Sunday, December 9, 2012

The Sunday 'Report;' 12/09/2012 [Part 3]

What The National Pamphleteers Don't Report:
9 Daily Habits That Will Make You Happier
by Geoffrey James,
November 5, 2012
These minor changes in your daily routine will make a major difference in your life and career. 
Happiness is the only true measure of personal success. Making other people happy is the highest expression of success, but it's almost impossible to make others happy if you're not happy yourself.
With that in mind, here are nine small changes that you can make to your daily routine that, if you're like most people, will immediately increase the amount of happiness in your life:
1. Start each day with expectation.
If there's any big truth about life, it's that it usually lives up to (or down to) your expectations. Therefore, when you [....]
2. Take time to plan and prioritize.
The most common source of stress is the perception that you've got too much work to do. Rather than obsess about it, pick one [....]

[Blogger Note: Clear indications--just one week in--that "Clown Prince" obama is in way over his head and would never recover!]
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum
by V. Putin,
Davos, Switzerland
January 28, 2009
Good afternoon, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to thank the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals.
The world is now facing the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an unprecedented pace.
The current situation is often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s. True, there are some similarities.
However, there are also some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations have found themselves in the same boat.
There is a certain concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis resembles such a perfect storm.
Responsible and knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up unexpectedly.
The current situation is no exception either. Although the crisis was simply hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave.
In the last few months, virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States. But I will do nothing of the kind.
I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. [Emphasis: Blogger]
This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism. [....]

by The Editors,
December 4, 2012

    Filibuster “reform” — intermittently called, over the last decade or so, the “nuclear option” — is something of a moving target. We have consistently maintained that a majority of the Senate may constitutionally curtail the filibuster or leave it as it is. But particular exercises of that power may be deeply unwise or even obnoxious. So it is in the case of the current Democratic initiative.
    Details remain murky, but it appears that Harry Reid intends to force the minority to mount a “talking filibuster” on cloture votes, meaning dissenting senators will have to physically occupy the floor to assert their minority rights at all. And he plans to outright end the 60-vote requirement on most procedural matters, including, critically, the motion to begin debate on legislation. This change reduces the minority’s ability to compel the majority to let them offer amendments to bills. Reid has greatly expanded the practice of “filling the tree,” disallowing Republican amendments to protect his caucus from potentially damaging votes. Many Republican filibusters led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have been punitive responses to this practice. Freed of such a threat, Reid would have more time to push his agenda and less incentive to allow Republican input.
    Reid intends to do all this during a brief window at the [....]

Egypt And The Strategic Balance
by George Friedman,
December 4, 2012
    Immediately following the declaration of a cease-fire in Gaza, Egypt was plunged into a massive domestic crisis. Mohammed Morsi, elected in the first presidential election after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, passed a decree that would essentially neuter the independent judiciary by placing his executive powers above the high court and proposed changes to the constitution that would institutionalize the Muslim Brotherhood's power. Following the decree, Morsi's political opponents launched massive demonstrations that threw Egypt into domestic instability and uncertainty.
    In the case of most countries, this would not be a matter of international note. But Egypt is not just another country. It is the largest Arab country and one that has been the traditional center of the Arab world. Equally important, if Egypt's domestic changes translate into shifts in its foreign policy, it could affect the regional balance of power for decades to come.
Morsi's Challenge to the Nasserite Model
The Arab Spring was seen by some [....]
Egypt and the Strategic Balance | Stratfor

Will The Illegal “Re-writing” Of ObamaCare Never End?
by Doug Book,
December 6, 2012
Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in order to rescue it from the Constitution. The IRS rewrote the law in order to rescue it from financial oblivion. And the leftist scribes who authored ObamaCare claim none of this illegal, post-legislative tampering really matters. For they contend that what they wrote in the law is not as important as what they really meant!
John Roberts stunned and angered “fellow” conservative justices on the Supreme Court when he deliberately ignored the actual language of the Affordable Care Act in ruling the law Constitutional. For although the law’s authors were careful to avoid any use of the word TAX, Robert’s ruled the individual mandate to be just that, allowing him to find the mandate Constitutional under the congressional power to tax. It was this dishonest interpretation of Congress’ “intent” that has permitted ObamaCare to continue on.
On May 23rd, the IRS finalized a rule making tax credits “…available to participants in federally run health insurance exchanges…” It was through such exchanges that ObamaCare’s authors intended for individuals and business to shop for and acquire health insurance. And the available tax credits were to make that coverage affordable. In this way, the ACA intended to FORCE states [....]

Property Rights 101: The Foundation Of Capitalism Explained
Staff Report,
Undated Material
The foundation of capitalism is property.
Every non-capitalist system requires violating property rights. Socialism steals almost all property, the nanny-state bans some property and regulates others, the welfare system steals and gives away property, and cronyism both steals and regulates property in a way that makes the corrupt rich; all violations of capitalism requires violating property in some way.
This is why it’s fundamental for capitalists to understand why we believe in a system of property rights, why we should defend property, and what property rights do entail. The fundamental debate about capitalism is a debate about property.
We can’t lose sight of how important this debate is. As property rights go, so goes capitalism.
Property rights are interesting concepts, because they’re based on the fact that it’s impossible to get everything we want out of life unless we establish a kind of rationing system. Otherwise, we experience the “tragedy of the commons”, and every resource is depleted and every action begins to have little to do with what’s best for the long-term. In the short-term, people starve, and civilization becomes literally impossible. But let’s back up and start from the beginning.
You Can’t Always Get What You Want
“…like the philosopher Jagger once said, ‘You can’t always get what you want.’”
-House MD
At some point in history, two cavemen realized they both wanted the same rock. So they fought over it to the bloody death. At a later point in history, two cavemen realized they both wanted the same deer. So they fought over it to the bloody death. At a later point in history, two cavemen realized they needed a system for deciding who could “own” what without someone having to die. Thus, the idea of property rights was invented.
There’s more to it, of course. There are moral, economic, rationing, and even philosophically axiomatic reasons for believing in property rights. It’s an important discussion, and at the root of the discussion is the answer to anarchy, libertarianism, conservatism, Objectivism, and every other kind of political-ism. If we understand what property is and why we have it, we begin to understand why a social system of capitalism isn’t just good for us — it’s necessary for survival itself.
Definition of Property: What Are Property Rights?
Property rights are when someone has [....]

UN Gun Grab: What You Need To Know
by Shaun Connell,
November 10, 2012
[Blogger Note:  If you are a gun-owner, a constitutionalist, a conservative, a lover of freedom and liberty; this is probably the most important blog post you'll EVER read!!]
    Within hours of president Obama winning reelection, the United States signaled to the UN that we wanted to begin talks about an international gun control treaty. The general argument was that we needed to stop bad guys from getting guns, so everyone should sign a treaty regulating firearms. They promised, however, that it wouldn’t impact us — they promise! Just those international arms dealers. Here’s the text of the treaty.
    Those of us who believe in the Second Amendment know to always be suspicious when it comes to guns, because the general anti-gun movement is based on intellectual dishonesty, direct attacks on the constitution, and a desire to disarm us all. Unfortunately, some people are naive, and believe the treaty is “just” about international arms shipments. It absolutely isn’t.  But I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional or international legal expert. Thankfully, my friend Dr. Michael Farris happens to be both. He’s a renowned constitutional lawyer who has defended liberty in courtrooms across America, received his JD from Gonzaga University, has an LLM in international law from the University of London, is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and is the founder of Patrick Henry College. When he says anything about the law, it pays to listen. His thoughts are posted and explained below.
Until Next Sunday....



No comments: