Life is a Bungling process...
Jean Giraudoux who first said, “Only the mediocre are always at their best.”
"the difference between a negotiation and an argument ... an argument being something you can win." Christopher Buckley (Thank You For Smoking)
If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. Sir Winston Churchill
"summum ius summa iniuria" ("More laws, more injustice.") Cicero
"Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald Reagan
"Why did God make so many damn fools and Democrats?" Clarence Day
“You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.” Stan Laurel – “Brats”
"If I feel like feeding squirrels to the nuts, this is the place for it." - Cluny Brown
"Oh, pshaw! When yu' can't have what you choose, yu' just choose what you have." Owen Wister "The Virginian"
Oscar Wilde said about the death scene in Little Nell, you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
"Half the World spends its time laughing at the other half, and both are fools." from Think Fast Mr. Moto
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Why are Gas Prices So High? The Government Wants Them High! DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices
Many would argue that Obama is also "anti-Western, anti-Christian[, and] antisemitic." Judging by his policies, they would be right.
Dr. Essam Abdallah, an Egyptian liberal intellectual, in an article published last October in the leading liberal pan-Arab journal Elaph, refers to certain reports coming out of Washington:
These reports reveal the depth of the below-the-surface coordination between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan. This bloc of regimes and organizations is now becoming the greatest Islamist radical lobby ever to penetrate and infiltrate the White House, Congress, the State Department and the main decision making centers of the US government. All of this is happening at a time when the US government is going through its most strategically dangerous period in modern times because of its need to confront the Iranian Mullahs regime, which is expanding in the Middle East, as well as penetrating the United States, via powerful and influential allies.
Abdallah alleged that "the popular revolts in the Arab world -- and the Obama Administration's position towards them -- were determined by political battles between various pressure groups in Washington."
He followed up with another article this month in which he asks:
[W]hy isn't the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?
Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism said of this article: "This is one of the most important articles I have read in years." He then made allegations of his own:
It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed "offensive." The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered "offensive" but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered "anti-Islam" by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
This comes as no surprise to me. In August of 2011, after making the case, I wrote, "To my mind, the alliance between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood is the cornerstone of Obama's New Middle East policy."
The most damning bit of evidence was reported by Herb London in his article, "U.S. Betrays Syria's Opposition":
-go to link to read on-
...As part of the GM bailout's complex arrangements, a UAW-owned trust was given a 17.5 percent ownership stake the car company (now roughly 10% as stock has been sold) in exchange for various concessions including the union taking responsibility for health care costs of retirees. The president today argued that with reduced hours and pay, some worker rights relinquished, and roughly 700,000 auto worker retirees seeing a reduction in health care benefits, workers indeed gave things up in the bailout.
The visit was an "official" presidential event, not campaign-related, but the odd dynamic when the president took the stage to chants of "Four More Years!" after which a labor official told the crowd, "This is not a political event."
That seemed a questionable assertion, given how the president continually referenced Romney, defending how his moves to save GM and Chrysler demanded change and accountability. "The other option we had was to do nothing, and allow these companies to fail," the president said. "In fact, some politicians said we should. Some even said we should 'let Detroit go bankrupt'" - another reference to Romney's New York Times op-ed.
The crowd booed at that reference.
"You remember that?" the president said to the crowd that clearly did. "You know him?"
"Think about what that choice would have meant for this country," the president said. "If we had turned our backs on you; if America had thrown in the towel; GM and Chrysler had gone under."...
-more of this ---- at the link-
-More at link-
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
...Or what about the period after World War II? Twelve million American soldiers were coming home. Should we cut tax rates and spending, and let private markets expand to supply those jobs, or should we continue FDR’s losing strategy of massive federal spending on government jobs? Americans chose the free market approach–cutting federal spending by two-thirds and tax rates as well. Millions of jobs were created making a variety of products, including cars, refrigerators, and (soon) televisions.
Happily, we overrode chants for massive federal intervention that wafted through the halls of university economics departments after the war. Dr. Leo Barnes, chief economist for Prentice-Hall, summed up their view this way: “To raise employment to 60 million jobs and keep it there will demand even more thoroughgoing government direction of our economic life.” The good news, which my wife Anita and I describe in FDR Goes To War, is that in 1945 we chose more freedom rather than more government, and we beat back unemployment and ended the Great Depression. We could end the current recession by following the formula of 1945 and having less faith in government and more faith in freedom for our economy–cut Sarbannes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank. Obamacare, and the high corporate tax rate.
-go to link-
Historians often disdain the Big Seven, but in our current economic crisis we should remember the large debt we had after the Civil War, and the principled stand our next seven presidents made to slash the national debt and establish U.S. credit around the world–and thereby increase the character and reputation of American business everywhere.
The U.S. faced colossal debt from the Civil War, and the Big Seven–those presidents after Lincoln–put the nation’s financial house in order.
During the Civil War, the U.S. national debt increased from $65 million to $2.7 billion–more than a forty-fold increase from 1860 (before the war started) to 1866 (the first year after the war ended). Would our nation’s leaders make an effort to pay off this debt, or would they instead court voters with new federal programs? For the next 27 years, the Big Seven–Presidents Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, and Harrison–all moved in the same direction. They had budget surpluses each year, 27 straight years, and in so doing they chopped off two-thirds of the U.S. national debt. In 1893, that debt was down to $961 million, and, despite a downturn during that decade, the U.S. was where the international action was. We attracted record numbers of immigrants from Europe, we attracted capital from leading financiers abroad, and our products–from steel rails to kerosene lamps–were often the finest in the world. The U.S. was strong in large part because the Big Seven made sure our credit was strong.
Let me highlight a few accomplishments of the Big Seven. President Hayes made sure our paper money that had been issued during the Civil War would be backed by gold; President Grant helped abolish the income tax, which spurred investment; President Cleveland vetoed 414 bills during his first term–many of them spending bills that would have drained the U.S. treasury.
-more at link-
The Daily Caller first reported one week ago on emails and documents that indicate political ties and numerous meetings between LightSquared and Obama administration officials as the was undergoing regulatory review.
Ahuja’s resignation comes after Obama’s FCC suspended conditional approval of a waiver LightSquared needed to complete its high-speed broadband network. Until two weeks ago, the company’s final approval appeared imminent.
Ahuja, who had never donated to Democrats before and has not since, gave the maximum allowable $30,400 contribution to the Democratic National Committee on the same day his lawyers were trying to arrange a meeting for him at the White House with top Obama technology adviser Aneesh Chopra and other officials.
In a statement accompanying the company’s announcement of Ahuja’s resignation, he made no mention of those revelations.
“During my tenure at LightSquared, we all worked tirelessly to create the nation’s first open wireless broadband network and provide consumers with a new wireless broadband experience,” Ahuja said. “That work continues and I wish the company and its fine management team well as they work to achieve this important goal.”Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/28/lightsquared-ceo-resigns-amid-revelations-of-companys-proximity-to-obama-white-house/#ixzz1nirQwLcX
Monday, February 27, 2012
It is going after anyone and anything anti-democrat - Is the IRS Attempting to Intimidate Local Tea Parties?
Is the IRS Attempting to Intimidate Local Tea Parties?
by Colleen Owens 2-27-12 [full post in case it gets shut down]
In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various
local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have
reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several
common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties
in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not
deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I
say, Orwellian in nature.
What are local Tea Partiers to think with requests like “Please identify your volunteers” or “are there board
members or officers who have run or will run for office (including relatives)”? What possible reason would
the IRS have for Tea Parties to “name your donors” when said donations are non-deductible? These are
just a few of the questions asked by the IRS in these letters, and one cannot help but suspect an intrinsic
threat encompassing all these demands.
The other question is the timing of these IRS letters requesting reams of copies and hundreds of hours of
work and potentially thousands of dollars in accounting/legal fees (all due in two weeks). Some of these
Tea Party groups have not received anything concerning their nonprofit status since 2010 prior to these
These documents are further undermined by a letter sent to the IRS Commissioner Shulman. Signed by six
Senators, it requests that the commissioner investigate 501(c)(4) groups to determine whether they are
engaging in substantial campaign activity, including opposition to any candidate. Who signed this letter?
Senators Schumer, Franken, Udall, Shaheen, Whitehouse, Merkley and Bennet — all Democrats.
Could it be that these Senators want the IRS to investigate the nonprofit status of Media Matters and its
coordinated political activity with the White House? Or perhaps they are concerned with nonprofit ACORN
groupsʼ record of voter fraud, and other previous campaign abuses including alleged close ties with
President Obamaʼs Project Vote? No, when these Senators sent this letter to the IRS commissioner, the
message would be very clear. The 501(c)(4) groups they want investigated are not those with Democratic
But why would a department like the IRS cave to Democrat demands? Could it be because this Democratic
administration proposed a budget earlier this month that would result in “$1.1 billion in new funds for
the Internal Revenue Service… that would translate to 5,112 new hires, or a 5 percent expansion of
enforcement operations”? Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, couldnʼt
contain her glee at the prospect of over 5,000 new union hires, exclaiming in response to the
announcement that “the administrationʼs 2012 funding level for the IRS would permit the agency to
improve services through increasing response rates to inquiries, deploying enforcement resources to
what the White House called high-return integrity activities and by modernizing information technology
The IRS is already focusing on “deploying enforcement resources,” as Kelley put it, toward targeting small,
local Tea Parties; weʼre sorry to report that these “high-return integrity activities” are generating a higher
fear factor, not necessarily higher returns.
In the near future, the Affordable Healthcare Act mandate and all things related to healthcare are to be
policed and enforced by the IRS. This means thousands more IRS agents will be added, but the actual
number is yet unknown. Considering that healthcare accounts for 1/6th of the U.S. economy, it will
probably be a significant number of additional agents. According to the tax administration inspector
general, Russell George, “The new Affordable Care Act provisions represents the largest set of tax law
changes in 20 years.” Thatʼs an overwhelming thought considering there are over 70,000 pages of federal
The Tea Party movement is well known for wanting to shrink the size of government and decrease
government spending because of the ballooning deficit. This means that unionized government
employees that may be out of a job if the Tea Party is successful also have the power to choose whether or
not Tea Party groups get nonprofit status. And those same employees are also requesting names and
information of board members, volunteers, donors, invited speakers(and party affiliation) and just about
anyone that has had any association with the Tea Party.
It is apparent that there is a potential conflict of interest and it could be used to stifle the right to free
speech of the Tea Party members, or any other citizen willing to question the system and powers that be.
Many Tea Party boards are afraid to speak out publicly about these intrusive requests because of fear of
being personally targeted and singled out by the IRS. This is especially scary to citizens of modest
incomes that donʼt have the financial means to hire accountants or tax attorneys. And that is probably the
point. Cower and fade away, or face possible persecution at the hands of government bureaucrats.
Some people may read this article about this possibly-coordinated effort against Tea Parties and be glad.
But, the tables can easily be turned if and when another party takes control. The potential of using the IRS
as a weapon against those that disagree with the people in power is exactly why the Tea Party fears the
growth of government.
If your Tea Party has received similar letters, please let me know (Colleen Owens, email@example.com)
and I will put you in contact with other Tea Parties that have also received them. I will not publish your
Tea Party or names publicly.
Remember the words of Ben Franklin, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
Cubicleism - Here is why the Collective and Communism can't ever work or even just force us into cubicles
A growing body of empirical evidence is undermining the claim that racial preferences in college benefit their recipients. Students who are admitted to schools for which they are inadequately prepared in fact learn less than they would in a student body that matches their own academic level. As an ongoing controversy at Duke University demonstrates, however, such pesky details may have no effect on the longevity of the preference regime.
Duke admits black students with SAT scores on average over one standard deviation below those of whites and Asians (blacks’ combined math and verbal SATs are 1275; whites’ are 1416, and Asians’, 1457). Not surprisingly, blacks’ grades in their first semester are significantly lower than those of other ethnic groups, but by senior year, the difference between black and white students’ grades has shrunk almost 50 percent. This convergence in GPA might seem to validate preferential admissions by suggesting that Duke identifies minority students with untapped academic potential who will narrow the gap with their white and Asian peers over their college careers.
Now three Duke researchers have demonstrated that such catching-up is illusory. Blacks improve their GPAs because they switch disproportionately out of more demanding science and economics majors into the humanities and soft social sciences, which grade much more liberally and require less work. If black students stayed in the sciences at the same rate as whites, there would be no convergence in GPAs. And even after their exodus from the sciences, blacks don’t improve their class standing in their four years of college.
This study, by economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, sociology professor Ken Spenner, and economics graduate student Esteban Aucejo, has major implications for the nationwide effort to increase the number of minority scientists. The federal government alone has spent billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money trying to boost minority participation in science; racial preferences play a key role in almost all college science initiatives. The Arcidiacono paper suggests that admitting aspiring minority scientists to schools where they are less prepared than their peers is counterproductive.
The most surprising finding of the study is that, of incoming students who reported a major, more than 76 percent of black male freshmen at Duke intended to major in the hard sciences or economics, higher even than the percentage of white male freshmen who anticipated such majors. But more than half of those would-be black science majors switched track in the course of their studies, while less than 8 percent of white males did, so that by senior year, only 35 percent of black males graduated with a science or economics degree, while more than 63 percent of white males did. Had those minority students who gave up their science aspirations taken Introductory Chemistry among students with similar levels of academic preparation, they would more likely have continued with their original course of study, as the unmatched record of historically black colleges in graduating science majors suggests. Instead, finding themselves in classrooms pitched at a more advanced level of math or science than they have yet mastered, preference recipients may conclude that they are not cut out for quantitative fields—or, equally likely, that the classroom “climate” is racist—whereas the problem may just be that they have not yet laid the foundations for more advanced work.
-more at link-
Don't hold your breath on him asking for Euro-Asian-Latin-American Support! Obama Plays Race Card, Calls on Black Churches to Support Campaign
The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.
Not only is Obama playing the race card in an attempt to pressure black Americans into voting for him, he is also violating the separation between church and state. In the video promo for the campaign, Obama urges black people to pressure churches into supporting his administration by getting his message out via “the faith community”. He also calls on voters to become “congregation captains”.
Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.
“I thought race didn’t matter Mr. President?”
Apologies sure helped: A supporter of the Human Rights Network group wears a mask of Barack Obama with a noose around his neck
"Liar," one man screamed out below the footlights, as others cheered him on
Are the outbursts a sign of growing dissent among the voter ranks and that Barack Obama's approval rating is on the decline around the country today?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
We have officially lost our minds.
...Obama has sent a formal letter of apology to Afghanistan’s ingrate president, Hamid Karzai, for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The only upside of the apology is that it appears (based on the Times account) to be couched as coming personally from our blindly Islamophilic president — “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. . . . I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies.” It is not couched as an apology from the American people, whose frame of mind will be outrage, not contrition, as the facts become more widely known. ...
The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. ...
Muslim leaders and their leftist apologists are also forever lecturing the United States about “proportionality” in our war-fighting. Yet when it comes to Muslim proportionality, Americans are supposed to shrug meekly and accept the “you burn books, we kill people” law of the jungle. Disgustingly, the Times would inure us to this moral equivalence by rationalizing that “Afghans are fiercely protective of their Islamic faith.” Well then, I guess that makes it all right, huh? ...
-more at link-