is about Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation, being at risk — along with his family’s once unshakable hold on it. The old Wall Street Journal would have been leading the pack in pursuit of that story.

Now? At first, The Journal ignored the scandal, even though, as the Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff pointed out in Adweek, it was front-page news all across Britain. Then, when the scandal was no longer avoidable, The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way. Blogging for Columbia Journalism Review, Dean Starkman, the media critic, described The Journal’s coverage as “obviously hamstrung, and far, far below the paper’s true capacity.”

On Friday, however, the coverage went all the way to craven. The paper published an interview with Murdoch that might as well have been dictated by the News Corporation public relations department. He was going to testify before Parliament next week, he told the Journal reporter, because “it’s important to absolutely establish our integrity.” Some of the accusations made in Parliament were “total lies.” The News Corporation had handled the scandal “extremely well in every way possible.” So had his son James, a top company executive. “When I hear something going wrong, I insist on it being put right,” he said. He was “getting annoyed” by the scandal. And “tired.” And so on.

In the article containing the interview, there was no pushback against any of these statements, even though several of them bordered on the delusional. The two most obvious questions — When did Murdoch first learn of the phone hacking at The News of the World? And when did he learn that reporters were bribing police officers for information? — went unasked. The Journal reporter had either been told not to ask those questions, or instinctively knew that he shouldn’t. It is hard to know which is worse. The dwindling handful of great journalists who remain at the paper — Mark Maremont, Alan Murray and Alix Freedman among them — must be hanging their heads in shame.

To tell you the truth, I’m hanging my head in shame too. Four years ago, when Murdoch was battling recalcitrant members of the Bancroft family to gain control of The Journal, which he had long lusted after and which he viewed as the vehicle that would finally allow him to go head-to-head against The New York Times, I wrote several columns saying that he would be a better owner than the Bancrofts.

The Bancrofts’ history of mismanagement had made The Journal vulnerable in the first place. I thought that Murdoch’s resources would stop the financial bleeding, and that his desire for a decent legacy would keep him from destroying a great newspaper.

After the family agreed to sell to him, Elisabeth Goth, the brave Bancroft heir who had long tried to get her family to fix the company, told me, “He has a tremendous opportunity, and I don’t think he’s going to blow it.” In that same column, I wrote, “The chances of Mr. Murdoch wrecking The Journal are lower than you’d think.”

Mea culpa.

Gail Collins is on book leave.

24949  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Lott: Seven Myths (lies) on: July 16, 2011, 08:49:33 AM
24950  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Training Camp August 12-14 on: July 16, 2011, 08:23:20 AM
Woof All: 

Damian Halforty is going to be coming to the camp all the way from New Zealand, (we also have two coming from Great Britain) to where he has emmigrated from South Africa.  While he lived in South Africa he was a noted security specialist (including stints in east Africa) and was the author of a book on Anti-carjacking techniques.  (Do I have these details correct Damian? Please feel free to add or delete).

    Anyway, Damian will be doing a session on anti-carjacking at the Camp. (He mentioned something about using the Dogcatcher while exiting the vehicle) I am very excited about this! 

A question is presented by the fact that I have billed the camp as "all Real Contact Stickfighting".   I do not want people feeling misled about the contents of the camp, so I am asking for some feedback.  Would we rather have a full half day on this (it looks like my truck is going to be the laboratory) or would we rather have this as an extra session Saturday evening?

Guro Crafty
Pages: 1 ... 497 498 [499] 500 501 ... 841
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!