Monday, December 31, 2012

This'n'That; December Thirty-First #2; obama-Douglass

obama And Frederick Douglass Wouldn't Be Friends!
     I'm a voracious reader of nearly any topic; nearly any writer.  One of my favorites is Dr Thomas Sowell who writes columns for several publications.  One of my most disliked is "Clown Prince"--Barry Soetoro--obama, a person who's had not even a passing acquaintance with the truth, except as it's misconstrued within communism and his own brand of socio-fascism.
     Here, read this Frederick Douglass quote I found on Dr Sowell's site (1/2-way down the page):

Everybody has asked the question. . .
"What shall we do with the Negro?"
I have had but one answer from the beginning.
Do nothing with us!
Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.
Do nothing with us!
If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!
I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall.
And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.
All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!
Let him alone!
--Frederick Douglass
    Can anyone imagine the "Clown Prince" befriending Mr Douglass, were he alive today?!?  We can see the mistreatment 'Arschloch obama' has foisted upon the negro individual, the negro family.  When his predecessors expanded the "taker-class" of the Lyndon Johnson era from exclusively negro to any race that agrees to vote obamaKRATic in any future elections, the "Clown" gladly continued the tradition.
    I find it difficult--given my readings of history--that Mr Frederick Douglass would ever elect to be a republican as these quotes indicate:
I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.
--Frederick Douglass
....and this:
I recognize the Republican party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety.
--Frederick Douglass

If only we could get "Clown Prince" obama to renounce his allegiance to the teachings of Saul Alinsky; to renounce his communist, his marxist, his socio-fascist standards of governance and stand on HIS OWN TWO FEET; to break away from the support and dominance provided by The Bilderberg Group, how much better would the country as a whole--and the "Taker-Class" in particular--be for it?!?
Your comments?
Til Nex'Time....



This'n'That; December Thirty-First #1; The 'Cliff'

No Matter What They Do, You're STILL SCREWED!
{Executive order will partially compensate federal employees, legislators and obama regime with pay raise!}
    Comparatively, "The Fiscal Cliff" means very little to the average TAXPAYER!  No matter what you do--and by 'you,' I mean the average taxpayer--be sure to buy some earplugs before you start with the evening's festivities!! 
    Comparatively, the obama-tax increases generated by a possible John Boehner refusal to "roll-over-and-play-dead;" the refusal to blindly go along with the obamaKRATics' demand for more money to piss away, will be nothing compared to the 22--count'em: TWENTY-TWO--new or increased taxes demanded by the guy YOU VOTED FOR, "Clown Prince" obama!!!  This action will be more of a fiscal cliff than the political theatre the obamaKRATics named "The Fiscal Cliff!"  Here's where those aforementioned earplugs come in:  These new and increased obamaKare taxes will ALSO be paid by those of the "Taker-Class" who continue the obamaRape of the American economy; the American way-of-life; the American Dream!!
    As just one example, consider the "medical devices" tax within the obamaKare legislation; you remember, that "War and Peace" sized tome that had to be passed so we could find out what's in it!!  Well, we're finding that that tax on medical devices is NOT on profits but ON SALES!!  So if the guy making your pacemaker isn't profitable, he still gets taxed simply because he sold you one!!  How cleaver is that asshole (actually, I ment to say verdammte arschloch, sorry if I offended) in barackingham Palace as well as those collective assholes (insert same correction, here!) in the hollowed halls of the congress!!
Welcome to the impending(or continuing)  obamaDepression!!
Your comments?
Til Nex'Time....
Reference 'Lie-Barry:'
[Printable version of List:]



The Sunday 'Report;' 12/30/2012 [Part 2]

What The National Pamphleteers Don't Report:
Thousands of Federal Retirees Receive $100,000 a Year Pensions…
Author Unknown,
January 22, 2012
    United States government pension plans pay out more than $70 billion a year to about 1.8 million retired federal workers. But not all government retirees are created equal. According to data acquired by Bloomberg News through the Freedom of Information Act, almost 15,000 retired federal workers earn more than $100,000 a year. This includes 9.3% of former employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
     Leading the list is Irving K. Jordan Jr., former president of Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., who collects $375,900. He is followed by Maxey D. Love Jr., former president of a farm credit union, at $322,272 a year.  Lawmakers and cabinet officials don’t do too badly either. Members of Congress can begin collecting their pensions at 62 if [....]

Senate Approves Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens in U.S.
by Noel Brinkerhoff,
December 26, 2012
    The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was used two years ago to allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, has been approved again by the U.S. Senate. This time, however, lawmakers had the chance to add protections for Americans accused of terrorist ties, and decided against it.

     A group of Democrats and Republicans pushed for an amendment to the NDAA that would have prohibited the military from detaining American citizens on U.S. soil. But then a House-Senate conference committee led by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) removed the provision from the bill.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) blasted McCain and others [....]

Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills
Updated Tables for all 2010 Bills
by Jerry Tempalski,
Department of the Treasury
June 6, 2011 (Charts)
     Since 1940 many major tax bills have been enacted. OTA Working Paper 81 (Revised September 2006) uses revenue estimates of each bill to create consistent measures of the relative size of the several dozen major tax bill enacted between 1940 and 2006. This document updates the tables through 2010. Further information about the methodology used in the tables can be found in the working paper.
    OTA Papers is an occasional series of reports on the research, models and datasets developed to inform and improve Treasury’s tax policy analysis. The papers are works in progress and subject to revision. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official Treasury positions or policy. OTA Papers are distributed in order to document OTA analytic methods and data and to invite discussion and suggestions for revision and improvement. Comments are welcome and should be directed to the authors. OTA Papers may be quoted without additional permission. [....]

The Geopolitics Of Shale
by Robert D. Kaplan,
December 19, 2012
    According to the elite newspapers and journals of opinion, the future of foreign affairs mainly rests on ideas: the moral impetus for humanitarian intervention, the various theories governing exchange rates and debt rebalancing necessary to fix Europe, the rise of cosmopolitanism alongside the stubborn vibrancy of nationalism in East Asia and so on. In other words, the world of the future can be engineered and defined based on doctoral theses. And to a certain extent this may be true. As the 20th century showed us, ideologies -- whether communism, fascism or humanism -- matter and matter greatly.
    But there is another truth: The reality of large, impersonal forces like geography and the environment that also help to determine the future of human events. Africa has historically been poor largely because of few good natural harbors and few navigable rivers from the interior to the coast. Russia is paranoid because its land mass is exposed to invasion with few natural barriers. The Persian Gulf sheikhdoms are fabulously wealthy not because of ideas but because of large energy deposits underground. You get the point. Intellectuals concentrate on what they can change, but we are helpless to change much of what happens.
    Enter shale, a sedimentary rock within which natural gas can be trapped. Shale gas constitutes a [....]
The Geopolitics of Shale | Stratfor

Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem
by Bret Stephens,
The Wall Street Journal
December 17, 2012
    Prejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations—has an olfactory element. When Chuck Hagel, the former GOP senator from Nebraska who is now a front-runner to be the next secretary of Defense, carries on about how "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," the odor is especially ripe.
    Ripe because a "Jewish lobby," as far as I'm aware, doesn't exist. No lesser authorities on the subject than John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of "The Israel Lobby," have insisted the term Jewish lobby is "inaccurate and misleading, both because the [Israel] lobby includes non-Jews like Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements."
    Ripe because, whatever other political pressures Mr. Hagel might have had to endure during his years representing the Cornhusker state, winning over the state's Jewish voters—there are an estimated 6,100 Jewish Nebraskans in a state of 1.8 million people—was probably not a major political concern for Mr. Hagel compared to, say, the ethanol lobby. [....]

 Unions Defend the Worst of the Worst
Not a firing offense: drinking, smoking pot, endangering old people, abusing children..
By Jillian Kay Melchior,
December 19, 2012
    When hundreds of Connecticut nursing-home workers went on strike this summer, some committed “alarming, malicious events of apparent sabotage . . . that placed the health of many residents in immediate danger,” according to legal testimony to the United States District Court of Connecticut.
Some of the workers even endangered the lives of elderly patients, but now, their union allies are fighting to get them their old jobs back. This case is no exception: In both the private and the public sector, unions protect the jobs of all their members, even those who have done something wrong, inappropriate, dangerous, or criminal.
    The trouble in Connecticut began [....]

The New Racial-Derangement Syndrome
What happened to Obama’s post-racial America?
by Victor Davis Hanson,
December 20, 2012
There is a different sort of racialist derangement spreading in the country — and it is getting ugly.
Here is actor Jamie Foxx joking recently about his new movie role:
“I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?”
Reverse white and black in the relevant ways and even a comedian would hear national outrage. Instead, his hip Saturday Night Live audience even gave Foxx applause.
Race-obsessed comedian Chris Rock tweeted on the Fourth of July,
“Happy white peoples [sic] independence day . . . ”
 Actor Samuel L. Jackson, in a recent interview, sounded about as unapologetically reactionary as you can get:
“I voted for Barack because he was black. . . . I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years.”
No one in Hollywood used to be more admired than Morgan Freeman, who once lectured interviewers on the need to transcend race. Not now, in the new age of racial regression. Freeman has accused Obama critics and the Tea Party of being racists. He went on to editorialize on Obama’s racial bloodlines:
“Barack had a mama, and she was white . . . very white, American, Kansas, middle of America . . . America’s first black president hasn’t arisen yet.”
Freeman’s racial-purity obsessions were echoed [....]
{Don't blame Mr Hanson, "cards" added by the blogger!}

"Right-To-Work" Wins In Michigan
by Chip Wood,
Personal Liberty Digest
December 21, 2012
    Union bosses in Michigan thought they had pulled off a real coup when they managed to get a measure on the November ballot that would have enshrined their power in the State constitution. Imagine their shock when voters overwhelmingly rejected the amendment.  That was just the beginning of the bad news for the maestros of compulsory unionism. Emboldened by the measure’s defeat, Republicans in the State Legislature promptly introduced legislation that would make Michigan the 24th “right-to-work” State in the Nation.
    Union activists called on their supporters to march on the State capital to protest the proposal. Thousands of supporters showed up in Lansing in response. All of them were pretty noisy; a few were actually amusing, including the ones who put up four giant inflatable rats on the Capitol lawn bearing the names of Governor Rick Snyder and three Republican legislators.  But all was definitely not fun and games. A hospitality tent put up by Americans for Prosperity, one of the groups supporting the measure, was attacked [....]
Until Next Sunday....



The Sunday 'Report;' 12/30/2012

What The National Pamphleteers Don't Report:
Barack Obama has Killed More Children than Adam Lanza
by "Bungalow Bill,"
December 30, 2012
Democrats and liberals want to ban gun ownership for Americans who obey the law. They point to the 26 children who were tragically killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School as their justification for gun control. Yet, these very same people reelected one of the most brutal slaughterers of children in my lifetime--Barack Obama.
While doing some research this morning, I came across [....]
Judge Robert H. Bork, RIP
by The Editors,
December 19, 2012
Had Robert H. Bork never been nominated to the nation’s highest court, he would still have been an important figure in American law. As a professor at Yale Law School; as a scholar who blazed a trail to the reform of antitrust jurisprudence and made important contributions to the emergence of originalism in constitutional law; as a highly regarded solicitor general who stepped in to be acting attorney general at a moment of political crisis; and as an appellate judge who improved the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by his presence on it, Bork made his mark on the theory and practice of American law before Ronald Reagan ever sent the Senate his nomination to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
    But it was Reagan’s nomination of Bork, in the Constitution’s bicentennial year of 1987, that vaulted him to national prominence. One year earlier, another well-known originalist appellate judge and scholar, Antonin Scalia, had been confirmed by the Senate 98–0. But now the seat in question was the one being vacated by “swing justice” Lewis F. Powell, and the Democrats had regained control of the Senate in the 1986 midterm elections. And so the knives came out, [....]
The NFL Needs Its' Head[s] Examined Before It Advocates Gun Control
by John Myers,
Personal Liberty Digest
December 19, 2012
December has been a tough month in the National Football League and not just because of the hard-fought games that were played by teams racing to the playoff finish line. The NFL was rocked by a gun crime, and now some around the league are advocating tougher gun laws.
According to Kansas City police, on Dec. 1, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher fatally shot Kasandra Perkins, his girlfriend and the mother of his 3-month old daughter, after waiting outside the house that he and Perkins shared. He then drove to Arrowhead Stadium, where he encountered Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli.
“I’m sorry, Scott,” he said. “I’ve done a bad thing to my girlfriend already. I want to talk with (linebackers coach Gary) Gibbs and (head coach) Romeo (Crennel).”
Belcher thanked them for all they had done for him. He then [....]
Here's One Girl Who Understands REAL Gun Control
Video Presentation,
December 20, 2012
When one Oklahoma girl found herself in a tough spot, she took matters into her own hands.
Everything In Flux
by Victor Davis Hanson,
December 18, 2012
Amid the Republican doom and gloom, there are lots of factors on the near horizon that could make 2014—and 2016—very winnable years. For all the Obama talk of high taxes, we have not yet had higher taxes. Those that are proposed, along with an envisioned loss of deductions down the road, will fall inordinately on the upper-middle class, perhaps a majority of it blue-state. It is one thing to talk loudly about the “Bush tax cuts,” quite another to pay thousands of dollars more per year, without any real commensurate belt-tightening that might make such higher taxes bearable in the sense that they are part of a shared national effort to reduce the debt. So far Obama’s proposals seem like ways merely to service rather than reduce the expanding debt. Obama has tried to paint the fiscal-cliff battle as a war of the 1 percent against the 99 percent; more likely in the next few years it will be the 53 percent who pay federal income taxes and receive fewer entitlements versus the 47 percent who don’t and receive more—a question quite apart from taxing the very rich and helping the very poor.
Obamacare is finally almost here. Prices will go up, coverage ranges will be curtailed, and there will be a great leveling effect as those who budgeted or who carefully planned for their health care must give back some for the greater collective good—something they were told would not happen. People react to sudden changes in the conditions of their doctor visits as they do to spiked prices at the gas pump—ballistically.
Obama’s election did not heal divisions, but exacerbated them. The recent abjectly racist comments of Chris Rock, Jamie Foxx, Joseph Lowery, and Rob Parker are symbolic of a new racialism, in which [....]
Five Budget Tactics To Reject
by Patrick Louis Knudsen,
December 12, 2012
    If plunging over the fiscal cliff[1] in January would threaten the nation’s economy, Congress and the President could also do harm in another way: by dodging the cliff through gimmicks and bogus budget cuts that create only illusory savings in a “grand” budget bargain.
    Both the White House and lawmakers have shown a propensity for claiming savings where none exist. Doing so as part of a grand deficit reduction plan would drain the credibility from any agreement they might reach. Such tactics would further diminish the confidence of financial markets and the American public—an outcome almost as bad as no agreement at all. Here are five such devices lawmakers should avoid.
1. Phantom War Savings
This is the largest and most egregious practice under consideration. It claims savings that result purely from artificial budget conventions.[2]
Budget estimators at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) project future spending for overseas contingency operations (OCO) in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking today’s amount ($99.9 billion for fiscal year 2013) and then increasing that figure for inflation in each of the subsequent years. This is called the “baseline.”
The President’s budget claims to [....]
Distributed Denial of Service Attacks and Customer Account Fraud
by Comptroller of the Currency,
District of Corruption
December 21, 2012
Recently, various sophisticated groups launched distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks directed at national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks). Each of the groups had different objectives for conducting these attacks ranging from garnering public attention to diverting bank resources while simultaneous online attacks were under way and intended to enable fraud or steal proprietary information. This alert provides a general description of the attacks, along with risk mitigation information and sources of related risk management guidance. The alert also reiterates the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) expectations that banks should have risk management programs to identify and appropriately consider new and evolving threats to online accounts and to adjust their customer authentication, layered security, and other controls as appropriate in response to changing levels of risk.
Attack Description
A DDoS attack seeks to deny Internet access to bank services by directing waves of Internet-based traffic from compromised computers to the bank. In some instances, sophisticated groups shift their tactics during attacks and target Internet service providers (ISP). Fraudsters also use DDoS attacks to distract bank personnel and technical resources while they [....]

The Fiscal Cliff and Beyond
by Alison Acosta Fraser;
William W. Beach;
Stuart M. Butler,
December 11, 2012
Abstract: Unless Congress and the President act promptly and wisely, sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA) will undermine military readiness, and the nearly $500 billion tax increase starting on January 1, 2013, will greatly harm an already weak economy. However, this fiscal cliff can be avoided. The key to avoiding this and future fiscal calamities is reform of the mandatory spending programs, from welfare to Social Security, that currently drive federal deficits. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan would rein in spending immediately, restructure the major entitlement programs to bring entitlement spending under control over the long term, and strengthen the core foundations of these programs.
Since the Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan[1] was first published in April 2011, there has been almost no substantive progress on spending control. The only plausible exception was the flawed Budget Control Act (BCA), a product of a contentious debt limit debate. The complete failure of the resultant bipartisan “supercommittee” to reach agreement was a sad reflection on a Congress that is divided and unwilling to pass the legislation necessary to rein in spending.
As a result, [....]
U.S. Government Redistributes Wealth…to the Rich
Author Unknown,
December 24, 2012
    For about thirty years now, the federal government has been implementing policies that take tax dollars from middle class Americans and give them to the rich, supposedly as a way to spur economic growth. Although Americans actually want greater economic equality, the net effect has been to redistribute wealth to the rich and create the most unequal developed society on earth.    According to a series of reports by Reuters, since 1989 inequality has risen all across the U.S. to levels not seen since before the Great Depression:
• Inequality has increased in every state except Mississippi, which is the poorest state in the Union;• The poverty rate increased in 43 states;
• In 28 states inequality and poverty rose while median income fell;
• In every state, the richest 20% of households far outpaced the income gains of any other quintile;
• Income for the median household fell in 28 states.
Three specific aspects of federal policy— [....]
Part 2 to follow....



Saturday, December 29, 2012

"Clown Prince" Weekly Blather; December 29th

A Patriotic Response To The "Clown Prince;" 12/29/2012
barackingham Palace,
District of Corruption
December 29, 2012
    For the past couple months, I’ve been working with people in both parties – with the help of business leaders and ordinary Americans – to come together around a plan to grow the economy and shrink our deficits.  It’s a balanced plan – one that would protect the middle class, cut spending in a responsible way, and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more. And I’ll keep working with anybody who’s serious about getting a comprehensive plan like this done – because it’s the right thing to do for our economic growth.  But we’re now at the point where, in just a couple days, the law says that every American’s tax rates are going up. Every American’s paycheck will get a lot smaller. And that would be the wrong thing to do for our economy. It would hurt middle-class families, and it would hurt the businesses that depend on your spending.  And Congress can prevent it from happening, if they act now. Leaders in Congress are working on a way to prevent this tax hike on the middle class, and I believe we may be able to reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time.  But if an agreement isn’t reached in time, then I’ll urge the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on a basic package that protects the middle class from an income tax hike, extends vital unemployment insurance for Americans looking for a job, and lays the groundwork for future progress on more economic growth and deficit reduction.
[What I'm not telling you:  I'm thinking--now that I'm about to be re-immaculated--this column's title should be changed to something like....
"Lies, Damn Lies and Just Plain Bullshit!"
Such terms as 'balanced plan' and 'fairness' and other skewed titles I can not have tied to me.  Any 'balanced plan' must be balanced in my favor, to insure that there'll be more confiscated tax receipts to waste as I've done for the past four years.  The term 'fairness' will be fair only in my eyes.  The unequal treatment of individual success versus only 'working-for-a-living' goes beyond the pale!  Using the federal tax code to punish success, alternatively rewards those who prefer to suckle at the federal 'tit' rather than actually work-for-a-living! 
    These arguments over the tax code wouldn't be necessary if BOTH houses of Congress as well as my regime had dealt with the issues of unfairness and welfareRATism at the outset of my first term of rule.  Or, even dealt with the issue at the same time my regime screwed the American taxpayer to the wall with the last debt ceiling adjustment!  
Let's address the debt-ceiling kerfuffle for a moment:  remember the last time--back in June, July of 2011--my regime got a huge increase which has since allowed the communists in the current regime to amass an increase of $5,000,000,000,000 (trillions)
in deficit-spending over the past four years of rule!!   During those negotiations, the regime promised "tons-and-tons" of spending cuts OVER TEN YEARS!  See how stupid the republicRATics are?!?  They actually believe that the aforementioned spending cuts will actually happen in the aforementioned 'ten-years!!'  The "over-ten-years" is completely UNENFORCEABLE!! What future president--or in the communists' case, what future ruler--will honor a previous commitment that controls the vast majority of then-current spending?!?  And yet, those silly republicRATics continue to fall for the phrase!!]
    I believe such a proposal could pass both houses with bipartisan majorities – as long as these leaders allow it to come to a vote. If they still want to vote no, and let this tax hike hit the middle class, that’s their prerogative – but they should let everyone vote. That’s the way this is supposed to work.  We just can’t afford a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy. The economy is growing, but keeping it that way means that the folks you sent to Washington have to do their jobs. The housing market is healing, but that could stall if folks are seeing smaller paychecks. The unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been since 2008, but already, families and businesses are starting to hold back because of the dysfunction they see in Washington.
You meet your deadlines and your responsibilities every day. The folks you sent here to serve should do the same. We cannot let Washington politics get in the way of America’s progress. We’ve got to do what it takes to protect the middle class, grow this economy, and move our country forward.
[What I'm not telling you:  How stupid can I be?!?  Only a complete idiot can listen to 'pinky' reid's rhetoric and believe that both parties can agree on anything, let alone a spending bill inwhich one-or-the-other has to give up something!!   Now here's a guy that's outlived his usefulness in the Senate!!  Mr Reid lives to put up roadblocks in the path toward fiscal agreement; fiscal agreement that may citizens feel should NEVER happen.  Going "over the cliff" will force the current regime to cut spending, albeit in the arena of national defense!! 
    Members of both parties should face criminal charges!!  It's criminal what they're doing with spending bills, spending limits, tax policy, et al, in the Congress.  These complete idiots are paid $180,000 a year (with their new pay raise I've signed) to obfuscate each-others' proposals.  Nice money to do nothing, right?!?
    All this "fiscal cliff" bullshit is just that: BULLSHIT!!  It's nothing more than 'political theatre' designed to frighten the general public with some disasterous result of 'going-over' said "cliff."  What's gonna happen?  A couple of things:
A.  The public will finally realize how much they're being screwed with the IRS tax code.  What they'll not realize--YET--is the disasterous financial affects of the TWENTY-TWO new or increased taxes as promulgated by obamaKare!!
B.  The obama Regime will be forced into spending cuts they've tried to push down the road with that phrase--over ten years!!  obamacRATics do not, will not, can not even contemplate even the most minute cuts in spending!!  Going 'over-the-cliff' will force them to do just that!! 
    Each time anything 'financial' comes up, the obama Regime communists can not be trusted!!  I know this; I hope you do not realize this!!  Due to my less-than-stellar successes during my first rule, I have but four-more-years to destroy the American economy--right down to it's principles--to the point that soviet-style communism will look good!!  Then we can talk about my legacy, which should be the American economic destruction as it relates to the impending One-World-Government.  Remember that's the objective of The Bilderberg Group; the same folks that have bought me two terms-of-rule!!]



Wednesday, December 26, 2012

This'n'That; December Twenty-Sixth #1; Screwed More!

Why Not Just Stay In Hawaii?!?
    "Clown Prince" obama's decision to return to barackingham Palace with Valarie Jarrett but without Michelle Antoinette and the two princii (MY plural of both prince and princess).  This will  increase the taxpayer's cost of the family's monthly vacation from the usual $4,000,000++ to well over $6,000,000!!  The government will needlessly send several aircraft EMPTY, to Hickam AFB, Hi., to retrieve the remainder of the royal family and haul their more-than-ample asses back to the 'Palace.' 
Remember dear taxpayer:
with the numbers and types of aircraft the royal family demands, the total cost is over $180,000 per-flight-hour!! 
You know Michelle Antoinette demands the greatest luxury the taxpayer can provide!!
But why?!? 
Why is "Clown Prince" obama returning to the District of Corruption for negotiations?!?
Given his negotiating style of "my way or the highway," it doesn't seem necessary that he be in the royal residence.  He's already stated his demands; now it's just up to Speaker John Boehner to 'roll-over-and-play-dead' to his demands!!
Til Nex'Time....



Tuesday, December 25, 2012

This'n'That; December Twenty-Fifth #1; Fiscal Crap!

Merry Christmas and Happy Hangover to all!!
An Important 'Fiscal Cliff' Chronology
What's In The Fiscal Cliff?
by Romina Boccia, James Sherk, Katie Tubb;
November 28, 2012
The nation is now firmly on track to go over the fiscal cliff in January 2013 unless Washington takes action. The uncertainty leading up to the fiscal cliff—especially Taxmageddon—is already hurting the economy today and, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office, could send the country back into recession in 2013.[1]
Individuals, families, businesses, and the military would all be hit hard by the fiscal cliff, but Congress and the President have yet to act to avoid this economic and defense disaster. Here are specific recommendations for how to avoid the four main parts of the fiscal cliff.
1. Taxmageddon
Seven different categories of tax policy expire on January 1, causing a $494 billion tax increase in just one year. This is uncharted territory: Never has there been such a steep tax increase in a single year.
Most of this massive tax increase stems from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts implemented under President George W. Bush. There is also the payroll tax cut, the alternative minimum tax patch, and a host of other policies that expire at year’s end.[2] In addition, five of the 18 tax increases built into Obamacare are scheduled to go into effect. Families will bear the brunt of this tax increase among American households, with an average increase of over $4,100 in taxes.[3]
Uncertainty created by the prospect of Taxmageddon is continuing to hurt the economy today. Businesses are increasingly concerned about a jump in their own tax burdens and, given the economy’s poor outlook into next year, are reluctant to hire or invest. In 2010, President Obama reversed course and extended all expiring tax policies, arguing that the economy was too weak to sustain a major tax hike.[4] This is just as true today as it was then, with this year’s third-quarter GDP growth of 2 percent being lower than fourth-quarter 2010 growth of 2.4 percent.
Recommendation: Free businesses, investors, and families from uncertainty by extending current policy for all Americans permanently or for at least two years. This will provide time and momentum for pro-growth, revenue-neutral tax reform, which is overdue. Also, stop new Obamacare taxes, especially the tax on non-wage income.
2. Sequestration
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), a product of last summer’s debt-ceiling deal, increased the debt limit by $2.1 trillion in exchange for spending cuts. The BCA first established caps on discretionary spending to accomplish $900 billion[5] in savings over 10 years and then tasked a “super committee” with finding at least $1.2 trillion more in savings. The super committee’s failure to reach agreement triggered sequestration—automatic budget cuts—totaling $1.2 trillion (including interest savings) over nine years. Sequestration cuts begin on January 2, 2013.
The Department of Defense would bear [....]

[....] Only Presidential Leadership Is Needed
by J.D. Foster, Ph.D., Alison Acosta Fraser
November 30, 2012

Abstract: The United States faces a real fiscal crisis, and the impending fiscal cliff of massive tax hikes and spending cuts in January is only the first act. In early 2013, the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally. Yet as large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they are of secondary consequence compared with the fiscal quagmire of unaffordable entitlement spending in the next decade. Fortunately, the entitlement problem can be resolved by six simple reforms to improve the fiscal future for Social Security and Medicare. But to implement these reforms, President Barack Obama must lead.
A high-stakes fiscal policy debate of unique size and import has just begun. Absent congressional action to the contrary, a massive slate of tax hikes and spending cuts will take effect on January 1, and that is only the first act. The second act will occur early in 2013 when the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally. Both acts need prompt solutions.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R–OH) made the first move. After congratulating President Barack Obama upon his reelection, Boehner promised a willingness to work with him, giving Obama the additional revenues he desired through pro-growth tax reform accompanied by reforms in entitlement programs.[1] President Obama's counter, while unsurprising, was unhelpful because he focused exclusively on fiscally meaningless and economically harmful tax hikes on upper-income taxpayers. The President repeatedly has argued for a balanced approach, but he has yet to offer a single meaningful proposal on spending reductions.
While the President prepares to start his second term, he should set about negotiating in good faith with Republicans, especially in the House where Republicans were returned to office in the majority with expectations of cutting spending without increasing taxes. The voters, we are told, expect it. This means the President cannot sit back and just harp on revenues. He needs to address spending and in particular entitlements.
Fortunately, the President has occasion and opportunity to [....]

National Defense:  Independent Quadrennial Defense Review Panel Needed
by Michaela Bendikova,
November 30, 2012
In 2013, senior officials at the Pentagon will broadly examine U.S. national defense strategy, force posture, and weapons modernization in a congressionally mandated process called the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR establishes a defense planning program that will direct the Department of Defense’s budget and determine how many vehicles, tanks, ships, aircraft, and other essential equipment the services will procure in the next two decades.
It is essential that Congress establish an independent QDR review panel that would allow a transparent discussion about the size and scope of future U.S. military forces.
Challenges Like No Other
The QDR became law in 1996, and the Pentagon has conducted QDRs in 1997, 2001, 2006, and 2010. Unless Congress changes the law, the fifth QDR will face a uniquely constrained fiscal environment.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) establishes budget caps that will result in a reduction of about $407 billion over the nine-year period covering fiscal year 2013 through FY 2021. Even worse for defense, under the sequestration process set to occur on January 2, 2013, defense accounts would be cut by another $492 billion in the same time period.
These cuts come on the top of those that the Obama Administration has announced since 2009, including cancellation of weapons programs with a total lifetime value of more than $300 billion and reductions in the defense budget of about $200 billion between FY 2012 and FY 2016.[1] The President has also made it clear that he will veto any bill that would eliminate or alter the sequestration process unless it includes major tax hikes.
This means that the QDR process will inevitably be driven by budget considerations rather than by a sound analysis of what America needs to secure its interests worldwide in the next two decades. Just as with previous QDRs, it is likely that the next one will fail to address the increasing gap between U.S. commitments and U.S. capabilities.
The President’s latest strategic guidance[2] and the subsequent FY 2013 budget request make defense the lowest priority among the major responsibilities of the federal government. They propose funding levels that would make the President’s own strategic guidance impossible to execute and render the U.S. incapable [....]

Fiscal Cliff Debate:  Entitlements Must Be Included
by Alison Acosta Fraser,
December 4, 2012
Besides revelry, this New Year will ring in $500 billion in tax hikes and $110 billion in spending cuts unless Congress and the president can come together to steer clear of the "fiscal cliff" beforehand.
All the Washington handwringing is ironic, considering that Congress itself created this mess. How? By creating the sequester's ill-conceived spending cuts in the Budget Control Act of 2011 and teeing up expiration of many different tax policies (some in place for more than a decade) in legislation passed two years ago.
President Obama has repeatedly insisted on raising tax rates for high-income earners. This is an anathema to Republicans so the fiscal cliff looms. Obama called this a "balanced approach" to solving our fiscal challenges. But is it necessary?
Hardly. Tax revenues are quite low, but official budget forecasters from both the Congress and the White House show revenues returning to historical levels as the economy improves.
Spending is high today at just over 23 percent of the economy, versus the historical average of roughly 20 percent. But rather than returning to historical levels, spending will remain high over the next decade and then spiral ever upwards reaching nearly 38 percent of the economy within a generation.
This massive spending increase is driven by three entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Costs will balloon as retiring baby boomers file into these programs. In just 13 years, when today's kindergarteners enter college, these programs plus interest on the debt will devour all tax revenues.
Entitlement reform is necessary, urgent, and inevitable.
Yet the fiscal cliff discussion has focused only on increasing taxes. What's missing - if we are serious about fixing our budget mess - are substantive steps to rein in entitlement programs.
Thursday's White House proposal has details on tax increases, but was shockingly devoid of details on spending. First, the president would increase taxes by nearly $1.6 trillion. Besides millions of families having less to go around on payday, this would also hit the engine of American job creation—small businesses.
It's hard to understand why this makes sense when the economy is still lumbering along and unemployment high. The president also wants a new [....]

The Fiscal Cliff And The Perils Of Grand Budget Deals
by Patrick Louis Knudsen,
December 1, 2012
One of the major complications in the current fiscal cliff debate is that both sides are overreaching, trying to tie a near-term resolution to a sweeping deficit reduction plan that would address the longer-term budgetary crisis looming in the years ahead. They see the cliff negotiations as a stage for a “grand bargain” on the budget between the President and Congress.
The tight time frame of the cliff’s approach makes such an aim increasingly impractical. Furthermore, history shows that broad bipartisan compromises between the White House and Congress have typically just yielded higher taxes, while the promised spending restraint (except in national defense) and deficit reduction have failed to materialize. Given the current state of divided government, these risks prevail today. More broadly, they also offer a warning to budget process reformers who seek to institutionalize regular budget negotiations between Capitol Hill and the President.
Experience of the Reagan Administration
After his inauguration in January 1981, President Ronald Reagan moved assertively to enact his budget plan, cutting taxes, boosting defense spending, and seeking to gain control of entitlements. With the economy still reeling from the prior years’ stagflation, however, deficits widened initially, leading Congress to push for a series of budget “summits,” as they were called then, to close the gap.
First came the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, “a $98 billion tax increase which supporters claimed would reduce the deficit from $128 billion in 1982 to $104 billion in 1983.” It did not. “Spending restraints never materialized…and the actual deficit jumped to $208 billion.”[1] (In today’s dollars, that tax hike would have totaled $204 billion and the deficit $432 billion—roughly a third of this year’s red ink.)
In 1984, the President agreed to yet another tax hike totaling $49 billion, which was supposed to reduce the deficit from $185 billion to $181 billion. Once again, however, the deficit increased—to $212 billion.[2]
The 1987 budget summit repeated the pattern. President Reagan swallowed a tax hike of $28 billion, but the result was the same: “The deficit, which was supposed to remain at $150 billion, jumped to $155 billion in 1988.”[3]
The 1990 Budget Agreement
Despite these failures, 1990 produced another major exercise in budget summitry. With deficits having [....]

Saving The American Dream:  Fiscal Cliff And Beyond
by Alison Acosta Fraser , William W. Beach, Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.,
December 11, 2012

Abstract: Unless Congress and the President act promptly and wisely, sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA) will undermine military readiness, and the nearly $500 billion tax increase starting on January 1, 2013, will greatly harm an already weak economy. However, this fiscal cliff can be avoided. The key to avoiding this and future fiscal calamities is reform of the mandatory spending programs, from welfare to Social Security, that currently drive federal deficits. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan would rein in spending immediately, restructure the major entitlement programs to bring entitlement spending under control over the long term, and strengthen the core foundations of these programs.
Since the Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan[1] was first published in April 2011, there has been almost no substantive progress on spending control. The only plausible exception was the flawed Budget Control Act (BCA), a product of a contentious debt limit debate. The complete failure of the resultant bipartisan “supercommittee” to reach agreement was a sad reflection on a Congress that is divided and unwilling to pass the legislation necessary to rein in spending.
As a result, the nation is facing the looming sequester, which will further undermine the defense budget, jeopardizing one of the federal government’s core constitutional responsibilities. Yet it would leave entitlement programs virtually untouched, even though they are the largest driver of spending today and in the future. Meanwhile, the prospect of a huge tax increase in January has had a deleterious effect on the economy for many months, although the effect is only a small portion of the harm the economy will incur if the tax increase ultimately takes effect. America seriously needs a true way forward. [....]

A Fiscal Cliff Primer
by Jim Talent,
December 13, 2012
It’s time for a status report on the state of negotiations over the fiscal cliff. Here are some frequently asked questions and answers.
1) Q. What is the fiscal cliff?
A. Under existing law, $494 billion in tax increases are scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013. There are three main categories of tax increase that are coming. About a third of the increase will come from ending the Bush tax cuts. Those included across-the-board income-tax cuts, reductions in capital-gains and dividend taxes, a reduction in the marriage penalty, and an increase in the child tax credit. About a quarter of the tax increase will come from ending the payroll-tax cut established as a temporary measure several years ago. About a fifth of the increase will come from ending a “patch” that minimized the effect of the Alternative Minimum Tax on the middle class. There are a number of other smaller tax hikes scheduled to go into effect, including a big increase in the estate tax that will produce only $13 billion in revenue but will destroy a lot of family farms and small businesses.
The cost of getting married, and of dying, is about to go up. For a full discussion, see this report.
2) Q. How big would this tax increase be?
A. It would be a $500 billion increase in one year. That’s almost as big as the tax increases imposed by Obamacare over a ten-year period.
3) Q. What’s the official position of the Republicans on the scheduled tax increase?
A. They want to avoid raising taxes on anyone.
4) Q. What’s their real position?
A. See the answer to question 3 above.
5) Q. What’s the official position of the Democrats?
A. They want to continue the tax cuts on middle-income taxpayers and to raise tax rates on higher-income taxpayers.
6) Q. What’s their real position?
A. They want as much tax revenue as they can get. They also believe that next year they can reinstate any of the tax provisions they decide they like. So they believe that, by allowing the country to go over the cliff, they will collect a huge amount of new revenue that will relieve the pressure on them to cut spending, while still being able to reenact later a few of the smaller tax benefits that actually appeal to them.
7) Q. Aren’t the Democrats afraid of the political backlash [....]

Fiscal Cliff:  Decoupling Conservatives From Their Core Principles
by J.D. Foster, Ph.D.,
December 14, 2012
There are many ways to surrender—and some congressional Republicans seem bent on exploring them all.
In the debate over the fiscal cliff, the President’s position is simple: The Republicans must capitulate on income tax rate hikes, and all other serious issues are not up for discussion.
Never mind that Obama already raises taxes on upper-income taxpayers through the 3.8 percent Medicare surtax imposed under Obamacare. Never mind that the tax hikes will weaken an economy stumbling so badly that the Federal Reserve announced it would double its efforts to keep the economy from recession. Never mind that Obama’s approach likely puts the kibosh on any hopes for individual or corporate income tax reform. Never mind that the revenues from the tax hikes are a small drop in a very big bucket compared to projected budget deficits.
In his view, President Obama ran for re-election on, and now has a mandate for, raising income tax rates. In fact, his mandate is solely to continue to press his case. Ours is not a parliamentary system, and Obama is not the prime minister. And so he faces the pesky reality that House Republicans ran opposing higher tax rates and that they, too, were returned to Washington in the majority to press their case. Their mandate is no greater, but certainly no less, than Obama’s.
House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) made a terrible mistake in both policy and approach in offering up a plan to resolve the fiscal cliff featuring a huge tax hike coupled with woefully inadequate spending cuts and entitlement reforms. Obama’s response? Nothing. The silver lining is that at least Boehner made clear, then and since, that raising tax rates is off the table.
Now, however, worrisome rumors of two different “decoupling” plans are swirling through the halls of Congress. Both plans constitute a clear path toward surrender on conservative principles.
The gist of the first “wash thy hands” plan is simple enough. Some tax hikes threatening on January 1 fall on upper-income taxpayers and small businesses, but the vast bulk of the tax hikes fall on everyone else. So the House would bring up two distinct bills for votes. The first bill would prevent the tax hike for upper-income individuals and small businesses, papered over with certain whimperings as to how the issue could be considered again as tax reform; the second would prevent a tax hike for everyone else.
Presuming both bills passed the House, the Senate would then take them up. As the second bill—the second, everyone-else bill—is essentially what the Senate has already passed, its repeat passage is assured.
Not coincidentally, the Senate has already voted [....]

Sequester Decision Time: Global Leader Or Regional Hegemon?
by Marion Smith,
December 20, 2012
Abstract: The most important goal of the American military is to defend the people of the United States and their interests. The U.S. must remain committed to providing for the common defense, protecting the freedom of American commerce, and seeking peaceful relations with other nations. To do this, America must renew its material investments in armaments and strategic force structure. If America’s defense capabilities continue to decline, the U.S. will have less diplomatic influence and face increased security risks to its interests and territory. The history of U.S. defense spending indicates that America is now at an unmistakable decision point. Imprudent defense cuts today will largely determine America’s reduced role in 21st-century world affairs.
As the year ends, Congress confronts a much delayed, monumentally important decision that will shape the possibilities of America’s role in the world for generations to come. If the $500 billion sequester defense cuts take effect as currently provided by law, the United States will be on track to pre–World War II defense spending levels—a time when America was not a superpower and not the leader of the free world. Beyond that stark reality, the sequester indiscriminately cuts defense programs without allowing for strategically guided readjustments and therefore would harm America’s military readiness even more. [....]
[This URL contains articles not referenced in this blog: ]
Til Nex'Time....



Sunday, December 23, 2012

The Sunday 'Report;' 12/23/2012

What The Moronic Media Doesn't Report:
Global Economic Slowdown Signals Sad New Year
by Brandon Smith,
Personal Liberty Digest
December 18, 2012
    The markets, as most people reading this should now well know, no longer reflect in any way the true economic health of our country. If one were to measure the financial “recovery” of this Nation by the strength of global stocks, he would likely come to the conclusion that the collapse of 2008 was mere hiccup in the overall success of the worldwide economic system. However, electronically traded equities with little more to back their value than scraps of receipt paper and numbers on a screen have no bearing on what is going to happen to you and to me over the course of the coming year. The stock market is [....]

Crony Capitalists Endorse Higher Taxes On Their Small Business Competitors
by Daniel J. Mitchell,
December 21, 2012
I’m a big fan of lower corporate tax rates.
I also want to eliminate worldwide taxation so American companies can be on a level playing field when competing for market share around the world.
And I want to get rid of the double taxation of dividends and capital gains in part because these reforms will boost business investment.
Given this track record, I don’t think anybody could accuse me of being an anti-big-business activist.
But I do get very irritated when politically connected corporations use cronyism to guard their interests at the expense of other taxpayers and the overall economy.
That’s why, in this interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC, I spend most of the time advocating for [....]

GOP Fairy Tale:  We Came, We Saw, We Surrendered
by John Ransom,
December 18, 2012
The Republic is safe.
John Boehner’s no national dictator, we now know, set to ruin the economy by forcing it off the fiscal cliff in the same way that Rep. Paul Ryan did to that poor old lady in a wheel chair on TV.
No, Boehner’s got other ways to screw up the economy, ones that have the happy effect- for him- of keeping the government vortex flowing and sucking in all the money it can.
The modest, emotional, cigarette-smoking Speaker of the House, you see, uses force only against conservatives who wish to stop the vortex, not against his ideological “opponent” over at the White House who argues for an even louder sucking sound in our economy.
Outmaneuvered, outsmarted and outrageous, the new, old, white face of the GOP, Mr. Speaker Boehner, isn’t negotiating with Barack Obama on the myth called the fiscal cliff. [....]

Invincible Ignorance
by Dr Thomas Sowell,
December 18, 2012
Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?
The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.
If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.
Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.
When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.
The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest [....]

Limiting Government In The Age Of obama
Host: Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.,
December 14, 2012
In spite of the outcome of the 2012 election, Conservatives need not abandon their core project to restore limited constitutional government. Even in the age of Obama, there are still three major concrete avenues to push back against unlimited government: Congress, the Courts, and the States.
In Washington, Congress can use the legislative power to starve the administrative state and rein in some of its excesses. In the Courts, litigants can seek judgments against the Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, and other agencies as a way to push back [.... {with Video Discussion}];utm_campaign=NCS12.18.12

Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater
by Jason Howerton,
December 17, 2012
Update: WOAI now reports it was an off-duty sergeant who fired a total of four shots, wounding the shooter. An Initial report by 1200 WOAI news said that an off-duty sheriff’s deputy shot the suspect one time.
The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office says the off-duty sergeant, who was working security, heard the gunshots and came running. She saw the gunman coming out of the men’s restroom. The Sheriff’s Office says the gunman did not shoot at her, but his gun was drawn so she opened fire.
That off-duty sergeant, identified as Lisa Castellano, fired four times, wounding the gunman. Only one other person was wounded, a 49-year-old man inside the theater, who was hit by one of the gunman’s shots. Both are expected to recover.
Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant.

GOP Leaders Capitulate on Core Conservative Principles
Staff Report,
December 18, 2012
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Republican leaders have done it once again. Their latest fiscal cliff proposal capitulates on core conservative principles, yielding woefully inadequate concessions from President Obama in the process. Will they ever learn?
The latest GOP offer essentially ignores Washington's real problem -- spending -- and puts a $1 trillion tax hike on the table. It's so bad that conservatives are now left with only one unfortunate alternative --
passing a temporary measure that avoids a doomsday scenario until the end of March. It’s the best possible outcome with the days dwindling on the remainder of 2012.
In a city where kicking the can has become a routine course of action, it’s hardly the preferable outcome for lawmakers. But it would be better than just going over the fiscal cliff and better than the current $1 trillion tax increase offered by Boehner, which, not surprisingly, was
summarily rejected by Obama, who proceeded to counteroffer with an even bigger tax hike and even fewer spending cuts. At this point, no “grand bargain” is going to result in the spending cuts that are needed to reduce the debt.
Yesterday, [....]

No Time To Disarm America
by Sam Rolley,
Personal Liberty Digest
December 18, 2012
In the wake of the terrible tragedy that occurred last week at a Connecticut elementary school, the opinions have begun following in from both sides of the gun control debate. The debate is sure to become increasingly fallacious and nasty in coming months as people on both sides make ridiculous claims to support their case.
President Barack Obama spoke over the weekend at a memorial service for the 26 victims of Adam Lanza’s horrifying shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. His speech, some people (gun-control advocates, no doubt) gushed, was akin to [....]

McNamara’s Non-War
by James Burnham,
National Review Magazine
September 19, 1967
In the form of a statement, August 25, to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense McNamara offered the most elaborate apologia yet made by the Johnson Administration for, specifically, “our conduct of the air war in Vietnam,” and, by implication, for the Vietnam policy in general. Mr. McNamara is a formidable advocate. He invariably presents his case with logical rigor, confidently uttered statistics and a notable absence of sentiment. Before trying to pass judgment on his conclusions, it is advisable to make sure we understand what he is saying.

First, Mr. McNamara states “the objectives that the bombing of North Vietnamese targets was intended to serve. . . . Our primary objective was to reduce the flow and/or to increase the cost of the continued infiltration of men and supplies from North to South Vietnam.” Second, “it was anticipated that these air operations would raise the morale of the South Vietnamese people. . . . Finally, we hoped to make clear to [....]

Is Boko Haram More Dangerous Than Ever?
by Scott Stewart,
December 13, 2012
On Nov. 25, Boko Haram, an Islamist militant group from northern Nigeria, attacked a church in Jaji, Kaduna state, using two suicide bombers during the church's weekly religious service. The first bomb detonated in a vehicle driven into the church, and the second detonated approximately 10 minutes later, when a crowd of first responders gathered at the scene. About 30 people were killed in the attacks; the second blast caused the majority of the deaths. The incident was particularly symbolic because Jaji is the home of Nigeria's Armed Forces Command and Staff College, and many of the churchgoers were senior military officers.
In the wake of the Jaji attacks, media reports quoted human rights groups saying that Boko Haram has killed more people in 2012 than ever before. The group has killed roughly 770 people this year, leading many to conclude [....]
Is Boko Haram More Dangerous Than Ever? | Stratfor

By Victor Davis Hanson,
December 13, 2012
    Who exactly were the rich who, as the president said, were not “paying their fair share”? The rapper Jay-Z (net worth: nearly $500 million)? The actor Johnny Depp (2011 income: $50 million)? Neither seems to have heard the president’s earlier warning that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
    Could both zillionaires simply have quit making money at $10 million — and thereby given their poorer audiences a break on ticket prices?
With all the talk of raising taxes on the supposedly conservative rich who make more than $250,000 per year, why not levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for movies, concerts, and sporting events to “spread the wealth” from multimillionaires? That way, LeBron James (approximate annual earnings: $53 million) or Oliver Stone (net worth: approximately $50 million) might at last begin to “level the playing field.”
    Is Michael Moore (net worth: approximately $50 million) a one-tenth-of-one-percenter? If so, why do mansion-living-grandee movie directors like Moore and Stone need [....]

Can We Make Love Not War? Sorry, No!
by John Ransom,
December 22, 2012
We need a new foreign policy and we need to spend a lot less money.
That’s the message stock market is telling us.
It’s a message painted in big bold letters and we’d be wise to read it.
We need a foreign policy that uses the proven lessons we learned from the Cold War; a policy that pares back our commitment of troops to combat operations.
We need a fiscal policy that we learned during the 30 years from the 1960s to 1990, when our economy only did well as we restrained government spending to an amount affordable by our GDP.
During the Cold War we fought wars by proxy, generally speaking, or we committed a limited amount of troops for a short period of time.
When we didn’t do that, we lost local wars- a tie being the same as a loss in my book.
It was called containment. It was predicated on the belief that

In Pakistan, Mixed Results From A Preshawar Attack
by Ben West,
December 20, 2012
The Pakistani Taliban continue to undermine Pakistan's government and military establishment, and in doing so, they continue to raise questions over the security of the country's nuclear arsenal. On Dec. 15, 10 militants armed with suicide vests and grenades attacked Peshawar Air Force Base, the site of a third major operation by the Pakistani Taliban since May 2011. Tactically, the attack was relatively unsuccessful -- all the militants were killed, and the perimeter of the air base was not breached -- but the Pakistani Taliban nonetheless achieved their objective.
The attack began the night of Dec. 15 with a volley of three to five mortar shells. As the shells were fired, militants detonated a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device near the perimeter wall of the air base. Reports indicate that all five militants inside the vehicle were killed. The other five militants engaged security forces in a nearby residential area and eventually were driven back before they could enter the air base. The next day, security forces acting on a report of suspicious activity confronted the militants, who all died in the resultant shootout.
Pakistani security forces came away from the incident looking very good. They prevented a large and seemingly coordinated team of militants from entering the confines of the base and thus from damaging civilian and military aircraft. Some of Pakistan's newly acquired Chinese-Pakistani made JF-17s, are stationed at the air base, and worth roughly $20 million each, they were probably the militants ultimate targets.
Another reason the militants may [....]
In Pakistan, Mixed Results From a Peshawar Attack | Stratfor

Judge Bork’s Ink Blot
His famous remark is quite defensible.
by Ramesh Ponnuru,
December 20, 2012
    One sometimes runs across claims that Robert Bork dismissed the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an “ink blot” to be ignored — typically from libertarians who are criticizing this aspect of his judicial philosophy, or using it to criticize that philosophy generally. That’s not quite what he said, and what he did say is more than defensible.
    The controversy came out of Bork’s Supreme Court–confirmation testimony. Senator Dennis DeConcini (D., Ariz.) asked Bork about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Bork said that he [....]

by The Editors,
December 20, 2012
Chuck Hagel is a very poor choice for the next secretary of defense, and there are signs that as much is becoming clear in Washington.
One of the reasons the administration is considering Hagel is surely the vestigial “R” that hangs next to his name in official capacities. It says something about Democrats’ self-esteem on military issues that two of the last three defense secretaries to serve under Democratic presidents have been Republicans. But Hagel has been drifting from the party for years. First in deed — he traveled to Iraq with then–presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008, admitted to being receptive to joining the Democratic ticket, and has served on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board since 2009. And then in word — notably his Senate endorsements of Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak over Pat Toomey in 2010, and of Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey over Deb Fischer in November.
That Hagel’s cozying to Obama [....]

Eric Holder Buries Another Fast And Furious Victim
Video Presentation,
December 19, 2012
 Brian Terry,Jaime Zapata,and now Mexican beauty queen Maria Susana Flores Gamez. 
Gamez was killed on November 25. A Fast and Furious-connected AK-47 was found next to her body. She was the light of Sinaloa. Beautiful. A smile that would light up a room. Loved and cherished by the Mexican people.
Now dead.
In a regular world—not inhabited by a corrupt President—a weapon found next to a murdered woman would bring about an investigation. If the fingerprints on the weapon were traced to one Eric Holder,whether he [....]

So Long, Ike
by The Editors,
National Review Magazine
January 14, 1961
    The American people will do anything for a good man. Dwight Eisenhower is manifestly that. And if it had been he running for President last November, he’d have reduced Jack Kennedy to political dust in six speeches, syntax or no syntax. Indeed, no one could have run against Ike and beaten him. It is not that the people were satisfied with his stewardship, but that they know politics is a grubby, cynical business, the meaning of which they cannot hope to penetrate — so vote for the man you trust. And such a man, to his eternal credit, is Dwight Eisenhower. A man one can trust to do the good, according to his lights.
   And yet it must be said, what a miserable President he was! Said regretfully: for it is painful to use such language about so good a man. But if St. Francis of Assisi had been made president of the Chase Manhattan Bank, he too would have made a miserable president. Our enthusiasm for Francis might cause us to say the Chase Bank was not worthy of him, and the failure was really the institution’s, not the saint’s. Let us agree that the world is not worthy of Dwight Eisenhower. But the world is as it is, and Dwight Eisenhower served as one of its princes, and the world paid him no heed. None at all. And the world is worse off, by far, than when he came to power, sustained by the sentimental faith of millions of people, who thought that his goodness would [....]

Time to Give Up or Time to Fight On?
A Radio Interview With Dr Larry Arnn, President-Hillsdale College
by Hugh Hewitt,
November 7, 2012
Hugh Hewitt: My guest is Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College. Several weeks ago, when I was at Hillsdale, Dr. Arnn warned me that yesterday’s election might well go badly for the cause of constitutional conservatism. And I wanted to review the results of the election with him today on the radio show. Larry, welcome.
Larry P. Arnn: Thank you, Hugh, good to be with you. And it did indeed turn out to be a terrible election from the standpoint of constitutionalism. Its results will bring about hardships and set back the time frame for reviving the kind of government our Founders bequeathed to us. I do agree with that. But I very much disagree with the idea that this election marks a decisive event in our politics, or a point of no return.
HH: That’s what I want to discuss, because there are a lot of people who are close to saying “game over,” who are tempted now to retreat from politics—to go do missionary work, for instance—and give up on the republic. But you have made your life’s work the studying of leaders who have refused to do that.
LPA: That’s right. And the reason you can’t do that, by the way—the reason you can’t retreat into private life and give up on politics—is that the cost of doing it is overwhelming. If you don’t live under good laws, life becomes truncated and less happy, injustice becomes customary, civilization is compromised. And one cannot acquiesce in that. One has to be involved. And since politics is natural to us—man is essentially political, as Aristotle says—and since we do live in the greatest modern country—founded that way at least—we owe it a lot. And many of the people who have seen the republic through to where we are today have gone through things that are worse than this. So first of all, it’s a duty not to give up. But second, there are good reasons to know that the game isn’t over.
HH: What are the reasons?
LPA: One of them is that the election is shot through with contradictions. The obvious contradiction is that we have a divided government. The presidency and the Senate are in the hands of one party, and the House of Representatives and most governorships are in the hands of the other. A second contradiction is that a large majority of people continued to say in the exit polls that they were against raising taxes in order to cut the deficit. One might be cynical and put that down to an irresponsible refusal to pay for existing benefits—to get more and more “free stuff.” But for a long time now, opinion polls have pointed towards the existence of a broad majority of Americans who favor smaller government. This obviously contradicts the re-election of the president and the Democratic gains in the Senate. The country is still a house divided against itself, and that’s dangerous. But it doesn’t mean [....]

Conflict Resolution 101, obama-Style
Author Unknown,
December 22,012
    Accommodating is the preferred style of conflict resolution often used by the Obama Administration to resolve a crisis on the diplomatic stage. Today’s Democrats are too willing to put the needs of terrorists before this country,our allies,or any other democracies. In fact,the only people they see as enemies are American conservatives. Obama will surrender victory in order to maintain peace with people whose only goal is to wipe America off the face of the earth. This White House refuses to do or say anything that might upset America’s enemies;they only want to placate them. In simple terms for the low information voter,Obama wants all Americans to surrender and beg for our lives like a poor animal begging for food,hoping the bad guy won’t kill us.
Army Manual
A new handbook for American service members being deployed to the Middle East,currently being reviewed,orders the troops to not make derogatory comments about the Taliban or pedophilia,among other Islamic things. Obama doesn’t want the American troops to insult the sensibilities. The proposed draft blames American troops’ignorance of the region’s backwards culture as the reason for the murders of Americans and allies in Afghanistan. No longer can American Troops think of “Afghan forces to be “basically stupid” thieves,“gutless in combat,” “profoundly dishonest” and engaged in “treasonous collusion and alliances with enemy forces.” It might hurt their feelings,so we must accommodate them. In this way,the Taliban will do a better job of accommodating Afghanis after the Americans leave.
Fort Hood
Col. Gregory Gross,a military judge,was removed from trying the Fort Hood Massacre trial (or,in conflict resolution language,“Work Place Violence”. His offence:Col. Gross violated the defendant’s sensitivities by ordering Maj. Nidal Hasan to shave his beard. The Army was forced to accommodate the shooter by firing judge Col. Gross and letting the Army Colonel know that it was not his place to enforce Army regulation. The beard issue must not have been [....]
Until Next Sunday....