Catawissa Gazetteer

UPDATE ON GINGRICH AND WHEN LIFE BEGINS

2011-12-05T12:57:00.003-06:00

Lifenews.com posted an article today with this clarification of the implantation issue by Gingrich:

"“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception,” Gingrich said in the statement. “I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.”

“That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life,” Gingrich continued."

I have to wonder if the most brilliant man in the room is really capable of being so clear and unambiguous in his comments regarding implantation only to turn around, and doing his best Emily Latilla, say, "Never mind!"

Something's just not right here. Either he was caught with his pants down and let the truth show or he's really not as brilliant as he'd like us all to believe. That the implantation remark could be just a simple foul up is impossible for me to believe, at least if he has any real convictions or principles regarding life issues.

And that's why I don't trust him. He's just another politician looking for votes and he'll say anything he has to or sit next to Pelosi on any couch he needs to if it'll help him get those votes.

In the end, all of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses. All I'm looking for is the one that is honest, that shows true character and that says what they believe and believes what they say. Gingrich isn't the one.

GINGRICH ON THE BEGINNING OF LIFE - POLITICS OR PRINCIPLE?

2011-12-04T06:27:00.000-06:00

ABC News is reporting that in an interview with Jake Tapper, Newt Gingrich states that he believe life begins at implantation, not conception, a break with both Catholic teaching and many if not most in the anti-abortion movement.

"TAPPER: Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet “pre-human” because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?

GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’

I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions"

Many may see this as a case of semantic silliness but it isn't. In my opinion it signifies a certain cowardice which is betrayed by the last sentence in the quote above. Gingrich is right that to believe life begins at conception does open the door to many questions that are difficult, questions that have a direct bearing on whether the many medical procedures that create embryos for implantation or in fact creating babies, tiny human beings that are then used as things to be implanted, frozen, thrown away or experimented on.

For a man like Gingrich, one that never seems to shy from a fight about ideas, it's nearly impossible to believe that just the fact that difficult questions are created would be enough to preclude him from accepting something as true. I don't believe this is the reason he takes the stand that he does in the interview.

Gingrich goes on to say:

"Implantation and successful implantation. In addition I would say that I’ve never been for embryonic stem cell research per se. I have been for, there are a lot of different ways to get embryonic stem cells. I think if you can get embryonic stem cells for example from placental blood if you can get it in ways that do not involve the loss of a life that’s a perfectly legitimate avenue of approach.

What I reject is the idea that we’re going to take one life for the purpose of doing research for other purposes and I think that crosses a threshold of de-humanizing us that’s very very dangerous."

This is where we get to the heart of the matter; he's trying to have it both ways. If he honestly accepts the argument that he's put forth, that life begins at implantation, not conception, then he shouldn't have any problem at all with any use of none implanted embryos. But in the above quote he says that he's nearly always opposed embryonic stem cell research. Why?

I think I know. He's trying to walk a fine line. He doesn't want to offend the pro-aborts in the Republican party, the big pharma and medical research firms that donate money or the Dems that just might cross the line because they've become so frustrated with the direction their party has taken. But at the same time he's throwing a bone to the pro-life camp, giving them something to hang their hats on so they can still vote for him with a clear conscience. He figures he's probably got their vote anyway when it comes right down to it so he just has to give 'em a friendly nudge.

This is the kind of thing I'm watching for with Gingrich. He's showing his true colors here. He's more interested in politics than principle in the abortion battle.

And, if he's willing to throw babies under the bus to get elected, what else will he do?

So the question remains - has Gingrich changed? It's not looking good so far.

HAS GINGRICH CHANGED?

2011-12-02T07:32:00.000-06:00

OK, so the player doesn't fit the page. Honestly, I'm not much in the mood to figure out the code changes I need to make to fix it. And it's an audio file once you get past the commercial anyway so who cares.

I've been listening to a lot of Gingrich over the past few weeks. I gotta admit that I'm a bit leery of him. Fool me once... Anyway, after listening to this clip and reading his comments on the Eucharist I have to wonder - has he changed?

I'm Catholic. I was born Catholic and raised, more or less (probably less in the long run) Catholic. By the time I was thirteen we no longer went to church. I grew up, got married, had kids and still I didn't really go to church any more than absolutely necessary. Too busy drinking and smoking dope, working, dealing with life and all the other excuses one normally comes up with.

I did come back, though. There were a number of reasons, some powerfully spiritual and some purely based on reason. It's the latter that makes me think that Gingrich may have undergone a profound change.

Gingrich is a man of letters. He writes and lectures. He seems to be deeply attracted to debate, both as sport and as a learning tool. He generally uses logic in his arguments which is why he is so very good at winning them. I've watched him systematically dismantle the arguments of others by finding the weaknesses and exploiting them simply by pointing them out and opening them to question. Very much like so many great Catholic scholars have over the last 2000 years, Aquinas coming immediately to mind.

In this love of logic and argument Gingrich and I are very similar. Obviously, he's way smarter than I am (not false modesty but observable reality). And in the end, it's my personal predisposition towards debate that brought me back to the church and created a fundamental change in me.

I was challenged by co-workers, all of a Pentecostal persuasion, about the legitimacy of Catholic belief. Not being one to shy from an argument but also not being one to advance into battle without arms, I set about to learn as much about the faith of my birth as I could. Not because I planned on returning to it but because I wanted to win a fight.

What I found was not some superstitious, lock step belief system based on power and authority of the political or human type but a system of teachings over 2000 years old, never changing but always growing, based first on logic and reason but then, based on the irrefutable findings of that reasoning, willing to step off the cliff of faith, knowing that no other honest response was possible. I found a faith that worships God, not because a book of dubious origin (at least that's what I thought when I heard the Protestant explanation for why I should trust it) commands it, but because reason, moving in the river of revealed knowledge, demands it.

This changed me and everything about me, completely and irrevocably. I would never be able to think or act the same way again. Once presented with truth we are forced to decide whether to follow it or not. We're either all in or out. There's no middle ground. That doesn't mean we don't fall every now and then. It means we keep our eyes on the prize, get up and keeping working towards the truth.

I'm not the same guy I was 20 years ago. Not by a long shot.

Which forces me to ask this question about Gingrich; has he undergone the same sort of fundamental change because of his faith? If he has then I would have to think that he isn't the same person that lived the life he lived long ago and that knowing what he knows and understands to be the truth now he wouldn't have done many of the things he did.

That doesn't mean he won't do them again. I know I have certain predispositions built into me by constant involvement in pointless stupidity over a big chunk of my life. We all have weaknesses and we all have certain responses that we fall back on in given situations that need to be unlearned. And that's a time consuming process.

I know that in my case, learning to think like the Church after these last 10+ years of reading Church history, Papal Encyclicals and so many of the works of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church has fundamentally altered the way my brain works. I think in a different way now. Catholicism does that to you if you avail yourself of the treasure trove of knowledge it's generated over 2000 years.

I'm thinking, based on what I know about Gingrich, that his journey to the Church probably involved a good deal of reading, research and debate. And I would guess that all of this has caused a change in him that will be reflected in his life, his decisions and the way he sees everything around him.

I'll be watching him more closely. I still have a bunch of questions. But the things I'm hearing from him on issues such as immigration make me think that he's been changed, that the teachings of Holy Mother Church have taken root.

I may find myself able to vote for him after all.

SOCIAL INJUSTICE: CCHD CORRUPTION EXPOSED BY REAL CATHOLIC TV

2011-11-04T06:45:00.000-05:00

To see the documentation for the charges leveled in the show above click here.

MORE ON THE VATICAN AND GLOBAL ECONOMICS

2011-10-25T08:27:00.002-05:00

Go to the Market Ticker and read his post about the paper released by the Vatican yesterday. I agree with him and his assessment of the Vatican's position. And since he's a financial professional and a much better writer than I am he can explain it a whole lot better.

THE POPE CALLS FOR ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT? IN YOUR DREAMS MR. MARX

2011-10-24T12:54:00.000-05:00

"What is valid on the national level is also valid on the global level. A person is not made to serve authority unconditionally. Rather, it is the task of authority to be at the service of the person, consistent with the pre-eminent value of human dignity. Likewise, governments should not serve the world Authority unconditionally. Instead, it is the world Authority that should put itself at the service of the various member countries, according to the principle of subsidiarity. Among the ways it should do this is by creating the socio-economic, political and legal conditions essential for the existence of markets that are efficient and efficacious because they are not over-protected by paternalistic national policies and not weakened by systematic deficits in public finances and of the gross national products – indeed, such policies and deficits actually hamper the markets themselves in operating in a world context as open and competitive institutions."
TOWARDS REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY

This is one key paragraph from the recent paper published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace that will be roundly ignored by the media. This isn't a call for one world government. In fact, it's just the opposite. It's a call for a distributive (not re-distributive) form of economics that pushes the means of production and the wealth as close to the family as possible.

The media on both sides of the spectrum are too lazy to actually read the paper and then put it in the context of Catholic Social Teaching. That wouldn't give them the sensational story they're looking for.

SETTING THE STAGE

2011-10-18T08:51:00.002-05:00

IS IT TIME FOR A RADICAL SOLUTION?

2011-10-18T08:30:00.000-05:00

From Ioannes at Commentarius de Prognosticis:

Law to Remedy the Distress of the People of the United States of America

The House of Representatives has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Senate, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Nation may also be enacted by the government of the United States. This includes the laws referred to by the Constitution.

Article 2

Laws enacted by the government of the United States may deviate from the Constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The rights of the Speaker of the Senate remain undisturbed.

Article 3

Laws enacted by the United States’ government shall be issued by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and announced in the Congressional Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the United States government.

Article 4

Treaties of the United States with foreign states which affect matters of United States’ legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the United States shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.

Article 5

This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force four years from enactment or if the present United States’ government is replaced by another.

Is this for real? Could a law like this be proposed? Has one like this ever been proposed before anywhere? Did it pass? What sort of problems could lead up to this? Are any of these problems facing us today?

Click on this link and find out.

BANKS REFUSE TO ALLOW PROTESTERS TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN MONEY

2011-10-18T06:29:00.000-05:00

The Blaze is reporting that #OWS protestors in Santa Cruz, part of Occupy Santa Cruz, were not allowed to close their accounts at Bank of America. The reason given by the bank was that because they were protesters they could not at the same time be customers. Really?

I understand that there is a push among the protesters to get people to withdraw their money from the big banks and put it into local Credit Unions. And I also think that there is more to this than just a simple act of protest. I think that the intent of protest organizers is to cause a collapse of the banking system with the intent of bringing down the entire financial system in America and then the world.

But, if a protester has money in a bank then he should be able to withdraw it any time he wants. It's his money - his property. The bank is merely providing a service to the property owner. It doesn't have any control over the property.

I can understand a bank asking to have a bit of advance notice for really large withdrawals but they ought'a make that clear up front. Outside of that, hand over the property to the property owner.

I'm also curious about the legal foundation that the police are standing on when they back the bank up. I mean, if I had my car parked in a private pay lot and the owner of the lot refused to give it to me because he didn't like the way I looked would the police deny me my property rights there, too?

I'm opposed to these protests for many, many reasons but I'm also opposed to the violation of basic natural law rights. Further, I think that it's a great idea to pull all of your money from these giant banks and move it to your local credit union or locally owned bank. I think that we should be doing all we can do to move from global to local.

And that's the glaring contradiction that I see in these protests. They say one thing yet lead to another. They preach localism and then turn around and protest in favor of policies and beliefs that will have the affect of transferring power away from the individual and to the state, policies such as universal healthcare, housing and college tuition.

I think that most of the protesters, while they may have what they consider to be good intentions, are in reality useful idiots being manipulated by larger forces that in the end will turn on them and drive them and us into slavery.

QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED

2011-10-17T17:33:00.000-05:00

This is an excellent set of questions posted on Glenn Beck's website this afternoon. These are the questions that we should all be asking because the time is coming, hell, it's already here, when we'll have to choose and make a stand. We need to understand the choice we're making because it will have consequences.

I understand the frustrations of many that are protesting around the world. That being said I also believe that what they're doing will lead to chaos. Unlike the TEA Party, these groups seem intent on revolution, not restoration.

WHO STARTED OCCUPY WALL STREET?
>> WHO IS THE FATHER OF OWS?
>> HOW DID THIS MOVEMENT START?
>> WHO PLANNED THIS EVENT?
>> WHO IS PAYING FOR THE MADISON AVENUE MARKETING FIRM? THE NEWSPAPERS? THE FLYERS?
>> WHAT ROLE DID SEIU PLAY IN THE PLANNING OF THIS EVENT?
>> WHO IS STEPHEN LEARNER?
>> WHO IS VAN JONES?
>> WHAT IS THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS?
>> WHO IS GEORGE SOROS?
>> WHAT IS HIS RELATIONSHIP TO CAP?
>> IS HE A CRONY CAPITALIST?
>> DOES HE PAY HIS FAIR SHARE?
>> IS HE GETTING RICH OFF OF THE CORRUPT SYSTEM OF WALL STREET SPECULATION?
>> HOW DOES HE MAKE HIS MONEY?
>> HE MADE $7 BILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR PERSONALLY THROUGH HIS HEDGE FUND AND INVESTMENTS — IS THAT OKAY? IF YES, WHY? IF NO, WHY?

ECONOMY
>> NAME THE TIME IN HISTORY THE GLOBAL ECONOMY COLLAPSED (AS IT IS SHAPING UP TO DO NOW)
>> IF YOU CANNOT… PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME… WHY NOT?
>> IF YOU WERE TO PLAN A GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE – HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE BETWEEN THE CORRUPT SYSTEM WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND THE NEW SYSTEM YET TO BE CREATED?
>> WOULD THERE BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?
>> COULD PEOPLE DIE?
>> IF NONE, WHY?
>> IF YES, ESTIMATE HOW MANY — AND HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THOSE DEATHS?
>> BY COLLAPSING THE SYSTEM (WALL STREET) AND CAUSING ECONOMIC CHAOS – HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU DIFFERENT THAN ONE OF THE CORPORATIONS YOU ARE PROTESTING?

FAIR SHARE:
AGREED: PEOPLE SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES.
QUESTIONS
>>WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? WHAT IS FAIR?
>>IF IT’S NOT ZERO – PLEASE EXPLAIN GE (AND WHY WASN’T IMMELT ON THE RICH HOMES TOUR?)
>> WHAT ABOUT GEORGE SOROS?
>>RUSSELL SIMMONS?
>>KANYE WEST??.
>>ARE THEY WALL STREET CRIMINALS? ARE THEY NOT AN EVIL CORPORATION IN BED WITH GOV?
>> CAN THERE BE GOOD PEOPLE IN AN EVIL CORPORATION? IF SO, HOW DO YOU JUDGE WHO IS WHO?
>> GE PAYS NO INCOME TAX, THEIR CEO IS ON THE PRESIDENTS ECONOMIC COUNCIL – WHY DO YOU NOT PROTEST GE? DO YOU SUPPORT THIS PRESIDENT OR ADMINISTRATION?
>>EXPLAIN GREEN WEEK on NBC
>> IF YES IN ANY WAY…WHY?
>>IF HE IS IN BED OR EXCUSES BEHAVIOR SO BAD THAT THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE COLLAPSED SHOULDN’T HE BE DEEMED GUILTY AS WELL?
>> IF YES, EXPLAIN WHY.
>> IF YES COMPARE GE GREEN WEEK ANSWER ABOVE

CAPITALISM IS DESTROYING AMERICA

ROCKEFELLER, ASTOR MELLON, AND CARNEGIE ARE KNOWN AS “ROBBER BARRONS” AND WOULD PROBABLY BE TARGETS OF OCCUPY WALL STREET.

>>WHO BUILT THE LINCOLN CENTER FOR PERFORMING ARTS?
>> WHO BUILT MOMA?
>> THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY?
>> CARNEGIE HALL?
>> CARNAGE MELLON UNIVERSITY
>> THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART?
>> WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROCKEFELLER CENTER AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY?
>> DOES THIS MEAN CAPITALISM HELPED COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY?
>>HOW DID CAPITALISM HELP COLUMBIA?
>>DOES CAPITALISM HELP OR HURT COLUMBIA TODAY?

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION:
>> DOES YOUR UNIVERSITY SUPPORT THIS ADMINISTRATION AND ITS POLICIES?
>> DID YOU OR THOSE YOU ARE WITH VOTE OR CAMPAIGN FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN THE PAST?
>> ARE YOU CAMPAIGNING FOR HIM NOW?
>> IF SO, ARE YOU BETRAYING YOUR IDEALS BY HELPING SOMEONE WHO HAS COMPROMISED ON IMPORTANT ANTI-CORRUPTION PRINCIPLES?
>> IF HE HAS NOT DONE ALL THAT HE PROMISED TO DO AND IN FACT BETRAYED HOPE AND CHANGE WHAT STOOD IN HIS WAY?
>> COULD YOU NAME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES?
>> HE CLAIMS THAT HE IS NOT IN BED WITH BANKERS AND BIG CORPORATIONS. IS HE LYING?
>> IS HE JUSTIFIED FOR NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IF IT FURTHERS YOUR OR HIS AGENDA?
>> WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS A LEADER CAN LIE TO YOU AND IT BE JUSTIFIED?

INVESTIGATIONS/FINANCIAL
>> WHY HAS THIS ADMINISTRATION NOT DONE INVESTIGATIONS ON BANKS AND BANKERS?
>> WHY HASN’T THIS ADMINISTRATION DONE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE FED?
>> WHY HASN’T THIS ADMINISTRATION DONE INVESTIGATIONS ON FREDDIE OR FANNIE OR SALLY MAC?
>> WHY HAS NO ONE EXCEPT BERNIE MADOFF GONE TO JAIL UNDER THIS OR THE LAST PRESIDENT?
>> WASN’T THE HOPE WE WERE LOOKING FOR AND PROMISED SUPPOSED TO COME FROM A PRESIDENT THAT WAS DIFFERENT? THAT WAS BEYOND POLITICS?
>> WASN’T THE CHANGE THAT AMERICA WAS LOOKING FOR AN END TO CRONY CAPITALISM?
>> WERE YOU WRONG ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT LAST TIME ELECTION?
>> HOW ARE YOU SURE THIS TIME?
>> DID AMERICA LEARN FROM ITS MISTAKE OF NOT DEMANDING A CLEAR DECLARATION OF WHAT HOPE AND CHANGE MEANT?
>> SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A CLEAR PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THIS NEW PRESIDENT REMAINED ON COURSE TO DELIVER THE CHANGE PROMISED AND HOPED FOR OF AN END OF CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM?
>> WHAT IS SOLYNDRA? WHAT IS LIGHT SQUARED?
>> DO YOU THINK THOSE WHO HAVE DESIGNED THIS EVENT (COLLAPSE WALL STREET) SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR PLAN TO MAKE SURE AFTER THE COLLAPSE THEY WILL DELIVER THE CHANGE OF AN END OF CORRUPTION AND CRONYISM?
>> DID IT DISCREDIT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT THAT IT WAS SAID TO BE FUNDED, ORGANIZED AND OR CO-OPTED BY THOSE WHO HAD DIRECT TIES AND INTERESTS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
WOULD IT TAINT OR HURT OCCUPY WALL STREET IF THAT WERE THE CASE HERE?

EQUAL JUSTICE/SOCIAL JUSTICE
>> CAN SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL JUSTICE CO EXIST?
>> IS EVERYONE ON WALL STREET PUNISHED FOR THE CRIMES OF THE GUILTY?
>> IS EVERYONE ON WALL STREET GUILTY?
>> IF NO, ARE YOUR ACTIONS TO COLLAPSE WALL STREET PUNISHING THOSE WHO ARE INNOCENT?
>> IF YES, IS THAT EQUAL JUSTICE IN SEEING THAT YOU WOULD BE PUNISHING THE INNOCENT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE?
>>DO YOU BELIEVE IN FAIR TRAILS? A JURY OF YOUR PEERS? A CHANCE TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERS? GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?
>>SHOULD WALL STREET BANKERS:
A). LOSE THEIR JOBS
B). HAVE ALL OF THEIR WEALTH TAKEN?
C). GO TO JAIL? IF YES, HOW LONG? IF YOU WISH FOR A JUDGE AND JURY TO DECIDE, WHY?
D). IF YES TO BOTH IN C. SEE EQUAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE INCOMPATIBLY ABOVE.

LYNCH MOBS THEN AND NOW
>> DO YOU BELIEVE LYNCH MOBS (IN CIVIL RIGHTS ERA) ARE/WERE WRONG? IF SO, WHY?
>> WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LYNCH MOB AND WHAT YOU ARE BEING ENCOURAGED TO DO NOW? (LEWIS, HOMES OF WEALTHY)

COPS:
>> ARE COPS GOOD OR BAD?
>> ARE THERE GOOD COPS AND BAD COPS?
>> IF THERE ARE BOTH GOOD AND BAD POLICEMEN HOW DO YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
>> IF YOU WERE A COP, A GOOD ONE NOT BAD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO RIGHT NOW IN THIS SITUATION ON WALL STREET?
>> IF YOU WALKED AWAY (AS A COP) AND ALLOWED THE CROWD FREEDOM TO DO AS IT WISHED, WOULD YOU BE A HERO OR A COWARD?
>> WOULD DAMAGE TO PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY BE DONE IF THE POLICE WOULD LEAVE? DOES THAT MATTER?
>> COULD INNOCENT PEOPLE BE HURT? DOES THAT MATTER?
>> IF YOU OR ANYONE IN YOUR GROUP ANSWERED THERE ARE NO INNOCENT HERE — DOES THAT MATTER?
>> IF NO ON ABOVE PLEASE CHECK ANSWER FOR CONSISTENCY ON LYNCH MOBS AND JURY TRIALS?
>> DEFINE MOB RULE – IS THIS GOOD OR BAD?
>> THERE ARE MANY PRISONERS THAT HAVE BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED. IT HAPPENS THE WORLD OVER BUT ESPECIALLY IT SEEMS IN AMERICA. THE RECENT EXECUTION IN GA (ACCORDING TO YOU) IS MERELY ONE EXAMPLE. IN LIGHT OF THIS AND KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY INCARCERATED?
>> IF THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT, HOW WILL YOU ASSESS AND FIX IT?
>> IS IT FAIR TO LEAVE THE POSSIBLE INNOCENT BEHIND BARS WHILE THAT PROCESS IS GOING ON?

COLLEGE: Many of the signs on Occupy Wall Street complain about student loans.

WE AGREE:
>> MANY HAVE STOLEN FROM US
>> NO ONE SHOULD PAY WHAT YOU ARE PAYING (HAVE PAID) FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

>> WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRICE OF EDUCATION?
>> WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRICE OF THAT PRIVATE COLLEGE EDUCATION RISING 8 % JUST LAST
>> HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN YOUR UNIVERSITIES ENDOWMENT FUND?
>> IS THERE NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO LOWER TUITION COSTS?

MOM & DAD

>> ARE YOU SINCERELY WORRIED ABOUT YOUR PARENTS AND WHAT THEY FACE AS WELL AS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR YOU?
>> HAVE YOUR PARENTS WORKED HARD FOR THEIR HOME AND WHAT LITTLE MONEY THEY HAVE SAVED DURING THEIR LIFETIME?
>> IF YOU SUCCEED IN COLLAPSING WALL STREET, WHO IS HURT AND WHO IS HURT THE MOST?
>> ARE YOUR PARENTS HURT? YOUR FRIENDS PARENTS?
>> UNION PENSIONS ARE INVESTED IN WALL STREET
>> YOUR UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT
>> THE AVERAGE AMERICAN (401K) IS INVESTED IN WALL STREET.
>> WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LIFETIME OF WORK BY YOUR PARENTS IF YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE A COLLAPSE OF THE SYSTEM?

FOREIGN COUNTRIES
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY GOVERNMENT ABROAD WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WOULD HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON YOUR FREEDOMS?
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT US TROOPS SHOULD BE CALLED HOME?
>> DO YOU BELIEVE TOUR TROOPS ARE BABY KILLERS? OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO WERE EITHER MISGUIDED OR USED?
>> WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE TROOPS OVERSEAS IF THERE WAS AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE?
>> DO YOU BELIEVE IF YOU DON’T PULL THE TROOPS OUT BEFORE A COLLAPSE THERE WOULD BE A GREATER OR LESSER CHANCE OF MORE KILLING?
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT FORCES ON EITHER SIDE COULD OR WOULD USE AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AS AN EXCUSE FOR MORE KILLING?
>> WOULD YOU HAVE PLAYED ANY ROLE IN THAT POSSIBLE KILLING BASED ON YOUR ACTIONS HERE TO COLLAPSE WALL STREET?
>> IF NO; DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
>> IF YES; IF THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS… DOES THAT INCLUDE THE DEATH OF INNOCENTS?
>> IF NOT WHY?
>> IF YES, EXPLAIN WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT THAT GEORGE W BUSH, WHO ALSO THOUGHT HE WAS RIGHT.

EGYPT
>> HOW DID THE EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION TURN OUT?
>> IS IT BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAD?
>> FREE, FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS WERE PROMISED TO BE HELD BY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, WHAT DATE WERE THEY ACTUALLY HELD?
>> WHO IS CURRENTLY IN CHARGE OF EGYPT?
>> DO YOU BELIEVE IN MILITARY RULE?
>> WOULD YOU WANT TO LIVE UNDER IT HERE?
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MILITARY RULE HERE AND IN EGYPT?
>> THE MEDIA CLAIMS YOU ARE THE SAME AND ARE STRIVING FOR THE SAME IDEALS AS THE YOUTH THAT OVERTURNED THEIR OPPRESSIVE AND CORRUPT SYSTEM. IS THIS TRUE?
>> IF YES, IF YOU WOULDN’T WANT TO LIVE UNDER MILITARY RULE WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO YOU HAVE TO CORRECT THE INJUSTICE OF THEIR SYSTEM?
>> IF YOU ANSWER THAT YOU DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY.
>> WASNT AMERICAN INSERTION INTO GLOBAL POLITICS WHAT CAUSED THE HATRED FOR THE WEST?
>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE FIGHTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND NOT HELPING THOSE WHO WILL DEVELOP A REPRESSIVE REGIME?
>> IS IRAN A REPRESSIVE REGIME?

POST REVOLUTION
>>IF THOSE WHO TAKE POWER, AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL OCCUPY WALL STREET COLLAPSE, BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION AND THE PEOPLE BY NOT FOLLOWING THE PLAN (THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN DEVELOPED) WHAT SHOULD THE PEOPLE DO?
>>WOULD THOSE NEW LEADERS STEP DOWN OR WOULD AN EVENT LIKE THIS NEED TO BE STAGED AGAIN TO FORCE THEM OUT?
>>IF THEY DIDN’T VOLUNTARILY STEP DOWN WOULD YOU SEEK TO HAVE THEM ARRESTED?
>>IS VIOLENCE AN OPTION TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF REVOLUTION?
>>CAN YOU SOLVE VIOLENCE WITH VIOLENCE?
>>SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A GUN IN CASE THOSE IN CHARGE DID BETRAY THE REVOLUTION?
>>IF YES, WHY.
>>IF YES, WHY DOES THIS NOT APPLY TODAY?
>>IF NO, WHO AUTHORIZES THE USE OF FORCE AND WHAT FORCE IS ALLOWED?
>>WHO PROTECTS THE IDEA OR YET TO BE FORMED IDEAS OF THE NEW REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY?
>>WHO WOULD ARREST THOSE WHO BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION IF THE SYSTEM HAS COLLAPSED AND THE COPS WERE >>ALL EITHER FIRED OR JAILED?
>>ARE JAILS NEEDED?
>>IF YES, WHO RUNS THE NEW DEMOCRATIC JAILS FORMALLY KNOWN AS THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?

>>ASSUMING THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE CITIZENS POLICE FORCE ENACTED TO REPLACE THE CORRUPT SYSTEM THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, WHAT SYSTEM OF TRIAL WOULD YOU ENGAGE?
>>CHE SAID “WE DON’T NEED A TRIAL TO CONVICT THE GUILTY”. DO YOU AGREE?
>>IF NO, WOULD THERE BE A JURY?
>>WHO WOULD BE THE JUDGE?
>>WHAT WOULD THE RULES OF EVIDENCE BE?
>>WILL THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS?
>>WHAT ARE THEY?
>>HAVE THEY BEEN WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE?
>>IF NO, BECAUSE YOU WERE PLANNING ON DOING THAT AFTER THE COLLAPSE, IF THE ABOVE SCENARIO PLAYED OUT WOULD YOU REGRET THAT DECISION?
>>IF YES, WHAT WERE THEY BASED ON?

>>WHERE DO MANS RIGHTS COME FROM?
>>IF THEY COME FROM A COMMITTEE OR LEADERS, WHY THEN CANT THE LEADERS YOU NOW SAY BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION CHANGE YOUR RIGHTS AND DECLARE YOU A TRAITOR TO THE REVOLUTION?
>>HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY?
>>IF YES, WHERE?
>>WHAT WERE THE CONDITIONS?
>>WHERE THERE WARNING SIGNS?
>>DO ANY OF THOSE SIGNS EXIST NOW?

ENERGY
>>NOW THAT THE ECONOMY HAS COLLAPSED IN AMERICA BUT NOT SOMEHOW EFFECTED THE REST OF THE WORLD, HOW >>CAN WE AFFORD MIDDLE EASTERN OIL TO BUY GASOLINE?

IF YOU SAY WE CANNOT AFFORD GASOLINE AND THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, LET’S FOR ARGUMENT SAKE AGREE:

>> HOW DO WE FUEL TRACTORS FOR FARMING ON THE SCALE NEEDED TO FEED THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ELSE WHERE?
>> HOW IS SAID FOOD TRUCKED TO STORES HERE IN NEW YORK IF TRUCKERS COULDN’T AFFORD FUEL?
>> HOW DO YOUR PARENTS GET FOOD FROM THE STORE TO THEIR HOME?

>>NOW THAT THE POLICE FORCE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A CITIZEN PATROL, ARE YOUR PARENTS SAFE WALKING THE STREETS WITH FOOD IN AN AREA AFTER THE CURRENCY HAS JUST COLLAPSED?
>> IF ONE OF THEM WERE HURT OR KILLED DUE TO A SCENARIO LIKE THIS, WOULD YOU BE IN ANYWAY RESPONSIBLE?
>> IF THEY WERE HURT AND COULDN’T RECEIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT IN TIME BECAUSE THE EMS COULDN’T AFFORD GAS FOR THE AMBULANCE WOULD YOU IN ANY WAY BE RESPONSIBLE?
>> HOW WOULD THE HOSPITALS PAY DOCTORS AND EMS WITHOUT A CURRENCY?
>> WHY WOULD DOCTORS OR NURSES BE AT WORK?
>> TO ENSURE THEY DID GO TO WORK, WHO WOULD PROTECT AND FEED THEIR FAMILIES WHILE THEY SERVED?
> HOW DO THE DOCTORS AFFORD GAS TO GO TO WORK?
>> WHAT SYSTEM OF ELECTRICITY IS RUNNING THE HOSPITALS?

CRONY CAPITALISM
DEFINE CRONY CAPITALISM.
>> WHEN THE GOVT TOOK OVER GM, GAVE ALL THE BANKS TARP MONEY AND ALLOWED COMPANIES LIKE GE PAY NO TAXES WHILE MAKING BILLIONS AND SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS – IS THAT CRONY SOCIALISM, CRONY CAPITALISM OR CRONY STATISM?
>> IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?

IN ALL THREE SCENARIOS WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, THE SYSTEM OR THE CRONYISM?
>> WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO END CRONYISM?
>> HAS YOUR APPROACH EVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE?
>> IF YES, LIST ALL EXAMPLES OF ATTEMPTS FAILED AND SUCCESSFUL.
>> WHY DID THEY FAIL?
>> HOW DID THOSE THAT FAILED BEGIN?
>> WHO LEAD THE WAY ON THOSE FAILED ATTEMPTS?
>> HOW DID THOSE WHO BEGAN THE REVOLUTION FAIR IN THE NEW SYSTEMS?
>> WHO IS THOMAS PAINE?
>> WHAT WAS HIS ROLE IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION?
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM?
>> WHAT DID HE LEARN ABOUT REVOLUTIONS?
>> HOW DID THE FRENCH REVOLUTION END?
>> WHO TOOK POWER IN FRANCE?
>> WAS THAT GOOD OR BAD FOR THE PEOPLE OF FRANCE?
>> WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN AMERICA?
>> DO YOU HAVE HOSTILE FEELINGS ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS? WHY?

IF YOU ARE READING IN A GROUP OF LIKE MINDED, OPEN MINDED AND EDUCATED PEOPLE — TAKE NOTE – HAVE THEY PROVOKED ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION. IF NOT WHY?
>> IF SO, DID YOU DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO GET THOSE IN WASHINGTON TO INVESTIGATE AND ARREST THOSE WHO WILL NOT “CHANGE” AND BEGIN TO DO BUSINESS IN A LEGAL AND NON CORRUPT WAY?
>> WHY DIDNT THAT WORK?

IF YOU ARE NOT PLANNING ON THEM HOLDING ON TO POWER PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
A). WHO WILL BE IN CHARGE? WILL THEY BE YOU? OR THE LEADERS YOU HAVE NOT YET CHOSEN?
B). HOW WILL YOU ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO DO TAKE POWER ARE NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE PROBLEM?
C). WHO WILL FUND THE UNIVERSITIES, HEALTHCARE, K-12 EDUCATION, HOMELESS, AND POOR WHILE A NEW SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO STABILIZE THE POPULATION, REPLACE THE CORRUPT SYSTEM OF CORPORATISM, BIG MEDICINE, BIG OIL AND BIG FARMS
D). WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE MILITARY AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

9/11 AND WHY I'M JUST NOT FEELIN' IT

2011-09-10T06:35:00.001-05:00

Sitting here, on the eve of 9/11, I have a terrible admission to make - I don't get it. I don't get the self pity, the commercialization, the angst. I have the feeling that once again we're seeing the outward manifestation of the inner workings of the most self centered generation in the world, the baby boomers.

Look, I understand the historical importance of the attack. I understand the loss and tragedy on a personal level for the families of the victims. I realize that the attack changed America forever, mostly for the worst and mostly due to the actions of our own government.

I know the toll in lives since the attack, both for our soldiers and for all those we've killed on foreign soil. If there was some need for vengeance I'd think that we've just about satisfied it, though it's a hollow victory. I know that we've done some damage to Al-Qaeda, but that we haven't completely taken them out. And I know that the world is more dangerous today than it was in 2001, regardless of the number of lives lost and the treasure spent - or wasted.

But I don't understand why the country, at least if one is to believe the New York media, is coming to a stop.

That's the thing, though, isn't it. The country isn't coming to a stop. Most of us know what day it is and we'll say a silent prayer for the victims, the attackers, the country and the world and then we'll get on about our lives. 9/11 isn't a truly defining moment for most of us. It's a pivot point in history, just like Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Hastings.

It is a defining point, however, for the people of New York, including the media. And that's why the rest of us are being subjected to non-stop hyperbole and sensationalism. Did we see this sort of hoopla on the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? A minor event in comparison, to be sure, but still a significant terrorist attack on American soil that resulted in a large loss of innocent life. We still hear more about the '93 attack on the Trade Center every year than about Oklahoma City. Again, because that's where the media lives.

Don't get me wrong. I think that it's important that we remember the attack in 2001. But I think that it's equally important that we remember Pearl Harbor and the firing on Fort Sumter. All three of these events caused fundamental changes to America.

That being said, I think that 9/11 has become less about remembering and more about promotion. To me it feels far more like a circus than a memorial. More about the people that are alive than the ones that are dead.

More focused on the self than on others.

But then, that's what my generation has always been about.

MISSOURI AND THE CHINA HUB

2011-09-05T07:55:00.001-05:00

Wow, it's been so long since I've written anything on here that I'm forgetting how to use the controls so bear with me.

Tomorrow the Missouri Legislature starts debate in a special session to decide whether to approve the China Hub bill. This thing is dirty from top to bottom.

First a bit of background. St. Louis is rolling in unused airport capacity. Over on the Illinois side we've got Mid-America Airport, a group of shiny new buildings and a nifty tower with a big long strip of asphalt road running in front of it. We've been told that the road is supposed to be used to land airplanes on but it's never really been tried so we're not sure it'll work yet. But, everyday, the buildings are opened and the lights turned on while all eyes are cast skyward and all ears strain, listening for the drone of an engine. And they do hear them. Unfortunately, they all tend to land next door at Scott Air Force Base. Oh well, maybe someday Scott'll be filled up and they'll need to come over to Mid-America.

Because of the overcrowding at Mid-America, Lambert (used to be international, now not so much) Airport in St. Louis decided it needed to expand. And it did. It (we) spent over a billion dollars gobbling up neighborhoods and the better part of Bridgeton, burying Lindbergh Blvd. in a tunnel and moving vast amounts of earth. And now, just like across the river, we've got a really nice stretch of brand new road that nobody drives on that we are told is supposed to be a landing strip.

Up 'til a few years ago Lambert was an international airport and TWA's home base. It was also a hub for Southwestern. But when TWA went under it took Lambert down, too. Not completely, there's still a bunch of traffic, but it lost it's international routes and became more of a second tier airport, just like the city it serves has become a second, no, third tier city.

And that's the real problem. St. Louis, once the home to a number of Fortune 500 company headquarters has dwindled away.

I'm old enough to remember the good days. At one time, St. Louis was second only to Detroit in auto production. The Big Three all had plants here. We had shoe factories and breweries. Ralston Purina was home owned. Monsanto is still here but they're one of the few left. It wasn't hard to make a decent living here or across the river where the meat packing plants and foundries ran day and night.

When I was a kid, carpenters and doctors, factory workers and bankers pretty much lived in the same neighborhoods because everybody was making decent money. And the reason for this was manufacturing. We were a city that built things the world needed. And building those things created good jobs that paid good wages, real wealth that was then spent in the community supporting other businesses. Sure, business owners got rich but then their employees did pretty well, too, because they had the skill needed to make the products that the business sold. The means of production were dispersed across the society as a whole.

But now we've become a service sector city, building nothing, just filling out spreadsheets and moving things that others built around warehouses. We try to skim a little of the real wealth created by others off the top to put in our pockets. Most of the wealth goes to the business owners because, when you get right down to it, it doesn't take much skill to do most of the work that gets done in a service economy so finding people to do it at low wages is relatively easy. The day of the skilled trade have drawn to a close. And even for the few skilled trades people left the wages have collapsed because the service sector workers can't afford to pay them.

So what's the solution for this dilemma? Well, if one is to believe our state government, the way to fix the problem is to spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to line the pockets of a few special interests all in the hopes of creating more service jobs to support Chinese slaves manufacturing cheap goods to sell to us. We're being told that skimming a little off the top of an increasingly diminishing pie using low paying jobs that create no real wealth is the answer to our problems.

If you believe that I've got a couple of slightly used runways to sell you.

If you live in Missouri call your Reps and Senators and tell them to vote no on the China Hub Bill. My guess is that the fix is already in but we can dream, can't we?

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

2011-07-19T08:33:00.001-05:00

I haven't posted anything in quite a while because I'm just running out of things that I care to write about...and it's summertime with gardens and fishing to consider.

That being said, I'm getting tired of the political spin surrounding the current push by the Republicans for a Balanced Budget Amendment so I thought I'd post the actual bill language so we can all make up our own minds.

Here it is:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

`Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which--
`(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
`(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.

`Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.

`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

`Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.

`Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

`Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

`Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

`Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

`Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.'.

At first read it seems fairly sensible to me but then I'm not a lawyer and we all know how even the simplest language can be twisted. That being said, I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others about specific problems that they may think are not addressed in the bill.

The one thing I do know is that America is broke and on the verge of financial and political collapse. If we don't get our act together and start living within our means, no matter how painful this is going to be, we're done. I think that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is the only way to bind the hands of our politicians, both current and future.

Like it our not, the days of big government are over because we simply can't afford it. Better to take the hit on our own terms than to have it forced on us by others.

Well, enough writing, time to go back to the garden.

KLAVAN'S ONE STATE SOLUTION

2011-06-03T09:24:00.000-05:00

MUSLIM CULTURE MEETS GERMAN ENGINEERING

2011-05-26T12:21:00.000-05:00

Sorry, I haven't posted in a while. It's spring and the garden and the house need lots of work. I'll get back to this eventually.

In the meantime, I just had to put this up!

FOX NEWS CLAIMS BIN LADEN IS DEAD - DECEMBER 26, 2001

2011-05-04T17:40:00.000-05:00

"Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief."
Fox News

RIDING THE PEAK OIL ROLLER COASTER

2011-05-04T09:08:00.002-05:00

"If you're searching for early signs that higher gasoline prices are starting to weigh on consumer demand, you might want to look at the latest SpendingPulse report from Mastercard Advisors..

Overall, April sales trends are mixed, with some sectors showing continued year-over-year growth, while others are flat or even negative, according to the report, which tracks sales across all payment methods.

The late timing of Easter, which shifted some sales from March into April, may make intepretations a little bit murky, but there are a few datapoints that suggest high gasoline prices—which are now topping an average of $3.96 a gallon nationwide—are starting to have an impact on consumer behavior."
CNBC

"U.S. retail gasoline demand fell last week as prices continued to climb, MasterCard Advisors' SpendingPulse report showed on Tuesday.

Average weekly gasoline demand dropped 1 percent from the previous week, MasterCard said."
Reuters

I've been wondering where the breaking point would be this time, where the price of fuel would intersect with the ability of people to pay it and then it would begin to depress the economy like it did in 2008. Then it had to get to $147.00 a barrel. This time it appears that somewhere around $112.00 will do it.

I knew that we'd never get to $147.00 because the economy is in tatters. It's not the debt fueled, high speed machine it was prior to the first run up in oil. So what's the next step?

I heard Stuart Varney say on Fox this morning that he thought we were going to see the price of gas plateau somewhere around $4.00 a gallon and them begin to drop off. He said that supply is high and demand is falling and he's right on both points. And we should expect to see this sort of see-saw pricing, the price of fuel going up and down, with each peak coming sooner and doing more damage as the economy grinds to a halt and demand for fuel falls, along with demand for everything else not essential to survival. I expect the low points in pricing will become higher and higher with each cycle, too. The dollar is collapsing at the same time the price is falling so regardless of demand and supply the cost of crude will continue to rise.

And then we have China. Can they survive without America buying their goods? I don't know. I do know that our good friends Saudi Arabia are busy right now cutting a deal with them to supply them the oil they used to send our way. I know that part of this deal will, in probably fairly short order, replace the dollar as the worlds reserve currency with the yuan. And our ability to buy oil on the open market will dwindle. And honestly, if we can't pay the price we're not going to get the product. It'll go to the countries that can.

When we lose our ability to get oil, cheaply and abundantly, everything changes in America and we haven't done a thing to get ready for it. If we are forced to live off what we can produce then just get ready to lower your lifestyle expectations. And believe me, the day of reckoning is coming like a freight train full of coal.

So, short term get ready to see the price of fuel fall a bit and then to see an uptick in the economy. The press and the government (the same thing, really) will tout this as evidence of a recovery and we'll be told happy days are here again. Don't believe it. Act and prepare like everything is about to change and the economy is still collapsing because it will be. It'll just be hidden for a very short while.

The next cycle we'll see a slowdown at a lower cost per barrel. How many more cycles can we ride this roller coaster? I don't know but I think not many.

So get prepared and pray because the worst is yet to come.

UPDATE: DOLLAR AT THREE YEAR LOW

"The dollar fell to a fresh three-year low on Wednesday and the euro briefly rose above $1.49 as weaker-than-expected U.S. employment data convinced investors that U.S. interest rates would remain low this year.

The yen also hit a six-week high against the dollar after data showed the pace of growth in the dominant U.S. services sector also slowed unexpectedly in April, another sign the U.S. economy may be hitting a soft patch. See [ID:nN04186623]

With markets worried about a yawning U.S. budget deficit, traders said signs of slower growth will only add to trouble for the dollar, which fell to a three-year low against major currencies Wednesday. It has lost 7.7 percent in 2011. <.DXY>

"The dollar got beat up pretty badly against the euro," said Firas Askari, head of foreign exchange trading at BMO Capital Markets. "The U.S. fiscal situation is a concern. Now it seems the U.S. economy isn't just tepid but actually cooling off again. That's not encouraging."
But Askari and others said concerns about slower U.S. growth also dulled appetite for commodities and higher-yield assets for fear a U.S. slump would reverberate globally."
Yahoo

All this means is that regardless of demand it will take more dollars to buy a barrel of oil. I can see two results that will come of this. One, the demise of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency is getting closer and closer. The rest of the world is losing faith in it and there is considerable pressure from China and Russia to create a basket of currencies to replace it. And two, as the dollar weakens and takes our economy with it the price of oil will rise at the same time the demand shrinks here in America, which should drive the cost at the pump down, narrowing the margins for the oil companies. At some point, and I really don't know when this will happen, they'll decide that they can make more money elsewhere and pretty much leave us sucking hind tit.

The result will be fuel shortages which will destroy our economy and way of life. When the trucks that carry the food can't get fuel to bring it to the stores what do you think is going to happen? When we can't get fuel to go to work what's going to happen? When manufacturers can't get fuel to move their products what do you think will happen? What happens when utility companies can't get fuel to run the trucks that keep our infrastructure up and going?

It won't take long at all for everything we take for granted to just go away. And that time is right around the corner.

And when it happens, and I'm convinced it will, will some one or some group try to use the pain and confusion to leverage a new political system, something that voids the Constitution and the rights it protects? If the pain is bad enough most people will accept anything.

Remember the North American alliance and the new currency, the Amero? I wonder whatever happened to that?

TIME TO PICK UP OUR BALL AND GO HOME

2011-05-03T09:38:00.001-05:00

This guy gets it:

"A lot of people believe the world as we know it is going to end on December 23, 2012. Nonsense, I say. The far more honest answer is that the end of the world as we know it has already begun. And it doesn't mean the end of the world; it means the closing of one era and the birth of a new one. It is a transition between the ages. This particular transition, however, promises to be the most tumultuous and costly transition humankind has ever seen.

But don't wait around for December 2012 to look for the signs. Here are 14 signs that the world as we know it is unraveling right now. We are living through the end of one era and the birth of a new one. In the future, they'll look back and call this all one moment in history, but when you're living through it, it seems to move forward at almost a snail's pace. But make no mistake: We are living through the opening chapters of the end of the world as we know it, and on the other side of all this will emerge a new world that's very different from the one we know today..."

To read more go to Natural News.

All the end of the world predictions are wrong. It's not ending, just changing. And the period between now and then is going to become increasingly chaotic. We are just in the beginning stages.

The powers that be, both in the corporate world and governmental, which are pretty much the same thing, will try to use this period of transition to consolidate power and control. The New World Order that we've all been hearing about is real and it's coming. Order, defined as a forced imposition of structure, is the key word. Our freedom is being eroded at an increasing rate, whether through major changes such as the devaluation of currency or the little things like being forced to submit to the most demeaning abuses just to get on a plane. We're being trained slowly, piece by de-humanizing piece, to accept control, so when the real restrictions come we won't fight them.

The one small hope that we have to come through this, not painlessly but free, is to resist all the power arrayed against us. To tell the politicians and CEO's that we don't like the way they've changed the rules of the game and it's our ball anyway so we're just going to pick it up and go home. And do it.

How? Opt out as much as you can. This starts with mental preparation. Get used to the idea that life is going to change. Learn to live as independently as you can. Grow your own food to the extent you can and for those things you can't, such as meat, look for local farmers that you can buy it from. It supports the local economy and disconnects you and the farmer from the agricultural system built to support corporate farms and giant petrochemical concerns.

Learn the old ways because they're going to become vital once again. How many can sew, can, make candles, heat with wood or use tools effectively anymore. How do you get potable water when the water plant stops working? Have you got some chickens? What about stores of useful pieces of what most would consider trash but in reality are pieces of reusable stuff that can be used for repairs or building the things you need. Remember how our grandparents saved stuff because, "You just might need it someday?"

Create local networks because as our old giant world comes apart, and if you want to retain your freedom, your world will have to shrink to a local and manageable level. In our new/old world oil won't be available at the levels it is now so transportation options will return to a more limited group, such as walking, bicycles (until the tires go and we can't replace them because they're made of oil) and for those that can afford them and have the ground and barns, horses. The local network will be vital because in our old/new world things will be like they've been through most of human history and most people may never get more than a couple days walk from where they were born, live and die.

In short, read your history and start to think in terms, if we're lucky, of the lifestyle of the average American in the 1880's - 1890's. Of course, it may take us a while to get back to that level of comfort because we're going to have to pass through hell first as the riots and unrest consume society during the collapse.

But the thing is, we don't have to go through hell if we just accept reality and force the issue in our favor by not going along with the program. Pick up our ball and go home. Just say no. It's really that easy. Want to stop the full body scans at airports? Stop flying. If everyone would just, say for a week or two, absolutely refuse to board a plane, the laws would change. The oligarchy that controls our government can't stand to lose the money.

Tired of the controls the pharmaceutical oligarchy places on our ability to use the drugs that nature provides instead of the manufactured variants they control? Stop using so many drugs. Some people need them to live so their choices are limited. But really, we've become a country of addicts, addicted to pain pills, diet pills and psychoactive happy pills just because we won't man up and deal with life's little problems. Most of these drugs weren't available even 40 years ago yet somehow we got along just fine. STOP TAKING THEM! Learn to use the natural alternatives as much as possible or take nothing at all. If you hurt or feel down, what's wrong with a beer or two? Beats the hell out of Prozac. And you can make your own beer, too.

By the way, how come your local pharmacist can't go back to making and supplying the drugs the way they used to? Why do we have to have a doctors prescription for everything we buy? Aren't the pharmacists trained to make, manage and supply pharmaceuticals like they used to be? If not, what happened?

Barter or trade. Disconnect from the Fed's fiat currency as much as possible. Get out of debt. Tear up the credit cards.

Pick up our ball and go home.

If it's possible we need to do this on a national level by forcing our reps to disengage our troops and bring them back. All of them. We were never meant to be an empire and we're not suited to it. Stop defending Europe. Let them bear the cost. Without us there Europe will return to form with wars between families, towns and countries but that seems to be their way. Why should we care? The Middle East will go the same way but again, how is that our problem? Israel can defend herself.

We're going to have far less ability to maintain our defense oligarchy so we need to reduce it back to a level that can defend our country and nothing more. Tell the rest of the world to stay out of our business and we'll stay out of theirs. And remind them that we still have our nukes.

Pick up our ball and go home.

We each have a ball and we each need to make the decision. If each individual, then each family, then each community refuses to play then the game will end. Then a new game will start and because we have the ball we can set the rules. If we give the ball away then the oligarchy will set the rules.

Pick up YOUR ball and go home.

Then get ready to sit it out 'til the new game starts. It's going to be really hard and the oligarchy will offer you all kinds of things to bring the ball back. Don't do it. The ball is all you've got.

The ball is freedom.

SHOULD CHRISTIANS REJOICE AT THE DEATH OF BIN LADEN?

2011-05-02T12:22:00.001-05:00

"The Vatican said the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, a man who sowed division and hatred and who caused “innumerable” deaths, should prompt serious reflection about one’s responsibility before God, not rejoicing.

The Vatican statement May 2 came the day after President Barack Obama announced that U.S. forces had killed bin Laden in an attack on his hideout in northwest Pakistan. In several U.S. cities, the news prompted street demonstrations and expressions of jubilation.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, released a brief written statement reacting to the news.

“Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions to this end,” Father Lombardi said.

“In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred,” the spokesman said."
The Catholic Spirit

Again, more political correctness rears its ugly head. Should we reflect on the death of bin Laden and all the things that brought us to this point? Most definitely. But does that mean that we shouldn't also see a victory as a victory? No!

To say that "In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices..." is just a bald face lie. Sorry, but that's the truth. You come at my family with an intent to harm them and by GOD, I will rejoice if I kill you! Damn it, I'll have a big freakin' party, too!

This is just further evidence of the erosion of clear thinking brought on by the inability to call a spade a spade. Anytime we remove evil, and yes I'll go out on a limb and call bin Laden and his version of Islam evil, we should rejoice!

And if the limp wristed, politically correct namby-pamby Progressives in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and the Vatican don't get it, I don't care!

Pope Clement VII was pretty damned pleased when Suleyman was turned back, and that effort definitely cost a life or two. Wasn't he a Christian?

WOULD IT BE POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO BRING BIN LADEN'S HEAD BACK ON A PIKE?

2011-05-02T07:44:00.004-05:00

John Dillinger

Awesome Stories

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow

Bonnie and Clyde

Dalton Gang

Flickr

Benito Mussolini

Cynical-C

Osama bin Laden

....?

I hope that we really did kill bin Laden, not because I think it really makes all that much difference in the overall problems we face in the Middle East and not because I think the cost in lives, both soldiers and civilian can ever be balanced against it, but because he got what he deserved.

That being said, where's the body? Why in the hell would he be buried at sea? Was he? I don't know and neither does anyone else outside the loop. And that's the problem. If we did get him, doing this burial at sea thing just opens the door for conspiracy theories and all the rest. And it doesn't give the families of the victims of 9/11, or the American people, the satisfaction of seeing his cold, rotting corpse.

Before the onset of the lie of political correctness we still understood the necessity of displaying the body or at the very least bringing back the head to verify the death of our enemies. We've become soft. We're apparently more worried about some offense that the Muslim world might take than we are about doing the right thing by our own people.

Incidentally, if bin Laden was a faithful Muslim, thus deserving of a proper Muslim burial, wouldn't that indict all of Islam as a religion of war and genocide? On the other hand, if bin Laden is not representative of the majority of Muslims and their belief, if he was in fact apostate, why would the Muslim world give a rat's ass about how he was buried?

Anyway, congratulations on getting bin Laden, especially to the SEALS and all the other troops that go in and do this kind of work. Those guys are AMAZING!! And I do feel compelled to remind everyone that regardless of the crimes he committed we still should offer our prayers for bin Ladens's soul.

True justice comes from God, not a gun.

QUOTES FROM KELLY AND WHY THE BANKERS CONTROL US ALL

2011-05-01T08:03:00.000-05:00

OK, this is going to be the longest reprint of someone else's work I've ever put up here but the author gives her permission to do this so I will. Someone named Kelly at Silver Seek.com did one hell of a job assembling this list of quotes that paint quite an accurate and vivid historical picture of how we got to where we are today, on the verge of economic collapse and the dismantling of the American experiment. They are well worth the time it takes to read them.

And I'd like to start you out with the last of her quotes to set the stage:

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild

Here goes:

1. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

2. "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." - James Madison

3. "If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." - Andrew Jackson

4. "The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. " - Abraham Lincoln

5. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.... Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – President Woodrow Wilson, In The New Freedom (1913) after signing into passage the Glass Owen Act of 1913 that established the Federal Reserve System

6. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its' origins in North America, shall be endured down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debt and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedence in the history of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." - Editorial in the Times of London, 1862

7. "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy." - Abe Lincoln, 1864

8. "My agency, in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country." - Presidential Advisor to Lincoln, Salmon P. Chase, 1864

9. "The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots…I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and their torturous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth shall become their (the bankers') inheritance." - Chancellor of Germany, Otto Von Bismarck, 1865

10. "I went to America in the winter of 1872-1873 to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented – the governors of the Bank of England, to have it done. By 1873 gold coins were the only form of coin money." - Earnest Seyd, Agent for the Bank of England

11. "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious press, as will oppose the Greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants (for loans) who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money…To repel the act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support us, that we may control legislation." - James Buel, American Bankers Association, 1877

12. "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." - President James Garfield, 1881. He was assassinated just weeks after making this statement.

13. "On September 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st, we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi as well, at our own price…Then the farmers will become tenants, as in England." - 1891 American Bankers Association Memo, recorded as testimony in the Congressional Record, April 29th, 1913

14. "We will answer their demand for a gold standard saying to them, 'You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold'." - William Jennings Brian, 1896

15. "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the president signs this bill, the 'invisible government' by monetary power will be legalized. The people may not know it yet, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed…The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill." - Rep. Charles Lindbergh Sr. (R, MN), father of the famed aviator, just prior to the passage of the Glass Owen Act that established the Federal Reserve System. (The bill was literally snuck through the congress on Dec. 22, 1913. Many senators had already left for the holidays after being reassured by the leadership that nothing would be done on the bill until after they returned from their Christmas recess the following January. All evidently believed that the congressional session had been legally retired for their customary holiday break, but this certainly could be construed as a ruse. And so it transpired that on December 22, 1913, under the shepherding of President Wilson and certain congressmen of both sides of the political spectrum, and with at least 27 Senators absent on holiday recess, the Federal Reserve Act passed. The bill provided for a privately owned central bank, disguised as the Federal Reserve System, to not only issue this nation's currency but to charge interest against that currency. Today we owe our currant national debt to the bank corporations that privately own the Federal Reserve Bank, with the exception, that is, of the debt paper the Fed regularly sells to other nations like China. The Fed accepts dollar reserves from foreign customers and sells them US government bonds in return. This is how the Federal Government borrows from foreign lenders. Some even suggest this is why we are loosing control of our country.)

16. "To cause high prices all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate producing an expansion of credit and rising stock market, then when business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check prosperity in mid career by raising the rate of interest. It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by greater rate variation and in either case, it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advanced knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strangest and most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples' money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, and they also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance." - Rep. Charles Lindbergh Sr. (R. MN), 1914

17. "They have created a super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure." - Rep. Lewis McFadden, (D PA) Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, 1914 (Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa.) rose from office boy to become cashier and then President of the First National Bank in Canton Ohio. For 12 years he served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, making him one of the foremost financial authorities in America. He fought continuously for fiscal integrity and a return to constitutional government.)

18. "In the United States today, we have two governments. We have the duly constituted government and then we have and independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System operating the money powers which are reserved for Congress by the Constitution." - Rep. Wright Patman, (D TX) (Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913. )

19. "These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and the columns in those papers to club into submission or drive out of office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government." - Theodore Roosevelt as reported in the New York Times, March 27th, 1922

20. "This warning of Theodore Roosevelt has as much timelessness today, for the real menace to our republic is this invisible government which spreads its tentacles like a giant octopus and sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection…To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cat's-paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country." - John Hylan, Mayor of New York City, quoted in the New York Times, 1922

21. "After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the German International Bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock and barrel. They purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production; they control all her public utilities. The International German Bankers have subsidized the present government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolf Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up a threat to the government of Bruening. When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission. Through the Federal Reserve Board over thirty billions of dollars was pumped into Germany…You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany…modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories….All this was done with our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total." - Rep. Lewis T. McFadden (D PA), Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, 1931, (spoken before Congress eight years before Hitler invaded Poland and duly entered into the Congressional Record.) ((Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa.) rose from office boy to become cashier and then President of the First National Bank in Canton Ohio. For 12 years he served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, making him one of the foremost financial authorities in America. He fought continuously for fiscal integrity and a return to constitutional government.)

22. "The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting Americas' money supply by one third between 1929 and 1933." - Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist, Stanford University

23. "Sell all of your stock now. Don't ask any questions." - Joseph P. Kennedy to his friend, father of Ed Kerrigan, 1929, (right before the crash. During the Great Depression, Joseph P. Kennedy's worth grew from four million dollars in 1929 to over 100 million dollars in 1935. Apparently he had insider information and knew what the Federal Reserve intended to do.)

24. "The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
-Curtis Dall, son-in-law to FDR, author of "My Exploited Father-in-Law," 1970

25. “Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws.” - Amschel Rothschild, 1790

26. "Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." - USA Banker's Magazine, August 25, 1924

27. “The fact is that there is a serious danger of this country becoming a Pluto-democracy; that is, a sham republic with the real government in the hands of a small clique of enormously wealthy men, who speak through their money, and whose influence, even today, radiates to every corner of the United States.” - William McAdoo - President Wilson's national campaign vice-chairman, wrote in Crowded Years

28. “We have stricken the (slave) shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common level not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by practically reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”- Horace Greeley - (1811-1872) founder of the New York Tribune

29. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” - Frederic Bastiat - (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms

30. “The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”- Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time, Macmillan Company, 1966, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

31. “In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive....Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.”- Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995

32. “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements....The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States....The United States under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.”- Rep. Louis McFadden - Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the New York Times (June 1930)

33. “The Federal Reserve Bank is nothing but a banking fraud and an unlawful crime against civilization. Why? Because they "create" the money made out of nothing, and our Uncle Sap Government issues their "Federal Reserve Notes" and stamps our Government approval with NO obligation whatever from these Federal Reserve Banks, Individual Banks or National Banks, etc.”- H.L. Birum, Sr., American Mercury, August 1957, p. 43

34. “[The] abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holdings illegal, as was done in the case of gold.... The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.... [This] is the shabby secret of the welfare statist's tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.” - Alan Greenspan in an article he wrote in 1966, before he became head of the Fed

35. "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within."- General Douglas MacArthur

36. “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."- Oscar Callaway, U.S. Congressman, 1917

37. "The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government."- American Mercury Magazine, December 1957, p. 92

38. "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." - Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, "Coningsby, the New Generation", 1844

39. "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." - Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

40. "David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins" - Bill Moyers

41. "The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government ..." – American Mercury Magazine, December 1957, pg. 92.

42. "You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." - President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)

43. "Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the government of the United States. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the national debt. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people."- Rep. Lewis McFadden, (D PA) Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, 1914 (McFadden rose from office boy to become cashier and then President of the First National Bank in Canton Ohio. For 12 years he served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, making him one of the foremost financial authorities in America. He fought continuously for fiscal integrity and a return to constitutional government.)

44. "If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash."- George Washington

45. "From the earliest days, the Rothschilds appreciated the importance of proximity to politicians, the men who determined not only the extent of budget deficits but also the domestic and foreign policies..." - Niall Ferguson, (MA, D.) Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School.

46. "By remaining behind the scenes, they (the Rothschilds) were able to avoid the brunt of public anger which was directed, instead, at the political figures which they largely controlled. This is a technique which has been practiced by financial manipulators ever since, and it is fully utilized by those who operate the Federal Reserve System today." - G. Edward Griffin, (born 7 November 1931) American political commentator, writer and documentary filmmaker.

47. "Lord Rothschild had access to all manner of leaders and experts. He was responsible only to the Prime Minister and answerable to neither the electorate nor the civil service chiefs."- Derek Wilson, leading biographer and author

48. "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union." - Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor

49. "Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, the (Rothschild) brothers conducted important transactions on behalf of the governments of England, France, Prussia, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Brazil, various German states and smaller countries. They were the personal bankers of many of the crowned heads of Europe. They made large investments, through agents, in markets as distant as the United States, India, Cuba and Australia." - G. Edward Griffin, American political commentator, writer and documentary filmmaker.

50. “The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” - William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England, 1694.

51. “All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson.

52. “The money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.” - Democrat Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.

53. "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." – Napoleon Bonaparte, a sympathizer for the international bankers, turned against them in the last years of his rule.

54. "Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing."
– Ralph M. Hawtrey, former Secretary of Treasury, England.

55. “The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.”
- John K. Galbraith, in “Money: Whence it came, where it went”, p. 29.

56. “The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't quite realize it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must all be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit.”- H. W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.

57. “You have to choose [as a voter] between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government. And, with due respect for these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold." - George Bernard Shaw

58. "I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."- John Danforth (R-Mo)

59. "We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people." - Daniel Webster, leading American statesman

60. “Most Americans have no real understanding of the operations of the international moneylenders... the accounts of the Federal Reserve have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and ... manipulates the credit of the United States”- Sen. Barry Goldwater (R. –AZ)

61. “Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank." - Nicholas Biddle, (1786-1844), Banker and American financier

62. "There cannot be stable money within an environment dominated by ideologies hostile to the preservation of economic freedom." - Ludwig von Mises, (1881-1973) Austrian economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

63. "The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it." - John Kenneth Galbraith, one of America's most famous economists

64. "Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money." - Daniel Webster, leading American statesman

65. "Every circulating FRN (Federal Reserve Note) represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve System." - Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee

66. "Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically; a 'dollar' bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." - Modern Money Mechanics Workbook, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975

67. "The governments alone are responsible for the spread of the superstitious awe with which the common man looks upon every bit of paper upon which the treasury or agencies which it controls have printed the magical words legal tender." - Ludwig von Mises, (1881-1973) Austrian economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

68. "Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people." - Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of Exchequer, England

69. "When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." - Federal Reserve Bank, Boston, "Putting It Simply"

70. "How pale is the art of sorcerers, witches, and conjurors when compared with that of the government's Treasury Department!"
- Ludwig von Mises, (1881-1973) Austrian economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

71. "We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it." - Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932

72. "If you increase the quantity of money, you bring about the lowering of the purchasing power of the monetary unit." - Ludwig von Mises, (1881-1973) Austrian economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

73. "Money is the most important subject intellectual persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and its defects remedied very soon." - Robert H. Hemphill, former credit manager, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

74. "Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend, not money, but promises to supply money they do not possess." - Irving Fisher, 100% Money, American economist, health campaigner, and eugenicist

75. "Without the confidence factor, many believe a paper money system is liable to collapse eventually." - Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Gold, p. 10

76. "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

77. “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.” – Abraham Lincoln - In a letter written to William Elkin

78. “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford, Corporate Head and Automobile Manufacturer

79. "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

80. “Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.”- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940

81. "A theft of greater magnitude and still more ruinous, is the making of paper money; it is greater because in this money there is absolutely no real value; it is more ruinous because by its gradual depreciation during the time of its existence, it produces the effect which would be proration of the coins. All those iniquities are founded on the false idea the money is but a sign."- Count Destutt de Tracy

82. "We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It [the banking problem] is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects are remedied very soon." - Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta

83. "Wake up you idiots! Whatever made you think paper was so valuable?" - Kurt Vonnegut, Galapagos

84. "Paper is poverty. It is the ghost of money and not money itself." – Thomas Jefferson

85. "Who controls the money controls the world." - Henry Kissinger, Council on Foreign Relations

86. "The end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most." —Irving Fisher, November 1929

87. "I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism... I have every confidence that there will be a revival of activity in the spring, and that during this coming year the country will make steady progress." —Andrew W. Mellon, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, December 1929

88. "The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government."- American Mercury Magazine, December 1957, p. 92

89. "The dollar has clearly been abandoned and foreigners are starting to bail from dollar-denominated assets in droves. This is where bailouts, and the hyperinflationary destruction of the dollar that comes with them, are leading us, along with miniscule bond rates caused by continual flights to "security" as everyone flees in terror due to rapidly deteriorating market conditions caused by subprime fallout, over-leveraged speculation, fraudulent lending and borrowing, lack of oversight, transparency and confidence, frozen credit markets, an out-of-control money supply, profligate borrowing and spending, as well as an economy destroyed in less than two decades by globalization, free trade, off-shoring, outsourcing, unrestrained illegal immigration, insane wars for profit and the rampant inflation and unemployment that come from a completely, totally and malevolently mismanaged economy thanks to the reprobates and sociopaths that run the Fed and our government." Bob Chapman, International Forecaster, 2008

90. "The Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system at all, but rather, a criminal syndicate." - Eustace Mullins, author of Secrets of the Federal Reserve

91. "American history in the twentieth century has recorded the amazing achievements of the Federal Reserve bankers. First, the outbreak of World War I, which was made possible by the funds available from the new central bank of the United States. Second, the Agricultural Depression of 1920. Third, the Black Friday Crash on Wall Street of October, 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. Fourth, World War II. Fifth, the conversion of the assets of the United States and its citizens from real property to paper assets from 1945 to the present, transforming a victorious America and foremost world power in 1945 to the world's largest debtor nation in 1990. Today, this nation lies in economic ruins, devastated and destitute, in much the same dire straits in which Germany and Japan found themselves in 1945. Will Americans act to rebuild our nation, as Germany and Japan have done when they faced the identical conditions which we now face--or will we continue to be enslaved by the Babylonian debt money system which was set up by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 to complete our total destruction? This is the only question which we have to answer, and we do not have much time left to answer it." - Eustace Mullins, 1991, author of Secrets of the Federal Reserve

92. "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild

NO BURGER FLIPPIN' FOR YOU!

2011-05-01T06:57:00.000-05:00

"McDonald’s Corp. (MCD), the world’s biggest restaurant chain, said it hired 24 percent more people than planned during an employment event this month.

McDonald’s and its franchisees hired 62,000 people in the U.S. after receiving more than one million applications, the Oak Brook, Illinois-based company said today in an e-mailed statement. Previously, it said it planned to hire 50,000.

The April 19 national hiring day was the company’s first, said Danya Proud, a McDonald’s spokeswoman. She declined to disclose how many of the jobs were full- versus part-time. McDonald’s employed 400,000 workers worldwide at company-owned stores at the end of 2010, according to a company filing.

The number of applications for unemployment benefits in the U.S. rose last week, a sign that progress in the labor market may be fading. Jobless claims increased by 25,000 to 429,000 in the week ended April 23, the most in three months, according to data from the Labor Department in Washington today."
Bloomberg

For the last couple of weeks the story about McDonalds and its announced hiring binge has been touted on Fox Business and other networks as a triumphant and resounding proof that the economic recovery has begun. Whatever.

The reality is that if you had applied for one of these minimum wage, part time jobs you were just one of a million or so that did so and you had a roughly 5%-6% chance of getting it. In other words, approximately 938,000 people applied and failed to get a job. 938,000!! For minimum wage, part time work! I wonder what percentage of these applicants were the typical McDonalds teenage part-timers and how many were laid off adults that were trying to replace a job that paid real money with just anything they could get?

And they call this a RECOVERY??!!

THAT '70'S WORLD

2011-04-29T05:17:00.000-05:00

"Wal-Mart's core shoppers are running out of money much faster than a year ago due to rising gasoline prices, and the retail giant is worried, CEO Mike Duke said Wednesday.

"We're seeing core consumers under a lot of pressure," Duke said at an event in New York. "There's no doubt that rising fuel prices are having an impact."

Wal-Mart shoppers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, typically shop in bulk at the beginning of the month when their paychecks come in.

Lately, they're "running out of money" at a faster clip, he said.

"Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year," Duke said. "This end-of-month [purchases] cycle is growing to be a concern."
CNN

If all you ever listen to is the government line on the economy you'd think that the recovery is nicely underway, job growth is healthy and inflation is nonexistent. Well, I suppose if you're a public employee then all these things may be true.

But out here in the world of blue collar people life isn't quite as rosy and the statement from Walmart above is probably the most accurate picture of reality I've heard in a while. And this new reality is starting to move into the white collar world pretty quickly, too.

Perversely, as gas and food prices continue to rise because the Fed continues to print money to support the banks and the stock market there's going to be less and less money to go around among the working class. And that money is going to be worth less wile the prices skyrocket.

Stagflation has returned.

ARE TERRORISTS ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER?

2011-04-26T10:16:00.001-05:00

A couple weeks ago I made a statement that Hezbollah or Hamas was on our border with Mexico. My MOST FREQUENT commenter (the certificate of achievement and the secret decoder ring are in the mail), Salvage, essentially said that I was full of crap. While that may be true, I stand by my assertion that we have Middle Eastern terrorist organizations on our border and throughout Central and South America, too.

Below I've posted just a few excerpts from articles and even one scholarly document to prove my point.

Now, I think that one could logically ask what the intentions of these groups are? Are they setting up an eventual attack on the United States and Canada? Or, are they just running organized crime operations that would make the Mafia proud, looking to fatten their wallets to finance global terrorism? Personally, I think it's both.

Iran's connection to Venezuela and their shared hatred of the U.S. is well documented and very much out in the open. Iran's ties to Hezbollah/ Hamas are documented as well.

Again, I think there is very little question as to the presence of Islamic terrorists on our border and in Central and South America. The only real question is their intent. Whatever their final objective I know it'll be bad for us.

From Adam Housley of Fox News:

"“Hezbollah are absolute masters at identifying existing smuggling infrastructures,” says former DEA Chief of Operations Mike Braun, adding that the group “is developing relations with those responsible for operating those smuggling operations and then forming close relations with them, so that they can move anything they have an interest into virtually anywhere in the world.” That comment comes from former DEA Chief of Operations Mike Braun. He goes on to tell me that the Middle East terror group is “rubbing shoulders” with drug cartels around the globe.

My military and Department of Homeland Security contacts are insistent…it’s not if Hezbollah operatives have been smuggled into the U.S….but how many? They note that drug tunnels are becoming much more sophisticated and striking similar as tunnels being used by terror organizations to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip. My contacts also say they have real concern that bombing techniques used in the Middle East to promote terror are now also being used inside Mexico, as the cartels war with each other and anyone in their way."

From Rep. Sue Myrick in the Washington Times:

"An indictment was handed down Aug. 30 by the Southern District Court of New York that shows a connection between Hezbollah - the proxy army of Iran and a designated terrorist organization - and the drug cartels that violently plague the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, a well-known international arms dealer was trying to orchestrate an arms-for-drugs deal in which cocaine from FARC - the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which works with Mexican drug cartels to take cocaine into America - would be traded for thousands of weapons housed by a Hezbollah operative in Mexico.

This most recent case brings up several questions: Why would a member of Hezbollah be in Mexico? Why would Hezbollah need thousands of weapons in Mexico? Why are members of Hezbollah willing to work with FARC? Perhaps to exchange weapons for drugs? If Hezbollah has guns in Mexico and wants drugs, isn’t it logical to assume that it is trading with more accessible Mexican drug cartels?"

From the Washington Times:

"Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say.

The Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America’s tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Increasingly, however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S.

Hezbollah relies on “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels,” said Michael Braun, who just retired as assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

“They work together,” said Mr. Braun. “They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected.

“They’ll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are [smuggling].”

His comments were confirmed by six U.S. officials, including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists. They spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic.

While Hezbollah appears to view the U.S. primarily as a source of cash - and there have been no confirmed Hezbollah attacks within the U.S. - the group’s growing ties with Mexican drug cartels are particularly worrisome at a time when a war against and among Mexican narco-traffickers has killed 7,000 people in the past year and is destabilizing Mexico along the U.S. border."

From MSNBC (hardly a bastion of conservative sentiment):

"The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia has taken root in South America, fostering a well-financed force of Islamist radicals boiling with hatred for the United States and ready to die to prove it, according to militia members, U.S. officials and police agencies across the continent.

From its Western base in a remote region divided by the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina known as the Tri-border, or the Triple Frontier, Hezbollah has mined the frustrations of many Muslims among about 25,000 Arab residents whose families immigrated mainly from Lebanon in two waves, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and after the 1985 Lebanese civil war.

An investigation by Telemundo and NBC News has uncovered details of an extensive smuggling network run by Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group founded in Lebanon in 1982 that the United States has labeled an international terrorist organization. The operation funnels large sums of money to militia leaders in the Middle East and finances training camps, propaganda operations and bomb attacks in South America, according to U.S. and South American officials.

U.S. officials fear that poorly patrolled borders and rampant corruption in the Tri-border region could make it easy for Hezbollah terrorists to infiltrate the southern U.S. border. From the largely lawless region, it is easy for potential terrorists, without detection, to book passage to the United States through Brazil and then Mexico simply by posing as tourists."

From The Foreign Military Studies Office:

"Hugo Chavez’ strategy of embracing Iran in its quest to build an “anti-imperialist” and
anti-American coalition of nations has undoubtedly gained strength in recent years. Beyond the close ties between Venezuela and Iran due to the two countries’ shared anti-American priorities, there are also many similarities between the basic ideologies of Chavez’ Bolivarian revolution and Iranian revolutionary thought. The Lebanese group Hezbollah shares many of Iran’s priorities and principles, and it receives a sizeable amount of financial support from the Islamic Republic.

Although its armed activities are focused primarily within its traditional area of operations in the Middle East, Hezbollah has been implicated in terrorist activities around the globe. These activities range from financing and training to outright attacks and cooperation with criminal
elements. The recent establishment of direct airline flights between Caracas and Tehran, as well as the eagerness of both regimes to embrace the other, does not bode well for anti-terror prospects in Latin America, given the close collaboration of Iranian and Hezbollah operatives in the past. Hezbollah members and sympathizers have gained the ability to move with relative ease outside the Middle East to Latin America and such movements already appear to be taking place. This points to a particularly worrisome possibility: that Hezbollah will move beyond financing and support in Latin America to pursue operational objectives within the Western Hemisphere.

...Iran’s close ties to Hezbollah and its deepening embrace of Chavez’ regime should put the
United States on alert to the security of both friendly Latin American governments and its own
southern border. Groups like Hezbollah now possess the ability to use Venezuela as an entry
point to the Americas, to obtain official Venezuelan documentation, and to utilize well-known
smuggling networks in cooperation with established violent drug cartels.

Hugo Chavez identifies with what he considers to be Hezbollah’s successful model of resistance to imperialism, and it appears he seeks to emulate elements of that success within his
sphere of influence. His demonstrated support for anti-American groups like FARC and his
consistent harsh rhetoric against neighboring Columbia must be viewed as an indication of his
willingness to embrace other radical elements sharing a common anti-American agenda. By
allowing Iranian and Hezbollah operatives ease of access to the Americas through Venezuela,
Chavez runs a substantial risk to the stability of his regime. If and when Hezbollah or Iran seek to exploit their ability to function in Venezuela by pursing specific operational goals, the probability of future confrontation with the United States will most certainly increase, thus inviting the only scenario in which Chavez is nearly guaranteed to lose."

THE DOLLAR CONTINUES ITS DESCENT

2011-04-25T09:11:00.003-05:00

All of these stories come from the Drudge Report:

"Weakness in the US dollar, which is causing everything to go up—including gas prices, food and stocks—is unlikely to go away soon as a selling frenzy hits the currency market.

The greenback is approaching pre-financial crisis lows and threatening to smash through its all-time low when measured against the world's predominant national currencies.

A combination of factors accounts for the weakness, with the Federal Reserve's easy-money policies, huge national debts and deficits and the consequential possibility of a debt downgrade because of the financial mess in Washington leading the way.

In short, as trader Dennis Gartman noted Thursday, "the rout of the US dollar" is in full effect.

"Panic dollar selling is setting in," Gartman, a hedge fund manager and author of "The Gartman Letter," wrote in his daily commentary. "This may carry farther than any of us dream of or, worse, have nightmares of.""
CNBC

"China should reduce its excessive foreign exchange reserves and further diversify its holdings, Tang Shuangning, chairman of China Everbright Group, said on Saturday.

The amount of foreign exchange reserves should be restricted to between 800 billion to 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars, Tang told a forum in Beijing, saying that the current reserve amount is too high.

China's foreign exchange reserves increased by 197.4 billion U.S. dollars in the first three months of this year to 3.04 trillion U.S. dollars by the end of March.

Tang's remarks echoed the stance of Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, who said on Monday that China's foreign exchange reserves "exceed our reasonable requirement" and that the government should upgrade and diversify its foreign exchange management using the excessive reserves."
Xinhuanet

"Gold hit a record high, while silver surged more than 5 per cent to within a whisker of its all-time peak, as the dollar continued its decline and inflation concerns drove haven flows.

Driven also by government debt concerns, gold rose 1 per cent to $1,518.20 a troy ounce, the seventh-consecutive trading session in which it has hit a record high. Silver surged 5.5 per cent to $49.17 an ounce, having hit a 30-year high of $49.80, within sight of the landmark $50 level."
Financial Times

"For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.

And it’s a lot closer than you may think.

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar."
Market Watch

It's going to be a really bumpy ride this year. If you think that your going to need it, buy it now. Things like food, clothing and medicine, because the prices are going to shoot up if nothing changes. Once the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency, as it looks more and more likely to with each passing week, our economy will most likely collapse. And even if it doesn't we're going to be in a world of hurt.

The other thing to think about is that out here in the Mid-West where so much of our food is grown we're looking at a spring of incredible rains and flooding which will impact, in a significant way, the yields from the fields. So on top of the dollar problems and the pressure it puts on food prices, supply and demand will be pushing the cost up, too. That, and the fact that we're growing so much corn for fuel which is about the dumbest thing I ever heard of. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol produces. But the farmers just love the welfare and the way the government edicts artificially inflate the value of their crops. Not to mention all the tax dollars that are flowing into the pockets of the corporations building the refineries.

So get ready. My guess is that an awful lot of the problems that we've kept hidden through "quantitative easing" over the last few years will start to become apparent to more and more people this year and panic will start to set in a bit. Just enough to drive some more irrational responses from the government which will only go to further the problem.

It ought'a be interesting.

But wait, there's more!

I just read a post at The Market Ticker that addresses this problem and it's well worth the read. Click on the link to read it.

ALLEN WEST CALLS 'EM LIKES HE SEES 'EM!

2011-04-23T09:02:00.000-05:00

The thing that really interests me in this video is how Van Susteren reacts to West's straight forward speaking. She's not as concerned about whether what he says is the true but rather how what he says may be offensive or impolitic.

Look, agree with someone or disagree, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that everyone in the conversation speak as clearly and directly as they can about what they understand to be the truth. How can we ever work together for the common good when we can't honestly address our differences?

I really like Allen West. I've read a lot about his background and the problems he ran into in the military that resulted in his retirement and I believe that he acted honestly, directly and with honor. His most glaring drawback, at least in my opinion, is his lack of oratorical polish and the flash that so many base their election decisions on. But, I think that he'd make a damned fine President some day.

How refreshing would it to have someone that speaks directly sitting in the Oval Office? I believe that Americans of all political agendas really just want to know the truth so we can get out of this mess.

GOVERNMENT GONE WILD!

2011-04-23T06:23:00.000-05:00

H/T American Perspective

ABORTIONIST INTOLERANCE IN ST. LOUIS

2011-04-22T11:39:00.000-05:00

I saw this video at the Missouri Political News Service this morning and thought that it deserved further comment:

This billboard made a statement that the left didn't agree with. So, what was their response? TEAR IT DOWN! No conversation - no tolerance. Just destruction. Just raw, unbridled emotion.

This billboard was put up by Missouri Right to Life and it claimed that 37% of Missouri's abortions are performed on African Americans, a group which comprises only 12% of the state population.

According to the numbers supplied by the Missouri Dept. of Health the 37% number looks about right. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation the 12% of the population number looks pretty close, too. So, what's the problem?

Well, according to the lady in the video the problem is racism and that somehow this statistic was yanked from the middle of some weird conversation down at the local klavern.

In reality the real problem with the billboard is that it's factually correct and the groups on the left that support this murder of black babies would rather see the truth destroyed than face it. Here's some more statistics on blacks and abortions that are published on the That's Abortion website, one of the links provided on the billboard:

More African American babies have been killed by abortions since 1973 than the total number of African American deaths from AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined.
Approximate number of African American deaths since 1973:

Abortion: 13+ Million
Heart Disease: 2.26 Million
Cancer: 1.64 Million
Accidents: 307,723 Violent Crimes: 306,313 AIDS: 203,649
Source: Based on cumulative statistics provided by the US center for Disease Control; accessed at: http://blackgenocide.org/?negro.html

An African American baby is three times more likely to be aborted
than a white baby.

Today, African Americans account for 12.8% of the American population, but African American women receive 35% of all abortions.
Source: 2010 US Census Data http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
CDC Abortion Surveillance Report 11/26/04 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/?preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Of the approximately 4,000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1,452 of them take the lives of African American children.
Source: Center for Disease Control (CDC)

Whether you support abortion or think it's murder shouldn't we at least agree that we need the facts to make a decision? Why are the abortion apologists so afraid of the truth and why are they so intent on hiding it? If abortion is a good thing don't you think that they'd be proud to show just how effective it's been in the black community at achieving the goals of Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood?

IS THE TEA PARTY RACIST?

2011-04-22T08:34:00.002-05:00

Salvage, a frequent commenter on this blog, has sent me a link to YouTube videos (click here) purporting to show Tea Party racism, hate and any number of terrible other things. He sent these at my request as a rebuttal to videos I posted a few days ago showing the complete, at least in my opinion, insanity among some on the left.

I'll post one of then below because I've seen this one making the rounds lately anyway.

You be the judge.

A couple things come immediately to mind. Are there racists, haters and all sorts of other people involved in Tea Party activities? I would assume there are because they're everywhere. Have I seen any examples of them personally when attending Tea Party rallies? No. But then I've not seen any craziness from the left, either. Mostly I've seen a bunch of good natured bantering back and forth.

And really, a big part of the signs in the video above have nothing to do with racism or hate. They are legitimate expressions of political belief, protected by the First Amendment.

Of course, that doesn't mean that crazy stuff doesn't happen. The video below from here in St. Louis on 8-6-2009 when SEIU members attacked Kenneth Gladney at a Russ Carnahan health care bill event. Gladney is black, which I don't think had anything to do with the attack, even though one of the attackers can be heard using racial slurs. I don't think he even was there because of political affiliation. He was just selling some Gadsen flags, trying to make a buck. But that was enough to piss off the thugs on the left.

So does evidence of violence and racism on the left make the case none of the same exists on the right? No. That being said, the media has been looking for any way it can to smear the Tea Party with racism. Remember the staged perp walk that Pelosi and the Democrats did the day of the healthcare vote? And do you remember that charges were hurled at Tea Party members accusing them of spitting at the Congressmen and screaming racial insults and anti-gay slurs? It was plastered all over the papers.

Well, guess what? It turns out that there was no proof of any of this happening, even in this day of massive news coverage of the event itself and all the camcorders that were there. Andrew Breitbart over at Big Government even went so far as to offer $10,000 to anyone that could bring evidence of the assault. No one has collected yet.

With all that being said, I look at the video above and videos like it with a somewhat jaundiced eye. We know from the Pelosi incident that some on the left are more than willing to lie when it comes to charges of racism and other slurs to tarnish the Tea Party and we also know that the main stream media will gladly publish those charges as fact without doing their due diligence. Now, if the photos in the video above were real, and verifiable, doesn't it seem fairly likely that we'd see them trumpeted across the front page of the New York Times and being presented as the lead story on NBC Nightly News?

There's also the issue of Tea Party opponents acting like racists and infiltrating Tea Party events. How many of the photos in the video above are reflective of that?

So I guess this is where I come down on the issue of Tea Party racism. There are racists in the Tea Party but the Tea Party is not a racist organization, if it can even be called an organization. While some pretend to speak for it there really is no central controlling authority.

I know that pictures exist purporting to show racist sentiment at Tea Party rallies. I've never seen it personally and I know that when someone has shown up at rallies in St. Louis with any sort of hateful message they've been asked to leave by others in attendance:

My personal experience in talking with people on the left tends to support as relatively normal the reaction of the protesters in Portland that I posted the other day. I've been yelled at, called names and been threatened many times by people that disagree with me on political issues. The debate from the left seems to be more emotionally driven than intellectually driven for most so emotions come to the fore rather quickly. Do I know this is a fact? No, but my experience leads me to that conclusion.

Again, I think that if the various photos of Tea Party racist signs were real and verifiable we'd be seeing them all over the news; but, we don't. So while they could be true I don't believe they are. There is ample evidence of lying on the part of the left that leads me to suspect that these photos are just another example of it. If they're real and if they truly represent the majority, or even more than a minuscule minority opinion of the average Tea Party supporters then I'll admit I'm wrong.

But I'm from Missouri and you'll have to show me.

GLENN BECK - YOU'RE BEING ROBBED

2011-04-22T05:42:00.001-05:00

Regardless of what you think of Beck it's worth the time to watch this video, especially if you really can't quite make sense of what's happening with the dollar and the markets and why so many of us believe that it's absolutely vital to prepare for what's coming.

Just to buttress Beck's position I saw this at Business Insider today:

"With Congress and the White House under severe political pressure to come up with some meaningful cuts in the budget deficit, the expiration of QE2 has important negative consequences. You may recall that the stock market soared with the implementation of QE1 and the economy started to recover. However, when QE1 was wound down at the end of March 2010 the economy faltered and the stocks dropped 17%. To prevent the economy from dipping into another recession Chairman Bernanke, in mid-August announced the probable implementation of so-called QE2, a program to purchase $600 billion of Treasury bonds by the end of June with the stated purpose of driving up asset values in the hopes that it would spur additional spending.

Although QE2 has helped some segments of the economy and jump-started the stock market, it has had important negative implications as well. Since that time commodity prices have soared while long-term interest rates have climbed and the dollar has weakened. The rise in food and energy prices has caused top-line inflation to increase faster than wages, resulting in declining real income. In addition it has resulted in higher inflation in developing nations as well as the EU, causing them to raise interest rates at the risk of slowing down global growth. Some nations have also instituted capital controls to prevent too many dollars from entering. It is also likely that rapidly rising food and energy prices played an important role in engendering unrest in the Mid-East.

The coming end to QE2 is potentially negative for both the market and the economy. By the time it ends on June 30th the Fed will have bought an average of $3.8 billion of Treasury bonds every working day of the week. That amounts to about 70% of all the Treasury bond issuance since Mid-November. The proceeds, which went to the banks that sold them, were then used to buy up assets, mainly stocks and commodities. Without the Fed in the picture it is difficult to envision anyone else willing or able to step in and purchase the bonds without a really big increase in rates. With no help from the fiscal side the likely outcome is a major decline in asset values including stocks and commodities along with another round of weakening growth in an already fragile economy. It may well be that somewhere down the road there is another round of quantitative easing, but not before some severe economic and financial problems in the interim."

WHAT IS TRUTH?

2011-04-21T04:35:00.002-05:00

LEFTY CIVILITY ON PARADE

2011-04-17T09:08:00.000-05:00

WARNING: OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE

H/T The Blaze

CAVUTO, BIG GOVERNMENT AND THE INJUSTICE OF THEFT

2011-04-17T08:30:00.000-05:00

This interview perfectly encapsulates the arguments from both sides. Cavuto represents my side and the Congresswoman the side of big government Progressives in both parties. It seems so patently obvious to so many of us that we must stop borrowing yet to the Progressives there seems to be no link between debt and...well...anything. Their solution to our problems is spending, regardless of whether we can ever pay it back.

The Progressives are fond of bringing up seniors, children and healthcare every time we bring up spending cuts and they always wrap themselves up in the blanket of "social justice", which in their mind is the idea that no one should ever go without for any reason.

I think that it's time that the Conservatives take social justice away from the Progressives by learning what it is, why it's vital and how to properly define and explain it. Some conservative commentators, most notably Glenn Beck, have so thoroughly explained and belittled the Progressive theories of "social justice" that they've left no room for discussion of true social justice and the impact it has on the proper ordering of society. The fact is that as acolytes of Randian Objectivism they probably don't understand the need for true social justice themselves and thus can't explain it.

I think that conservatives should be making an argument something like this: while it's true that government has a responsibility to its citizens to help them in time of need, is it just to burden future generations with debt to bail out individuals and corporations that are suffering the effects of past poor judgement? Make those that constantly push for more borrowing justify, using justice as the measuring rod, binding people yet unborn with the chains of debt. In this video you'll note that the Congresswoman has no answer for this.

Further, we need to question the insistence of the Progressives that all governmental help should flow from Washington first. Sidestepping the issue, at least momentarily, of whether the federal government even has the authority under the Constitution to involve itself in these matters, we should be making the argument for subsidiarity and pushing responsibility for our neighbors back into our neighborhoods. Charity begins at home and it should stay close to home. I'll help my neighbors and they'll help me. Even if we're all broke it isn't always money that can make the difference.

The argument needs to be changed from welfare justice to true social justice, and along with that social responsibility, which flows in both directions.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." President John F. Kennedy (Read the entire speech here.)

We need to change the hearts and minds of Americans. We need to go back to those ideas of self sacrifice and service that marked all those generations that went before us, the idea that we look to ourselves and our families for support, not the government.

It might take a hundred years to undo the changes that started at the beginning of the Progressive era but undo them we must. And we have to begin by controlling the argument and setting the parameters. We should do exactly what Cavuto does in the clip above, just keep asking, "Where's the money coming from?" Make the big spenders, in both parties, answer that with real answers, not some mathematical flim-flammery of shifting spending from one hand to the next. And don't stop asking, over and over, until we get an answer.

Because stealing is never just and theft is what we're doing when we borrow against future generations.

COMMUNION IN THE HAND

2011-04-15T11:02:00.002-05:00

DISSENT, REAL CATHOLIC TV AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

2011-04-15T08:39:00.002-05:00

I got a comment from another blogger that I follow, Yahoobuckaroo, yesterday on another post about abuses in the Church and a video posted by Real Catholic TV. Apparently Michael Voris from RCTV has been denied the use of diocesan facilities in Scranton PA. The comment came with a link to a statement issued by the Diocese of Scranton regarding Voris. Here's the statement:

"The Diocese of Scranton has determined that Mr. Voris will not be allowed to speak in a Diocesan or parish facility. After these engagements were scheduled, the Diocese became aware of concerns about this individual’s views regarding other religious groups. In videos posted on the Internet, Mr. Voris makes comments that certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths. The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition.

Although the Diocese shares Mr. Voris’ support of efforts to protect human life, his extreme positions on other faiths are not appropriate and therefore the Diocese cannot host him."
Diocese of Scranton

There's a few things about this statement that cause me to pause and wonder about the motivation behind it.

First of all, it's very vague, mentioning some amorphous staements about other faiths and offending people. Where are the specifics? If Voris has lied or made a mistake then be specific - call him out on it.

Secondly, what is the relationship between respect and offense? Can one not respect another while at the same time pointing out areas of disagreement? Further, if one believes that there exists not just simple disagreement but outright distortion of the truth with the intent to cause harm to others shouldn't one, repectfully if possible, point out those distortions to help others find the truth and divorce themselves from error?

What is the stance of the Chruch regarding truth? Are comfort, conformity or political correctness considered higher virtues? Again, if Voris is lying, call him out on the specifics.

How is this deliberate silencing of dissent any different than Planned Parenthood demanding that protestors be barred from their clinics? You see, this is the slippery slope that intolerance of free speech creates.

If Voris, or anyone else for that matter is lying, or mistaken, isn't it better to confont the argument straight on instead of refusing to allow it? There are plenty of people that are offended by things that the Church teaches. Should they be allowed to silence the Church?

I found this article related to the statement at The Times Tribune website:

"A conservative Catholic speaker whose events were canceled by Marywood University and the Diocese of Scranton last week will give his talk at a secular site on Saturday.

Michael Voris is scheduled to speak at the Best Western Genetti Hotel and Conference Center in Wilkes-Barre at 6:30 p.m.

His talk, "Living Catholicism Radically," was canceled after the university and diocese determined that he had expressed views at odds with their values in Internet television shows he produces about Catholic issues.

In a letter to the talk's organizers, Paul and Kristen Ciaccia of Harveys Lake, the diocese further explained that it learned from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Mr. Voris' home Archdiocese of Detroit that Mr. Voris' presentations have caused "a number of controversies" and that his programs are not endorsed by his home archdiocese.

The Ciaccias said in a news release that they chose to reschedule Mr. Voris at a secular site and invited Bishop Joseph Bambera to attend the event "to evaluate Mr. Voris' knowledge of the faith, free from opinions formed by others."

The Ciaccias called the banning of Mr. Voris from diocesan property "insensitive" and said it "belies deeper inconsistencies in diocesan policy."

Addressing the "inconsistencies" in one of his daily "The Vortex" video segments at Realcatholictv.com, Mr. Voris criticized the diocese for allowing Sara Bendoraitis, the director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Resource Center at American University, to speak at the University of Scranton last spring."

Notice in the statement above that the diocese claims that Voris has made statements at odds with their "values". Again, all shadowy and vague, not a specific to be found. Digging a bit deeper I found this at Politics Daily in an article published August 31, 2009:

"The Roman Catholic bishop of Scranton is not normally known as a kingmaker -- or kingbreaker -- in electoral politics. But during last year's presidential campaign, with pro-choice Catholic and Scranton native Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket, and the working-class voters of northeast Pennsylvania seen as keys to the keystone state and the Electoral College, Scranton suddenly moved to the spotlight.

And the local bishop, Joseph F. Martino, took full advantage of that platform. Martino became for many the angry face of the anti-Obama wing of the Catholic hierarchy thanks to his intemperate blasts about pro-choice politicians and an overweening administrative style that irritated the flock and even his brother bishops.

Now, in a stunning turn that has taken even veteran church-watchers by surprise, Martino on Monday resigned his post under highly unusual circumstances -- citing the stress of the job and saying he could not continue in a post that should have been his for another dozen years, at least.

But church insiders say Martino had also worn out his welcome with his brother bishops and the Vatican. So his resignation may be further evidence that the U.S. hierarchy is divided between moderate voices and a more strident conservative minority that is struggling in the wake of Obama's success with Catholic voters.

...Many in Scranton, and beyond, would agree. In fact there are strong indications that Martino was pushed before he jumped.

From the start of his six-year tenure in Scranton, Martino alienated many with his abrasive style. He clashed frequently with the local Catholic universities -- including the Jesuit-run University of Scranton -- and was dismissive of their ruling bodies, arguing that as bishop he would not heed their advice.

Last February, Martino blasted another local college, Misericordia University, for inviting Keith Boykin, an openly-gay author, Clinton administration staffer and Harvard Law classmate of Obama, to speak on campus. The university, run by the Sisters of Mercy, was "seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity," Martino charged.

Also in February, Martino warned Irish-American groups that he would close the city's cathedral on St. Patrick's Day if any of them honored a politician who Martino said would be considered "pro-abortion." That was seen as a shot across the bow against inviting Joe Biden; in past years, the Scranton Irish-Americans had honored both Obama and then-Senator Hillary Clinton.

...But it was an event in late October last year, on the eve of the presidential vote, as religious rhetoric was growing white-hot, that may have pushed Martino over the line in the eyes of many.

A parish was holding a regular voter-education forum on the election, featuring discussion of a document, "Faithful Citizenship," the election guide endorsed almost unanimously by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB. Martino showed up at the parish hall unannounced, causing a stir. Then he took the microphone and proceeded to critique the organizers for not using his own letter on abortion as the basis of the discussion.

When a nun at the forum reminded Martino about the document of the enitre bishops conference Martino responded, "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn't speak for me," Martino declared. "The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.""

So let's see - the Diocese of Scranton is the home diocese of Joe Biden, the pro-abortion Catholic VP of the United States. It seems, at least based on the story above, that political inclinations in the Scranton area run to the Progressive. The previous bishop, Joseph Martino, seems to have been unabashedly conservative and caused such an uproar that he was ousted. In the process he mocked the USCCB, the same group that is supplying information used by the diocese in its banning of Voris. And let's not forget that the USCCB and the corruption that surrounds it has been a major focus of Real Catholic TV over the last couple of years.

Now, I don't know this for sure but I'm going to make a guess and say that the banning of Voris has more to do with politics than it does the truth. My guess is that the new bishop would rather not get involved in starting up old problems regardless of his own inclinations. Or perhaps he agrees with the USCCB and their Progressive agenda. I don't know.

Bottom line - I wouldn't put too much weight in the statement issued by the Diocese of Scranton. It has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with quashing dissent. And that's a dangerous path to take.

WHO NEEDS TO KNOW HISTORY?

2011-04-10T08:09:00.000-05:00

Most today don't pay much attention to history. It's just so...old? With i-phones and big screens and all our other modern accouterments why should we ever look back? Go forward young man!

We do this at our own peril. Just as we neglect and belittle the wisdom of the old among us we think that there's nothing those long dead can tell us.

I'll bet the Japanese are singing a different tune now.

"Modern sea walls failed to protect coastal towns from Japan's destructive tsunami last month. But in the hamlet of Aneyoshi, a single centuries-old tablet saved the day.

"High dwellings are the peace and harmony of our descendants," the stone slab reads. "Remember the calamity of the great tsunamis. Do not build any homes below this point."

It was advice the dozen or so households of Aneyoshi heeded, and their homes emerged unscathed from a disaster that flattened low-lying communities elsewhere and killed thousands along Japan's northeastern shore.

Hundreds of such markers dot the coastline, some more than 600 years old. Collectively they form a crude warning system for Japan, whose long coasts along major fault lines have made it a repeated target of earthquakes and tsunamis over the centuries.

The markers don't all indicate where it's safe to build. Some simply stand — or stood, until they were washed away by the tsunami — as daily reminders of the risk. "If an earthquake comes, beware of tsunamis," reads one. In the bustle of modern life, many forgot."
Associated Press

HIGH TECH MONEY WASTING

2011-04-10T07:30:00.001-05:00

I saw this over on The Blaze and it's really cool and all, kind'a Buck Rogers meets Capt. Ahab. It's great than we've got laser weapons and that they can catch an idling boat on fire.

But this is the thing that really impressed me. To make that boat idle they've got $40,000 worth of outboard engines hanging off the back of it. Why not grab an old '65 Evinrude or something? And who knows how much the boat itself is worth. Again, don't they have some old piece of crap laying around the boatyard they could'a strapped the Evinrude to?

And yet, the Path To Prosperity presented by the Republicans last week takes a gentle approach when it comes to the military. Is it any wonder that a bunch of us out here think that the GOP is a bit less than serious about reducing the size of government? We agree that all entitlements have to be addressed. We know that all of us will feel considerable pain.

And we'd be more likely to keep a stiff upper lip about it if we didn't have to watch the navy burn up well in excess of $60,000 worth of boat when they could've proved the same point with a $1,000 junker.

WHY I HOPE TRUMP RUNS FOR PRESIDENT

2011-04-09T08:14:00.000-05:00

This is an excerpt from a New York Times op-ed written by Gail Collins:

"Donald Trump has run faux campaigns for president before, flirting with the Democrats and independents. This time, he’s playing a conservative Republican. By 2016, he’ll probably be talking about his affinity for the Alaskan Independence Party or the Whigs.

And, of course, he’s suddenly a birther. “This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t,” he said of President Obama. “I didn’t think this was such a big deal, but, I will tell you, it’s turning out to be a very big deal because people now are calling me from all over saying: please don’t give up on this issue.”

It was a perfect vocalization of the New York Street: People are calling me up! Don’t believe everything you hear, unless it comes over the phone.

In a potential Republican field that includes Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, it’s hard to come up with a line of attack loopy enough to stand out from the pack. But darned if Trump didn’t manage to find one.

“If he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the greatest scams of all time,” Trump told Bill O’Reilly, who demurred: “I don’t think that’s the case.”

Vote for Donald Trump, the man who can make Bill O’Reilly look like the most sensible guy in the room."

And this is Trump's reply in the Times:

"Even before Gail Collins was with the New York Times, she has written nasty and derogatory articles about me. Actually, I have great respect for Ms. Collins in that she has survived so long with so little talent. Her storytelling ability and word usage (coming from me, who has written many bestsellers), is not at a very high level. More importantly, her facts are wrong!

As far as her comments on the so-called “birther” issue, I don't need Ms. Collins's advice. There is a very large segment of our society who believe that Barack Obama, indeed, was not born in the United States. His grandmother from Kenya stated, on tape, that he was born in Kenya and she was there to watch the birth. His family in Honolulu is fighting over which hospital in Hawaii he was born in-they just don't know.

He has not been able to produce a “birth certificate” but merely a totally unsigned “certificate of live birth”-which is totally different and of very little significance. Unlike a birth certificate, a certificate of live birth is very easy to obtain. Equally of importance, there are no records in Hawaii that a Barack Hussein Obama was born there-no bills, no doctors names, no nurses names, no registrations, no payments, etc. As far as the two notices placed in newspapers, many things could have happened, but some feel the grandparents put an ad in order to show that he was a citizen of the U.S. with all of the benefits thereto. Everybody, after all, and especially then, wanted to be a United States citizen.

The term used by Ms. Collins-“birther”-is very derogatory and is meant in a derogatory way. Had this been George Bush or almost any other President or Presidential aspirant, they would never have been allowed to attain office, or would have been thrown out of office very quickly.

For some reason, the press protects President Obama beyond anything or anyone I have ever seen. What they don't realize is that if he was not born in the United States, they would have uncovered the greatest "scam" in the history of our country. In other words, they would become the hottest writer since Watergate, or beyond.

Open your eyes, Gail, there's at least a good chance that Barack Hussein Obama has made mincemeat out of our great and cherished Constitution!"

Now, you gotta understand that I don't think it really matters in the end who wins the Presidential election because the country has gone past the point of no return. There's just too much corruption cooked into the system at this point. The only real solution is to shut it all down and start over.

But, since we're going to go through the motions anyway, why not have a little fun. Trump won't take anything lying down. If most candidates were attacked like he was by Ms. Collins they'd wring their hands in a grand theatrical gesture and begin to pontificate about the politics of hate or the flatulence of fear or some such thing. Trump'll just take off his jacket and get down in the pit and mix it up. MMA meets Pennsylvania Avenue.

Trump's reply reminded me of another famous reply from Missouri's own President Harry Truman, a guy more than willing to swing back. His daughter Margaret was an aspiring singer. One of her shows was reviewed by a Mr. Paul Hume, Washington Post music critic. While he was quite complimentary about Miss Truman's appearance he was less enthusiastic about her singing.

When President Truman saw the review in his morning paper he wrote this little note:

"Mr Hume:

I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."

It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.

Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!

Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T."

So I say run Mr. Trump, run! We need to see a fighter in the race, not a politician.

BISHOP REFUSES TO GIVE COMMUNION TO CO-HABITATING COUPLES

2011-04-08T10:32:00.000-05:00

As much as I piss and moan about the bishops in America we still do have a bunch of them that aren't afraid to speak the truth, regardless of how counter-cultural it is. Archbishop Michael Sheehan is one of them. I've reprinted in full his pastoral letter about co-habitating couples...screw it, people shacking up... and the mortal danger that they are placing themselves in.

I was young once and if I'd had the opportunity I probably would have lived with my wife before we got married. People were doing it all the time but it still wasn't something that was readily accepted, not like it is today, just another lifestyle choice. But I knew that I was supposed to get married and Kathy felt the same. I wasn't very concerned about religion at the time but somehow that stuck with me. I'm glad it did.

Even taking the religious aspect away, I still don't quite understand why anyone would want to open themselves up to another in the way that marriage does without the vows. It's important to me to know that we're in this together, good times and bad. This isn't some passing thing, a quick roll in the hay and goodbye. Marriage is a partnership that has to last 'til death do us part. If you can't make that commitment then don't get married. And if you can't marry a person then don't live with them. Because vows or not, between the sex and all else that goes with living together, a bond will form, for good or bad, and it will be a bond for life, regardless of future separation. That's how we're built. It's our nature.

So I thank the good bishop for his wise words. I wish more of our leaders in the Church would speak up as forcefully.

April 3, 2011

Pastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We are all painfully aware that there are many Catholics today who are living in cohabitation.
The Church must make it clear to the faithful that these unions are not in accord with the Gospel, and to help Catholics who find themselves in these situations to do whatever they must do to make their lives pleasing to God.

First of all, we ourselves must be firmly rooted in the Gospel teaching that, when it comes to
sexual union, there are only two lifestyles acceptable to Jesus Christ for His disciples: a single life of chastity, or the union of man and woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony. There is no “third way” possible for a Christian. The Bible and the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes same sex unions.

We have three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage:
those who cohabit; those who have a merely civil union with no previous marriage; and those
who have a civil union who were married before. These people are objectively living in a state of mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion. They are in great spiritual danger. At the best - and this is, sadly, often the case - they are ignorant of God’s plan for man and woman. At the worst, they are contemptuous of God’s commandments and His sacraments.

Of these three groups, the first two have no real excuse. They should marry in the Church or
separate. Often their plea is that they “cannot afford a church wedding” i.e. the external
trappings, or that “what difference does a piece of paper make?” - as if a sacramental covenant is nothing more than a piece of paper! Such statements show religious ignorance, or a lack of faith and awareness of the evil of sin.

The third group, those who were married before and married again outside the Church, can seek
a marriage annulment and have their marriage blest in the Church. Please remember that divorce
still is no reason to refrain from Holy Communion as long as they have not entered into another
marriage or sinful relationship. Many Catholics are confused on this point.

Christ our Lord loves all these people and wishes to save them - not by ignoring their sin, or
calling evil good, but by repentance and helping them to change their lives in accordance with
His teaching. We, as His Church, must do the same. In accord with this, I would remind you of
the following:

1. People in the above three situations cannot receive the Sacraments, with the important exception of those who agree to live chastely (“as brother and sister”) until their situation is regularized. Of course, those in danger of death are presumed to be repentant.

2. These people may not be commissioned as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, not only because of scandal, but even more because one commits the sin of sacrilege by administering a Sacrament in the state of mortal sin.

3. Nor are such people to be admitted to the role of sponsor for Baptism or Confirmation, as
is clearly stated on the Archdiocesan Affidavit for a Sponsor. It is critical for the sponsor
to be a practicing Catholic - and can anyone be seriously called a practicing Catholic who
is not able to receive the sacraments because they are living in sin?

4. When it comes to other parish ministries and organizations, I feel it best to leave these
situations to the judgment of the pastor. Prudence is needed, avoiding all occasions of
scandal. We must see their involvement in the parish as an opportunity to work urgently
to bring such people to repentance and the regularization of their lifestyle.

5. Many of these sins are committed out of ignorance. I ask that our pastors preach on the
gravity of sin and its evil consequences, the 6th and 9th Commandments of God, and the
sacramental nature and meaning of Christian marriage. Our catechetical programs in our
parishes - children, youth, and adult – must clearly and repeatedly teach these truths.

A Church wedding does not require some lavish spectacle and entertainment costing vast
sums of money (Indeed, how often we have seen the most costly weddings end in divorce
in but a few months or years!). While beauty and joy should surround a Christian
wedding, we must remind everyone that it is a sacrament, not a show.

6. Those who are married outside the Church because of a previous union are urged to seek
an annulment through our Marriage Tribunal. If it can be found that the first marriage
lacked some essential quality for a valid marriage, the Tribunal can grant an annulment.
Your pastor can help someone start a marriage case for this purpose. It is important for
such couples to continue to pray and get to Mass even though they may not receive
Communion, until their marriage can be blest in the Church.

Our popular American culture is often in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and His Church. I
urge especially young people to not cohabitate which is sinful, but to marry in the Church and
prepare well for it.

I congratulate and thank those thousands of Catholic married couples who role model the
Sacrament of Marriage according to the teachings of Jesus and his Church.

Sincerely yours in the Risen Lord,

Most Rev. Michael J. Sheehan
Archbishop of Santa Fe

THIS IS NOT MY CHURCH!

2011-04-08T09:34:00.000-05:00

For all that might think I'm rather extreme in my belief that the Church is splitting in America I give you this most current offering from Catholic TV. THIS IS NOT CATHOLICISM!! It's paganism and Protestantism and New Age craziness and it's a lie. Yet, many Catholics are turning to this with open arms.

We don't see much of this here in the middle of the country - yet. However, I talk to people on the coasts and they tell me that they run into stuff like this all the time. This is blasphemous, especially in the cavalier attitude towards the Eucharist.

In America we have the freedom to worship as we please and that's a good thing. But we don't have the freedom to lie. In calling this nightmare Catholicism the people that promote it are misleading others and sending them on the path to damnation.

This is a Church problem and the Church needs to deal with it. So, once again I'm forced to ask, WHERE THE HELL IS ROME?!!!! Souls are being lost and the Vatican is silent.

Let the excommunications begin. And while we're at it, when was the last time we had a good old fashioned heretic burning?

Just saying.

WALKIN' IN THE SAND

2011-04-08T08:06:00.000-05:00

Jeff Beck is one of the greatest guitar players ever and he seems to have found a musical soul mate in Imelda May. She's a rockabilly singer from Ireland and her husband, Darrel Higham, is the guitar player in their band. He's a damned good guitarist himself.

Beck brought Imelda May and her band on the Leno show last night to play "Remeber (Walkin' in the Sand)", the 1964 hit for the Shangri-Las and they tore it down. There's some longer versions of them preforming this song on YouTube that are better but this was just fine.

Beck has always been deeply involved in jazz and earlier forms of rock. Of late he's been doing a lot of Les Paul music and Imelda May has been singing the Mary Ford vocal arrangements, even using the same multi tracking that Paul and Ford used to such great effect. I've posted the video from Beck's tribute on PBS to Les Paul, the great Les Paul/Mary Ford hit "How High the Moon", below. It's good to see that someone is carrying on these older songs, keeping them alive, because I just don't hear much anymore that compares. I don't know why that is except that most rock seems to have moved away from its blues, jazz and country roots. It's become way too dark and, dare I say it, Satanic.

Anyway, it's Friday and time for a little good music to wash away the cares of the world. My internet connection is barely functioning so this may be the only thing I post today.

THE STRIKE IS ABOUT TO BEGIN

2011-04-07T13:44:00.000-05:00

"House Republicans advanced legislation Thursday to avoid a government shutdown for one more week, cut spending and fully fund the Pentagon, but the White House labeled the measure a distraction and said President Barack Obama would veto it.

Obama said in a statement he believes "we need to put politics aside and work out our differences" on a spending plan that covers the government through September, when the current budget year ends.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly countered with a statement saying he was "confident that those Democrats who believe it is important to fund our troops and make real spending cuts will prevail upon Senator Reid and our commander in chief to keep the government from shutting down.""
Yahoo News

"The government would be forced to shut down if President Barack Obama follows through on a promise to veto a Republican-backed stopgap spending bill, House of Representatives Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Thursday.

"I've just been informed that President Obama has threatened to veto the only bill before us to keep the government functioning ahead of tomorrow's deadline," Cantor said in a prepared statement. "If the President vetoes this bill and shuts the government down, our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world will not be paid. ... I urge the President revisit his decision and work with us.""
Yahoo News

Kind'a makes you wonder just what they consider essential, doesn't it?

This is the game that government's always play and it's right out of the union playbook. When money is short and they want more of ours the first thing that gets cut is the most important and vital service the government supplies. They always cut the police, fire and school budgets first but leave their own pay and perqs in place. They feed the fish in the zoo and starve the soldier in the field. I've got to find a list somewhere of just what will be funded when they shut the government down. I'll bet that there's plenty of stuff on it that is a whole lot less important than the military. But those things wouldn't put the pressure on the employers as effectively as not paying the military.

I don't know how long this strike is going to go on. The one thing that I'm going to be real interested to see is how long it takes all the retired people I saw at the TEA Party rallies to start screaming about not getting their checks from Social Security and Medicare. It's time to put up or shut up. We all want smaller government but its not going to be painless.

There's something else that I've been wondering about. Right after the last election there was all kinds of resistance from the old guard in the GOP to the TEA Party and it demands to cut spending. Suddenly we had this huge turn around and the GOP leadership seems to have embraced the whole concept of spending cuts and smaller government. Do you think, and maybe I'm just too cynical, but do you think that somebody, somewhere in the GOP said let's give 'em what they want and before you know it they'll be back, screaming for benefits and leaving the TEA Party in droves. Is this shutdown being driven by Progressive interests in the GOP as well as the same interests in the Democrat Party?

I don't trust any of 'em.

THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE

2011-04-06T11:06:00.002-05:00

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN - OR STRIKE

2011-04-06T06:55:00.001-05:00

"Democrats and Republicans tried yesterday to reach a spending compromise that would keep the government running after President Barack Obama said it would be “inexcusable” for Congress to fail to avert a shutdown looming at week’s end.

House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told Democrats at a private White House meeting that he wanted to slice $40 billion from current spending, according to an administration official who sought anonymity. That is $7 billion higher than the $33 billion plan lawmakers had been working to assemble."
Business Week

With a community organizer as President and union bosses visiting the White house on a very regular basis I have to wonder if the impending government shutdown isn't a strike.

If I think about it all the classic labor relations problems are there. We have an employer (the people) that is tired of losing money, basically insolvent and needs to make cuts. We have an entrenched union (all the various special interests) that demand we continue to pay them an exorbitant salary regardless of profitability. The line has been drawn in the sand by the recent budget proposal submitted by Congressman Ryan.

The union won't accept our offer and we can't afford anything else and stay in business so a strike (government shutdown) has been threatened. The union believes that the service they provide is so special that they can't be replaced. They're banking on other unions supporting their play. They think that if they cause enough pain we'll roll on their demands.

Now, if this were my business I would have plans in place to replace these workers with new ones as soon as they walked off. And yes, I know that may be illegal based on contractual obligations but too bad. If we don't make serious changes and do it right now we're going under. I'd begin slashing programs and any other extraneous costs as soon as the strike begins.

All this would take planning and leadership. Fortunately the budgetary problems aren't something that came up over night so I've had plenty of time to get my act together.

Unfortunately, the government isn't a privately run business and we have no leadership that's worth talking about on the conservative side. And because of this the unions hold all the cards. And they know it. That's why they're (the Democrats) forcing this to happen. They know the strike will be successful and the business owners will cave.

If we had leadership it would have set the stage to weather the strike that's heading our way. This could have been done by getting out ahead of the union last year when the Democrats never submitted or approved a budget. Hell, the handwriting was on the wall at that point. Republicans should have taken the facts to the people and explained what we're up against. Of course, this would have pissed off their own special interest groups but real leaders wouldn't care.

If someone would just speak the truth and tell the people exactly why we're broke and what it will take to fix it we'd get on board. Look at the TEA Party turn outs last year! We'd be ready and willing to fight the unions and their strike and win.

So how would the people circumvent the unions? By hiring new workers and crossing the line. Now, it would be damned near impossible to do this at the federal level. The way around it is to put systems in place to begin handling essential government functions at the local level to the greatest extent possible.

To do that we'd need money. So we'll kill two birds with one stone; starve the beast. A real leader would have begun helping state and local governments to begin to stop sending money to Washington and keep it locally if a strike is called. Roads, schools, health and whatever else is extorted from the people and then redistributed to them by the extortionist would just stay with them from the beginning.

This would force an instant reduction in the size and power of the federal government and undercut the bargaining power of the union. It would also force the people to look honestly at the cost of services supplied by government and then to decide which are truly essential. The fed would still keep receiving our payroll taxes so they should have enough to keep the military functioning, especially if we immediately disengage overseas.

But, since we don't have any real leaders, when the union shuts down the government they'll hold all the cards. The strike will work when things start to shut down because there won't be any way to quickly replace the essential needs with local alternatives because the ground work hasn't been laid. The strike will work because the people will cave because no one has made the case to them so they'd have the strength to resist union tyranny. The media will make it sound as though we can't get along without the union, playing up any problems they can find, exaggerating the real affects of a government shutdown and backing their buddies in the union. And of course the union will make sure that the truly essential services go off line first for maximum effect.

So get ready for a week or so of theater and hand wringing before everything goes back to normal and the death spiral resumes anew. The lack of leadership on the conservative side means the unions will win the strike. And the people will lose.

ONE MORE THING

The more I've thought about this during the day the more I've started to wonder about the timing with all the union unrest at the state level. I know that most of it has been in response to budget cutting by Republican governors but still, isn't it just a bit...convenient, that just when we may need to shift services to the state or local governments we have all the union state and local workers all twisted in knots and ready to rumble?

If we try to sidestep the federal government how hard would it be for the unions to direct their members at the state and local levels to not do the work or actually go on strike?

Just wondering.

THE GOOD SCHISM

2011-04-05T11:17:00.000-05:00

Mr. Voris is onto something here. What he describes is exactly what I see happening in my own Catholic community. We're all starting to realize that staying loyal to Rome and to the faith may mean divorcing ourselves from the American Church establishment. It's walking a fine line but I think as long as we stay focused on Christ and Peter we'll do OK.

The danger is that it would be all too easy to stray away. But the reality is that to do nothing, to blindly follow the apostate teachings of many of the bishops in America would be equally, if not more, dangerous.

BISHOP WANTS PASTOR JONES ARRESTED

2011-04-05T09:14:00.001-05:00

"The president of the Pakistani bishops' conference has called for the arrest of a U.S. Protestant pastor whose decision to burn the Islamic sacred book has caused fury in the Muslim world and the deaths of more than 20 people.

Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, conference president, said the U.S. government should seek to diffuse mounting tensions by detaining the Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center Church in Gainesville, Fla., who oversaw the burning of the Quran by the Rev. Wayne Sapp, his assistant.

"The U.S. government should detain the pastor for some time," Archbishop Saldanha told the British branch of Aid to the Church in Need, a Catholic charity for persecuted Christians around the world."
Catholic News Agency

I'm curious. What exactly does the good bishop think that Rev. Jones should be arrested for? Burning the Koran may be provocative, it might be stupid and it was probably simply an act of self promotion. But illegal? Hardly. The act itself harmed no one and didn't damage another's property. It didn't offend the natural law rights of another; in fact it was an exercise of the natural law right to freedom of expression and religion that the pastor possesses as a part of his humanity.

It's frightening how quickly a bishop is willing to excuse the truly horrendous, immoral and illegal behavior of the Muslim rioters and to then turn around and place the blame on an innocent man.

I have some questions that I'd love to hear the bishop answer. When Christian missionaries are arrested and executed for the crime of preaching the Gospel, are they guilty of causing their own deaths? If a person hands out Bibles in a Muslim country and is killed because of that, who should be arrested? The killers or the church leader that sent the person in the first place? If the bishop sends someone to preach the gospel and riots erupt because of it, should the bishop be arrested? Or, in the bishops way of thinking, is the preservation of peace and ecumenism so important that he wouldn't send the missionary or preach the Gospel in the first place?

Just wondering.

SHOULD MEDICAL MARIJUANA USERS BE ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS?

2011-04-05T08:04:00.000-05:00

Liquor Guns amp Ammo Sign
Myspace Graphics

Why is this even a question here in the land of the free?

"Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession.

Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away.

She is part of what is considered the first major court case in the country to consider whether guns and marijuana can legally mix. The sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties say no. But Willis and three co-plaintiffs have won in state court twice, with the state’s rights to regulate concealed weapons trumping federal gun control law in each decision.

With briefs filed and arguments made, they are now waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule.

When it’s over, the diminutive 54-year-old plans to still be eating marijuana cookies to deal with her arthritis pain and muscle spasms, and carrying her pistol."
The Blaze

As someone that's spent more time in duck blinds with guys that are stoned than I care to think about the answer to this question is an unequivocal YES! And as a guy that's spent a whole bunch of Sunday afternoons drinking beer and shooting clay birds my answer is still YES!

The truth is that people that are responsible can have a few beers or blow a couple one bangers and still be responsible. At the same time, I've been around a whole bunch of stone sober idiots with firearms that I wouldn't trust no matter what. I've had to go as far as to remove the weapons from them on occasion.

This isn't about inebriation. It's about a political agenda. And it's about stupid federal firearms laws that should have never been enacted, especially because they violate the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution. Firearm laws should be left up to local officials and legislators. If Chicago wants to outlaw guns because its citizens demand it, fine. But it shouldn't speak for Mascoutah. And Washington, D.C. shouldn't have any say on this subject anywhere.

So, unless this lady in the article above is shown to be irresponsible with her weapons irrespective of her use of marijuana leave her be.

This is, or at least should be, a state issue. Keep the fed out of it.

THE THIRD TESTAMENT

2011-04-04T13:08:00.002-05:00

A first time author named John Eklund contacted me a few weeks ago and asked if I would like to read and review his book “The Third Testament”. Having never done a book review before, and having not done a book report since my days in grade school so long ago, I agreed, with a certain amount of fear and trembling (sorry, St. Paul), to go ahead and try my hand at reviewing someone else’s work. So, here goes:

I’ve never read a book quite like “The Third Testament” before. It’s not wholly a work of fiction and yet it’s fictional. But it’s also filled with historical information. But it’s not historical fiction because the fictional story runs parallel to the historical. And they interact and intertwine to create a third story of redemption and faith. But even this story is not confined to a character or a particular group, though it applies to both, but to all of humanity.

The book, at least the fictional part, reminded me in many ways of reading something written by Wendell Berry. Not in style or subject but in that it has a certain gentleness to it. It follows the ebb and flow of a normal life that has been interrupted by a series of life altering problems. It’s the response to the problems, a response grounded in faith, that strike me as honest and true. No explosions, gunfire or incredible acts of heroism, just human suffering and confusion, all wrapped up in a daily life that must go on, punctuated by moments of grace that allow a person of faith to endure.

The central character, Fred Sankt, a professor at a Catholic college and a widower, is confronted with the very real possibility that his only daughter will be killed by the same type of cancer that killed his wife years earlier along with a legal threat to his financial security from an unjust accuser. He experiences a series of dreams that lead him to believe that he has been chosen to write a book of salvation history, picking up where the New Testament leaves off, a Third Testament. In writing this book he finds solace from the pressures in his life, and hope.

From the author’s point of view this is an effective device because it allows him to switch back and forth from the story of Mr. Sankt to the book that Mr. Sankt is writing. This lets the reader journey along with him as he chronicles the triumphs and failures of the Church throughout the last 2000 years, painting a picture of struggle and redemption that one can hardly help but to begin to see mirrored in the personal struggles of Mr. Sankt and, by extension, all of us.

I don’t read much fiction because, for the most part, I have a limited amount of time to read and I like to try to make it count. I don’t read much fiction because I don’t learn much from it, at least the fiction that is produced today. I find myself drawn to the classic works of fiction when I read any fiction at all. I just reread “To Kill a Mockingbird” and a short story by Faulkner, “The Barn Burner”. Both had messages worth hearing. Not long ago I read “On the Road”, Jack Kerouac’s classic. Not exactly uplifting and holy but well worth reading because of the use of language and how the rythym of the words evoke a jazz/bop riff. Also, as a person of faith, it’s a really good book to show just how little hope there is in a life driven by hedonism. The characters lives were pointless, but not the book. Again, great stuff.

On the other hand, I also just read a Brad Thor novel, “The Last Patriot”. It’s a complete waste of time. It just seemed so pointless. What could I learn from it? Nothing. Sure the story moved along and there was plenty of action but it was empty of any sort of moral sense, good or bad. It was just an aimless exercise in reading; junk food for the mind.

Mr. Eklund’s book “The Third Testament” is worth reading because it expresses a truth that too many have forgotten. As Christians we are part of one body and whatever happens to one of us happens to all of us. We all suffer, sometimes as individuals and sometimes corporately through the suffering of the Church, our one, shared body. Also, there is no new suffering. It’s all happened before. And it seems that there is a reason for it because, if one reads their history, they know that few if any saints became holy without it. The history of the church is a history of patient endurance.

“What is it that hath been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

As Christians we need to understand our shared family history so that we can place our own lives in their proper context. Religion devoid of history is dead (sorry, St. James). Conversely, history devoid of God is a lie. Without the examples of our fathers in the faith how can we see that our lives have meaning, that we are much larger than what we see in the mirror, that our lives are part of a greater life, the life of the Church and through it the life of Jesus and through Him the life of God the Father? And if we read history without seeing the guiding hand of grace we miss so much of the underlying truth and the conclusions we draw will be twisted and confused.

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

In this book we come to see, along with Mr. Sankt, that the Church stands as a beacon, a reason for hope. We see that it’s very endurance, the fact that it still survives today, after 2,000 years of attacks and brutal betrayals, just as Jesus promised it would, is as sure a reason for faith in Christ as anything else. Only a miracle, or more rightly, one whole never ending series of miracles and heavenly protections could have kept our Holy Mother Church on this earth. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest form of government on the earth today, outlasting everything before or since. That is a miracle, maybe the greatest of all since the beginning of the Church itself.

The following can be found on page 248 of "The Third Testament":

"One day a humble servant of the Lord lost a very dear friend to the scourge cancer. The humble servant felt great sorrow and prayed that he would someday see his friend again. After much time in prayer, the humble servant was confronted by a demon. The demon said to him, "Why do you waste your time in prayer? There is no proof that God exists."

The humble servant answered him, "I have faith and that is why I pray."

The demon then said to him with disdain, "Faith is no more than superstition. On what do you base this 'faith?'"

The humble servant answered, "I base this faith on trust."

"Trust in whom?" the demon retorted. "In whom do you have such trust that you would ignore the laws of probability and the laws of science?"

"I trust in Christ," the humble servant replied.

"In Christ!" the demon exclaimed. "In Christ! Name one thing Christ has done to earn your trust. Tell me please, what has He ever done to earn your prayers? I dare you to name one miracle He has ever performed that has been proven by science to be true. Name it! Name it!" he taunted with glee.

The humble servant stood with patience, and then answered with three simple words: "The Church exists."

"What?" the demon declared in confusion. "What!" he said again with vexation. "What do you mean 'the Church exists?' Please tell me how this relates to trust. Please tell me how this justifies your wasted time in prayer?"

The humble servant calmly explained his answer. "Jesus Christ made a promise--the simple promise 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' And now after 2000 years the Church still endures. It endures despite a history of heresies and persecutions. It endures despite the tyranny of despots. It endures despite the laws of probability and the laws of science. What greater miracle is there than this—that the son of a simple carpenter, who lived a life of poverty, and dwelled with the lowly, who never ventured more than a hundred miles from the town of his birth, and who died a criminal's death on a cross, would establish a great and holy Church, and that the teachings of this Church would be spread throughout the world by twelve simple men--men who hid in fear after the crucifixion? Yet in a mere three days after this lowly criminal's death, these twelve sprang forth and proclaimed His word and gave up their lives so that His promise would ring true. And over the centuries thousands of others gave their lives also, so that the Church would go on. The most powerful kings and most menacing armies stood against her, but the Church did not falter. For 2000 years this Church has withstood the test of time, overcoming the greatest of odds again and again. It surmounted the insurmountable. It beat the unbeatable foe. It prevailed through the harshest of storms. I say to you, this Church has shattered the very laws that you exalt. It defied that laws of probability, and it humbled the laws of science."

The humble servant continued on, "The existence of this Church is not a myth. The existence of this Church is not a legend. That this Church exists is an undeniable fact. That Christ's promise was kept is an undeniable fact. And if He kept this promise, then how can there be any doubt that He will keep His greatest promise—the promise that was central to His ministry, the promise that said 'If you believe in me, and eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you shall live forever.' So when you ask 'why do I have faith,' I tell you, it is because I have trust, and nothing that your fair science can offer can break that trust. This is why I pray, so that someday I will enjoy that most sacred covenant of all"--the humble servant paused briefly and then added with solemnity and conviction--"together with my friend!" He then looked the demon right in the eye. "What good can your science and probability offer that is greater than this?"

With those words, the demon turned away, never to bother the humble servant again."

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

Fear of the truth (and isn’t that really fear of God?) has led many Christians to completely dismiss history. Many in the Catholic Church are as guilty of this as many in the other Christian faiths. It’s far past the time that this should be remedied.

Mr. Eklund’s book, “The Third Testament” is a really fine place to start.

MISSOURI TO STOP SUCKING ON THE FEDERAL TEAT

2011-04-01T10:55:00.000-05:00

"Thousands of people in Missouri who have been unemployed for more than a year soon will lose their jobless benefits, marking a significant victory for Republican fiscal hawks who are crusading against government spending.

When eligibility ends Saturday, Missouri will become the only state to voluntarily quit a federal stimulus program that offers extended benefits. Michigan, Arkansas and Florida also recently took steps to cut back on money going to the unemployed, although they targeted state benefits instead.

"We have to take a stand and say, `When is enough enough?' and send a message to the federal government, and hopefully shame them into doing the right thing and quit spending money that they don't have," said state Sen. Jim Lembke, a Republican from St. Louis.

...At issue is a provision in the 2009 federal stimulus act that allowed residents in states with high unemployment rates to receive up to 20 additional weeks of federally funded jobless benefits after exhausting the 79 weeks authorized under other federal laws. At least three dozen states, including Missouri, enacted laws to participate.

Although their unemployment rates were high enough to qualify, seven other states – Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah – never passed laws to join in, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Maryland is now pursuing participation, but many of the other states seem content to remain out of the program. Much like his Missouri counterparts, Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups said the states need to set an example of self-sufficiency.

...That federal backlash is particularly strong in Missouri, where voters were the first in the nation to pass a measure challenging the new federal health care mandate and where Republican senators also are holding up federal stimulus money for education.

...The National Employment Law Project says its supporters sent 15,000 emails in a roughly 24-hour period from Tuesday to Wednesday urging Missouri senators to allow a vote on the legislation reauthorizing the extended jobless benefits.

But Sen. Brian Nieves, a Republican from Washington, Mo., who is popular among tea party activists, said he has no intention of compromising his position. "The people have been crystal clear for about the last two years in saying that they expect us to at least start the process of weaning ourselves off of the federal government," Nieves said."
Huffington Post

Way to go, Senators Nieves and Lembke! This sucks for the people that can't find work here in Missouri but reality has a way of sucking most of the time anyway.

The reality is that the money that the federal government wants to send to us to pay for additional unemployment benefits doesn't exist! They're creating...no I take that back. The Federal Reserve is creating it out of thin air and lending it to the government which is giving it to the states. In other words, this is no different than asking your parents to borrow money to pay your bills and then expecting your grandkids to pay the debt.

Yep, reality sucks alright but it is what it is. America is broke and it seems that a good deal of the people are, too. Going deeper and deeper into debt won't change that. It'll just make the eventual day of reckoning that much worse.

Now, I know that the usual suspects on the left - the unions, celebrities, politicians, community organizers and the USCCB will scream and rend their garments, demanding their perverted version of "social justice" be enforced. They'll demand that Missouri repent of its conservative ways and return to the Progressive fold.

There is nothing JUST about stealing money from future generations and hanging the albatross of debt around their necks to remedy our problems today. In fact, it's the opposite of justice; it's theft.

So I'm glad that my Senator, from my state, has the cajones to stand up for what's right regardless of the political fallout. I'm proud to say that I voted for Brian Nieves and I'll do it again.

Thanks, Senator and keep up the good work!

FED MAY RAISE INTEREST RATES

2011-04-01T05:37:00.001-05:00

"The president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank said Thursday the Fed may need to increase short-term interest rates by year's end if underlying inflation rises as he anticipates.

In a interview, Narayana Kocherlakota said he expected "a big upward movement" in core inflation—inflation excluding volatile food and energy prices—from about 0.8% late last year to about 1.3% by year-end.

As a result, he said, it's "certainly possible" the Fed's target for short-term interest rates, now near zero, would be lifted by more than half a percentage point late this year."
Wall Street Journal

Does anybody remember the Carter years? We're about to go back to them again, but this time around it'll feel like steroids have been shot into the monster.

The Fed seems to have two possible reactions to most any economic problem. The first is to create money out of thin air, lend it into the system, profit from the transaction and in the process devalue the dollar, causing more dollars to chase fewer goods and creating inflation.

They respond to this by invoking action number two. They raise interest rates to pull excess money back out of the system which, of course, allows them to profit once again.

Now, if the inflation we are just beginning to experience, and which is going to get much, much worse before it gets better, were caused by expansion in the economy due to the injection of capital then perhaps the Fed would be justified in raising rates and could do it without causing too much pain. But our inflation is only partially caused by the increase in the money supply this time. You see, most of the money created by the Fed has never been put out into the economy. It's been held by banks to make their balance sheets look good and to cover the defaults and other problems brought on by a nearly historic high in unemployment and underemployment. It's been used to play games in the stock market, keeping stock values artificially inflated, most likely to cover the true ugliness of our economy. Most people I talk to use the market values as a reason to believe that everything's just fine, even though they're working less and spending more for basics. The inflated market is the crutch they can lean on to support their financial fantasy world.

So, just like the Carter years, we've got people making less money and the cost of goods, mostly energy and food, going through the roof. And now interest rates will begin to rise, squeezing everyone even tighter. And as the cost of borrowing rises businesses that rely on loans to function will begin to cut back even more, increasing employment woes across the land.

One really big difference between the Carter years and today is the number of people that have mortgages tied to the current rate of interest and not a fixed interest rate. As rates rise and their mortgages become increasingly difficult to meet more and more will just simply walk away from their homes. And the number of empty houses. already numbering in the millions, will continue to grow.

Speaking of loans that are tied to interest rates, what about our Treasury Bonds? America can't meet her obligations with interest rates at near zero. And the world is slowly beginning to abandon our bonds because they're considered way to risky for the little potential upside. So we'll have to raise interest paid on them to try to make them more attractive to investors, which of course most will realize we'll never pay back anyway, so the rates will have to continue to climb and with every increase our ability to pay will fade further over the horizon.

I wonder if this is the real reason the Fed is talking about raising rates? Are they trying to lure investors back in? Maybe they're using inflation as an excuse because they don't want to admit publicly what most of us already know, that America is on it's last leg and falling quickly and that higher interest rates are essentially a Hail Mary pass attempt, one last shot at bringing us back that stands little or no chance of success.

Whatever the reason, it appears higher interest is on the horizon and times will get tougher for the average American. Buy food and other essentials now, while you can still afford it because this year has the potential to be a year unlike anything most of us have ever experienced.

Get ready and pray.

MORE LIES FROM THE LEFT - BUT IT MIGHT AS WELL BE THE RIGHT

2011-03-30T09:53:00.000-05:00

I'd like to recommend that you go over to Lee Stranahan's site and read his article "Media Matter’s Deceptive Editing On Fox Story". Be sure to watch the videos, viewing the Media Matters video before Mr. Starnahan's breakdown of it.

It's important that all of us understand the ways we are getting jerked around by the powerful on both sides. The one thing we deserve, the one thing that we are absolutely owed, is the truth. What we do with it is up to us. However, without it we're like a blind person walking the edge of a cliff. We will eventually make a decision that will cause us great harm that we could avoid if we could only see and understand the situation we face.

I think that the level of emotion that I see on both sides of the debate is caused by this lack of basic, honest information. Most people sense that something is desperately wrong with our country and the world but they can't get their hands around it because they are never given the information, the truth, they need to come to grips with it.

We're being played with like puppets on a string. The truth is the knife we need to cut ourselves free. And the only way you'll find it anymore is by doing your own research and being honest about the information you read. Don't trust anything until you've verified it yourself. And don't just chase a link around from site to site. Find the ORIGINAL source material and read it yourself.

I've found that most of what you read, especially if it's all the rage and everyone is posting it, is suspect at best or an outright lie a good deal of the time.

We can no longer be passive consumers of information, at least not if we want our freedom.

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY RECOGNIZES SAME SEX UNIONS

2011-03-30T08:23:00.001-05:00

"Marquette University, a 130 year-old Jesuit institution, has announced plans for the school to offer benefits to employees of same-sex couples effective next year.

School president Fr. Robert Wild made the announcement in a March 24 statement.
“Fr. Wild said the benefit provision was an expression of pastoral care and an acknowledgment that health care is a basic human right,” Kate Veene, the school's spokeswoman told EWTN News.

Fr. Wild said that offering same-sex couples medical, dental and vision benefits – currently provided to the university's married heterosexual couples and their dependents – was an issue he'd suffered internal conflict over.

He argued that gay couples “who have legally registered their commitment to each other” merit the same benefits as married couples under the Jesuit principle of “cura personalis” or “care for the whole person.”"
EWTN News

What is it with the Jesuits? If I were to have to choose which religious order is most likely to go off the reservation this would be the one.

Father Wild may have suffered all his internal conflict needlessly since the answer to his dilemma has already been provided by the Church, you know, that creaky old institution that he swore fealty to at one time?

The following excerpts come from a document released by the Vatican's Office for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003 entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons":

The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose...

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law...

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons...

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection...

Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex...

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure...

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. ..

Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children...

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State...

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

So is Marquette following either the letter or spirit of Church teaching in granting homosexual couples the same rights regarding health insurance as it does married heterosexuals? According to the document above, a document approved by Pope John Paul II, it doesn't. And for Catholic it's important to note that when the Magisterium speaks in accord like this it means that what it is saying is for all intents and purposes infallible. Catholics, particularly priests, are not free to ignore these sorts of teachings. Regardless of the amount of internal conflict one involves himself in.

We are quickly moving towards a collapse of the Church here in America because not only does the laity refuse to follow Rome but it appears the prelates are refusing to do so, also.

What is truth?

Pray and then pray some more. And keep your eyes fixed firmly on Peter.

GINGRICH ON FORGIVENESS

2011-03-30T06:53:00.000-05:00

"Newt Gingrich suggested Friday that he's not looking to "get past" his three marriages and admitted affairs as a potential stumbling block with voters, arguing it's about admitting to "weaknesses" and "failures" for which he sought God's "forgiveness."

The comments from Gingrich came during his latest trip to Iowa, in an interview on "Iowa Press," set to air Friday evening and again Sunday.

The former House speaker was asked by Associated Press reporter Mike Glover, "You've been married three times. You've had messy divorces. You're campaigning in a state where the Republican Party is dominated by Christian conservatives. How do you get past that?"

Gingrich replied, "I think you don't get past that. I think you tell the truth and I think you share your life's experiences and you admit that you've had weaknesses and that you've had failures and you've gone to God to seek forgiveness and to seek reconciliation and then people make a decision.""
Politico

I hope Gingrich is being honest, not just with the voters but with himself, and I hope that he's found the peace and forgiveness that only a relationship with God can bring. That being said, as a voter, and one with a conservative bent, I would have a hard time voting for this guy.

I think that he's brilliant and that of all the candidates on the Republican side so far he'd have the best chance of beating Obama in a one on one debate. He knows history and that's an invaluable asset for a President. He's hard headed enough to stand tough on something he believes passionately. And he's undoubtedly tough.

But, even with all those strengths he has one glaring weakness; he's part of the old guard, a neo-con from the nineties, someone that will support wars overseas and the expansion of American empire. And I can't support that.

We're broke, game over, end of story. It's time for America to retract from the world, gracefully and from a position of strength. Bring the troops back and protect our own shores, develop our resources, live within our means, and learn to get by on the energy we produce here.

We need a President that will lead us into the new reality we face, not one stuck in the age of empire. I don't think Gingrich is that man.

REAL SOCIAL JUSTICE

2011-03-30T06:41:00.001-05:00

"The cash-strapped MTA may soon put welfare recipients to work scrubbing and cleaning the subways.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority wants to revive its participation in the city's Work Experience Program - which makes the unemployed toil for their benefit checks.

"This is a program that has a proven track record of doing three things: providing low-cost cleaning help for the subway; providing job training to people who need it, and leading directly to full-time employment for many of the people who participate in the program," MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said.

The MTA eliminated 173 cleaner positions last year in a series of budget cuts that slashed a total of about 3,500 jobs."
New York Daily News

This is what true "social justice" looks like. As a Catholic I realize that there is a responsibility on the government's part to take care of its citizens when those citizens have no other way to get by. This is because those same citizens supported the government through taxes and service when times were good. It's a two way street.

However, just as those citizens rightfully expected a return on their treasure and energy when it was given to the government, things such as roads, police and fire protection, among others, the government has a right to expect a return from the citizens on money spent to support them in time of need. Again, this is a two way street.

Unlike the Progressive form of "social justice" where self centered greed drives the entire process, true "social justice" has at its core the concern for the other. The government gladly looks to the welfare of the citizen while the citizen gladly labors for his dollar from the government because he realizes that the people from whom the dollars that support them are taken deserve a return on their money.

Concern for the other, on both sides of the equation, makes true "social justice" a worthy and holy undertaking. Narcissism and greed, the two hallmarks of all Marxist enterprises, corrupt and pervert the "social justice" that the Progressives continually try to sell us. This has had the effect of turning most Conservatives against something that properly understood and implemented is a vital component of our human society.

Proving once again that everything Marxism touches goes bad.

U.S. BISHOPS DECLARE LIBYAN WAR "JUST"

2011-03-29T06:10:00.002-05:00

"Military intervention in Libya, in the judgment of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “appears to meet” the just-cause criterion of Catholic teaching on just war. The USCCB, however, cautioned that it has “refrained from making definitive judgments” in light of “many prudential decisions beyond our expertise.”

“In Catholic teaching the use of force must always be a last resort that serves a just cause,” Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote in a letter to National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which ‘the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain’ (#2309). The just cause articulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to demand ‘a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians’ appears to meet this criterion in our judgment.”"
Catholic Culture

We find ourselves in a new war (whether we choose to call it that or not) in yet another Muslim country, backing a group that we know little about but which seems to be, because one of its leaders has said as much, affiliated with al-Qaeda, and the American Bishops have pronounced it just. Why? Because the U.N. is nominally in control of the situation? Or because President Obama is one of their own politically? I don't know but something isn't right.

This is what this same group of Bishops had to say about our invasion of Iraq:

"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.*"
USCCB

I'm curious how Libya differs from Iraq in "lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature"? We have not been attacked and neither was any other nation in the United Nations coalition. Libya is undergoing an internal civil war, the people having risen up, for whatever reason, to throw off their own government. Sure, Gaddafi is a butcher, a terrorist and a killer. But he's been that way a long time. And yes, he'll kill the people that turned on him if he wins the war. But they knew that going in and still figured it was worth the cost. So how does any of this justify ours or any other nations involvement in this mess?

Also, we didn't go in to stop the fighting. We went in and clearly took sides, backing the rebels with air power and supplies. We clearly intend to see Gaddafi taken out. How does all this fit into your just war theory, Bishops?

This pronouncement from the Bishops seems to me to be more about politics than faith and morals. But then lately most everything from the USCCB seems that way. I'm to the point of not listening to them at all anymore. They've become representatives of the Democrat party, not the Church leaders they're supposed to be.

But, the African Bishops and possibly the Pope disagree with our American Church leaders:

"“The Holy Father's appeal was wonderful news and gives us great comfort. The Pope spoke words that affirm the need for reconciliation, peace and dialogue,” said Bishop Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli. On Sunday, March 27, upon praying the Angelus, Pope Benedict XVI launched “an urgent appeal to international organisations and political and military leaders for immediate dialogue, to suspend the use of arms.”

“We have translated today's appeal by the Holy Father into Arabic and we will send it as a voice message to the Libyan Foreign Ministry, for their information,” says Bishop Martinelli. The Apostolic Vicar states that he did not participate in the event of Saturday, 26 March (see Fides 26/03/2011), and that in any case, as he explained to Fides, he would join in only if it had been a peace rally. “They have not asked again for our presence,” says Bishop Martinelli. “It was a manifestation to reaffirm the national unity of Libya. We have joined the tribal leaders, intellectuals and other personalities. I do not think either side wants a divide in Libya. However, this emphasises the need for dialogue to end the crisis,” says the Vicar Apostolic of Tripoli."
Energy Publisher

"Following the midday Angelus prayer this Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI launched the following urgent appeal:

“Faced with the increasingly dramatic reports from Libya, my trepidation for the safety and security of civilians and my concern for the unfolding situation, currently signed by the use of arms, is growing. In times of greatest tension, the need to put to use all means available to diplomacy becomes increasingly urgent and to support even the weakest signs of openness and willingness on both sides involved, for reconciliation in search of peaceful and lasting solutions. In view of this, as I lift my prayer to the Lord for a return to harmony in Libya and the entire North African region, I also appeal to the international bodies and all those in positions of military and political responsibility, for the immediate start of dialogue and the suspension of the use of weapons”.

“Finally, my thoughts turn to the authorities and citizens of the Middle East, where in recent days there have been several incidents of violence, so that the path of dialogue and reconciliation be privileged in the search for a just and brotherly coexistence”."
Catholicism Pure and Simple

POLITICAL THEATER FROM THE LEFT AND TAKING OUR EYES OFF THE REAL THREATS

2011-03-25T05:37:00.001-05:00

Raw Story, a consistently incendiary left wing website is running the following story:

"An Indiana prosecutor and Republican activist has resigned after emails show he suggested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stage a fake attack on himself to discredit unions protesting his budget repair bill.

The Republican governor signed a bill on March 11 that eliminates most union rights for public employees.

In an email from February 19, Indiana deputy prosecutor Carlos F. Lam told Walker the situation presented "a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation."

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism discovered the email among tens of thousands released to the public last week following a lawsuit by the Isthmus and the Associated Press.

"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," Lam said in his email.

"Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest," he continued. "Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions."

Lam resigned from his position after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism published an article about his email."

I've noticed that this is gaining some traction among some on the left that, like some on the right, grope and grasp for anything that fits their particular world view, regardless of whether it's important or spun so badly as to become meaningless.

I'll assume that this Lam guy wrote the e-mail since he resigned. What does this prove? He's an idiot? The story goes on to say that in a phone call to Wisconsin Governor Walker, someone posing as a Koch brother (the current boogie men on the right if one is to believe the left wing hysteria) suggested a similar "false flag" operation and Walker said that they'd thought about it. Again, so? They didn't do it, did they? Where's the harm in talk, even talk about something ridiculous?

At the same time that we have sites like Raw Story trying to gin up problems for the Republicans most of the main stream media is completely avoiding the story first broken by Glenn Beck and backed up by tapes of a speech given by Stephen Lerner in which Lerner details plans to collapse the American economy by creating a situation where people stop paying there mortgages and by demonizing J.P. Morgan and other financial institutions. You can find details here, here and here.

So here's the thing. We've got two stories competing for attention, one about a low grade political operative writing an e-mail supporting a stupid and pointless idea that was never acted on and for which he resigned and another reporting a conspiracy that seems to be in motion that has the potential to bring down our economy. If both succeed the first would have limited consequences, embarrassing the Governor and bringing into question the motives of a state issue and those that back it, a motive about which there is little question anyway. The second has international ramifications, with the potential to change everything about the way life in America and the world functions.

One has to wonder why partisan websites such as Raw Story promote political theater at the expense of important stories and further why anyone cares whether Walker got an e-mail or not. We live in extraordinarily dangerous times yet the average American, when they can tear themselves away from American Idol, focuses on partisan bickering and gamesmanship instead of the things that could destroy their lives.

Even if Beck is wrong about the plot he describes he has enough evidence and the threat is big enough that we should focus our attentions there, not on the stupid actions in Wisconsin and Indiana.

We must divorce ourselves from the politicians and the games they play and begin to function as one family working for the survival of our clan. These stupid games can wait for a different time when we, hopefully, once again have the luxury of playing in the dirt like kids.

Grow up America. And act like adults and fix the real problems.

MISSOURI PROP B AND THE LIES OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS FRINGE

2011-03-24T20:48:00.003-05:00

"A bill proposed by the Missouri General Assembly earlier this month would change some regulations of Proposition B, which passed with 51 percent of voters in November, could occur as soon as next month.

The Missouri Senate passed the bill that amends Prop. B with a vote of 20 to 14 on March 10, according to the Missouri Senate website. When the House votes on the bill in April, the final decision will lie with Gov. Jay Nixon.

The new provisions in House Bill 131 renames Prop. B the Dog Breeders Cruelty Prevention Act and removes the provisions concerning living conditions and specific medical regulations for animals.

House Bill 131 states Prop. B is not applicable to breeders unless they own more than 100 female dogs, and breeders are permitted to own more than 50 dogs.
Other changes to Prop. B that would be omitted deal with scientific facts, such as specific dog cage temperatures, which would harm some puppy breeds, said Representative Zachary Wyatt, R-District 2, who supports the House bill.

The "domesticated animal" provision would be removed because it could mean any animal from a dog to a horse, cow or pig, he said. Therefore, under Prop B, all the regulations would also apply to farm animals, which would be detrimental to agriculture, he said."
Truman Index

There's been a good deal of discussion, most of it on the passionate side, about Prop B both before and after its passage last year in Missouri. Most of the yelling right now revolves around the legislature making changes to the bill after it was voted on by the people.

Prop B was a bill written by the Humane Society of the United States under the guidance of its CEO and President Wayne Pacelle to whom the following quotes have been attributed:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, May 1993

"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. ---Wayne Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.

Can you blame those of us that voted against the bill for just a bit of concern about what the true intent of the legislation is? Section 9 of the act reads as follows:

"”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."

Those of us that have domesticated animals other than dogs and cats have quite a few reservations when it comes to the possibility of applying the regulations included in the act to our farm animals. My chickens are "domesticated animals" and they live about 50 feet from my house. Is that near enough for them to fall under the requirements of the act? If so, do I now need to heat and cool their coop and follow all kinds of other regulations that have nothing to do with the health and fitness of my birds? What about hogs, goats and cows? They're all domesticated, too. Do they fall under the regs in the act?

It seems to me, based on the known predilections of the leadership of HSUS that this bill is meant to be something more than just a way to prevent the abuse of dogs in large scale puppy mill operations. It is worded in ways that leave the legal door open for increasing government meddling in farming and private business/property issues, all with the intent of eventually creating legal protections for animals equivalent to those humans posses as a matter of the natural law. And those are the sorts of holes the legislature is trying to plug.

Further, if one reads the bill a glaring problem is found in its lack of establishing an enforcement mechanism or the funding for one. The Senate is trying to rectify that problem by increasing licensing fees for breeders to as much as $2500.00 to fund more inspectors. It seems that supporters of this bill would be happy with that.

"Missouri Humane Society president Kathy Warnick can't help but feel outraged by watching the Proposition (the Humane Society wrote) get overturned.

"A total miscarriage of justice has occured," Warnick said, "simply because Missouri's citizens voted for Proposition B. The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri to provide better care and conditions for the animals in Missouri's breeding facilities. We feel very strongly that the Senators have absolutely gutted proposition B, and that they have stripped away the protection Missouri's animals so richly deserve."
Fox 2

I guess it's just because I'm a dumb country boy but I don't see this bill being overturned. I see it being tweaked, corrected or brought into line with other statutory law in Missouri but that's hardly being overturned.

You see, this is the problem with the way the left misuses democracy. Notice how they constantly characterize our form of government as democracy when thats not what we are? The reason for this is because they know that through direct vote an ignorant populace can be coerced into voting for something against their own interest or against the interest of a minority group.

After all, democracy is nothing more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

"The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri...". If this is the case I wonder if Ms. Warnik would feel the same way if the people of Missouri had voted to allow dogs and cats to be served as food in our restaurants? Or what if we had voted to take away womens suffrage?

Democracy is nothing more than a tool used by the left to hijack the process in a republic. They know that they'll never get a bill like Prop B through the legislature so they do an end run by getting it put on the ballot, which is perfectly legal. However, it's also perfectly legal and normal for the legislature to amend statutes after they're passed; it happens all the time. Why should Prop B be sacrosanct?

Since the legislature doesn't seem to be looking to throw Prop B out I think that the outrage from the animal rights fringe is mostly for theatrical affect. They have an agenda far greater than the protection of dogs and they thought they had us fooled. Thankfully our reps are doing their jobs and now maybe we can get a law in place that protects both the dogs and the rights of animal owners, producers and breeders.

Isn't that really what most people want?

IS THE LEFT TRYING TO TAKE DOWN OUR ECONOMY? CAN THEY?

2011-03-22T19:09:00.000-05:00

Is this true? I don't know. Business Insider is taking it seriously and I've not often read anything completely crazy there.

Would it be possible to get 20% of the mortgage holders in America to do this? I don't know. While it's probably fairly easy to get the usual suspects to show up to a labor rally you have to consider that most of those people are young or generally unemployed or in jobs that the union controls and they can get off work with no real consequences. In other words, the usual suspects got nothing to lose by going to a rally and marching around shouting.

But there are real costs associated with not paying your house payment, even for a few months. You stop paying and your credit score gets slammed. A lot of employers look at those numbers and base your employment, at least in part, on them. You'll get nailed with late fees and God only knows what other charges. You could get sued or maybe even foreclosed on.

So the question is whether or not SEIU or anybody else could get 20% of American mortgage holders to take that chance. I'd have to say no but then I'm wrong a lot.

At the very least it's good to know that the threat is out there so if we start to see something like this fire off we know what it is and we can brace ourselves for the repercussions.

Prepare and pray. This is shaping up to be a really interesting year.

PAPAL FANTASY AND GLOBAL REALITY COLLIDE

2011-03-22T05:15:00.002-05:00

"Pope Benedict XVI made an urgent appeal to political and military leaders to protect the safety and security of civilians and guarantee the free flow of humanitarian aid inside Libya.

He said the "worrying news from Libya" in the past few days caused him "deep trepidation and fear," and he kept the North African country's people in his prayers during his Lenten retreat March 13-19.

Speaking to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square March 20 for the recitation of the Angelus, the pope said, "I address a pressing appeal to those who have political and military responsibilities" to ensure the safety and security of defenseless citizens as well as guarantee those offering emergency assistance have access to those in need."
Catholic News Service

As a devout and faithful Catholic, one that believes in the power and necessity of the papacy, I've long questioned the repeated calls by recent popes for a world power that can override individual national decisions. In 2008 Benedict visited the U.N. and had this to say:

“Countries that act unilaterally on the world stage undermine the authority of the United Nations and weaken the broad consensus needed to confront global problems, Pope Benedict said on Friday.

The international community must be “capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules,” said the 81-year-old pope, who spoke after meeting privately with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.He said the notion of multilateral consensus was “in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.”
Old Thinker

Sounds good on paper, right? There are two problems with this approach, at least as I see it. The first is that it seems to violate the principle of subsidiarity, a foundational social teaching of the Catholic Church. All solutions should come from the lowest possible level. And power tends to concentrate. If we allow a global authority any power over us it will, slowly and inexorably, aggregate power unto itself, consuming the rights of individual nations and states.

The other problem is that any global organization will be run by politicians. Politicians are always looking for ways to grab more power for themselves while hiding their efforts from the people. What better place to do this than from inside a giant global organization. This current U.N. driven attack against Libya is a perfect example.

The attack, which I believe is purely about oil, has been shrouded by lofty words calling for the restoration of human rights and security for the people of Libya. If there were any real concern at all for the people among the leadership of the U.N. the pope wouldn't be talking about concerns for their safety. But this isn't about people, its about one man, Qaddafi. And its about one country, America, using the obscurity of U.N. actions and mandates to attempt to carry out its own political objectives behind and under the curtain of international agreements and authority. We need to get rid of him to stabilize the oil supply because Europe depends on Libyan oil and we depend on gasoline refined in Europe to supply East Coast drivers.

So now the pope is concerned because the organization he has promoted is being used to run cover for a war for oil that will invariably cause abuses of human rights. And because it's a war carried out by this same global institution how can any one nation be blamed? And how will the pope make the argument that this war isn't about human rights when the system that he has called for to intervene "in the form of collective action by the international community" has done just that? Is the pope so blind that he believes that the U.N. will function as some sort of collective nirvana, a place where Swaziland will have the same political power as America, England, France, Russia and China?

The U.N. does not and will not work as some sort of buffer to unilateral abuses of power by individual states. Instead it is a smokescreen designed and used to cover them. And the pope ought to be able to understand this.

THE KID THAT BEAT THE BULLY SPEAKS OUT

2011-03-21T19:08:00.000-05:00

There's no doubt that Casey did what he had to at the time to get out of the problem he faced. And I'm sure he earned a bit of respect for doing it from the guys that have been pushing him around. But, kids being what they are, Casey better learn something about fighting now. I hope his old man knows this and gets to work. This kid is a known push over that everybody is going to figure got lucky once. He's still got no real friends though I bet he gets some hangers on. But they won't back him when the next guy comes along and wants to fight. And you better believe that next guy's out there, just waiting.

Good job Casey, now you know you can do it. But man up because the bigger challenges are yet to come. And remember, even if you get your butt kicked you'll still earn respect and that's what matters. If the bullies know you'll fight back then sooner or later they'll find somebody else that won't. Bullies hate to get hurt.

Oh, and something my old man told me years ago; they never remember HOW you won the fight, just that you won it.

NEW OR OLD IT DOESN'T MATTER - HOUSING SALES SUCK

2011-03-21T18:05:00.001-05:00

"Sales of previously owned U.S. homes fell unexpectedly sharply in February and prices touched their lowest level in nearly nine years, implying a housing market recovery was still a long off.

The National Association of Realtors said Monday sales fell 9.6 percent month over month to an annual rate of 4.88 million units, snapping three straight months of gains.

The percentage decline was the largest since July."
CNBC

"Due to having declined by almost 13% mom in January, new home sales were close to their all-time low. Thus we forecast that they will have recovered slightly to about 300k in February – still lower than the 2010 average of 320.5k."
FX Street

Here's the one thing you gotta know. No matter how the government or the investment class tries to spin it, until we start building houses and cars again you aren't going to see a recovery. Those two industries were the last of the big money jobs for blue collar guys like me. And there's millions of us out there with no work and really no hope of ever getting jobs even close to what we once had ever again.

Because of this we aren't buying anything and we won't be anytime soon, if ever. Only the essentials now; no more boats, campers, hunting gear, fishing stuff, home improvements or anything else that doesn't absolutely have to be bought.

It's only a matter of time before that ripples through the economy and the white collar world starts to feel the pinch even more than they have. And then they stop spending and the death spiral tightens.

Buckle up and pray. We've got a long ways to go in this economic downfall.

PHOTOS OF ARMY KILL TEAM WITH VICTIMS SURFACE - COINCIDENCE?

2011-03-21T11:49:00.000-05:00

"Commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of "trophy" photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed.

Senior officials at Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Kabul have compared the pictures published by the German news weekly Der Spiegel to the images of US soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq which sparked waves of anti-US protests around the world.

They fear that the pictures could be even more damaging as they show the aftermath of the deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by a rogue US Stryker tank unit that operated in the southern province of Kandahar last year.

Some of the activities of the self-styled "kill team" are already public, with 12 men currently on trial in Seattle for their role in the killing of three civilians.

Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder, after they staged killings to make it look like they were defending themselves from Taliban attacks.

Other charges include the mutilation of corpses, the possession of images of human casualties and drug abuse.

All of the soldiers have denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted."
Guardian

These guys are being tried for this so there's no denying it happened. The question I have is why are the photos being released right now? Just as we start yet another war in a Muslim country?

I really, really try to shy away from conspiracies and all the other craziness that is the norm on the 'net but things like this? I don't believe in coincidences of this sort. Somebody's held these pictures, waiting for the right time. I'd put money on it.

ANOTHER SPILL IN THE GULF?

2011-03-21T04:56:00.003-05:00

"A suspected oil slick has been spotted around 20 miles north from the site of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.

Several people reported seeing a rainbow sheen on the surface of the water several miles long just off the coast of Louisiana, to the National Response Center.

Officials have confirmed there is a five-mile wide spill of some substance in the Gulf of Mexico, but have not yet identified it."
Daily Mail

This story has been bouncing around for the last couple days on the net though it doesn't seem to be getting much traction. So, is it a new spill? Or is it oil from the Deepwater blowout finally coming to the surface? I have no idea.

Like just about everything else these days I don't know what's true and what's not concerning the Gulf. To hear the government, big oil and tourist related sources tell it there's no problem at all. On the other hand, there's still reports of dead fish and sickness bubbling up on the net.

My guess, and that's all it is, is that there's a whole lot more going on than we're being told. Common sense seems to say that with all the oil that leaked from Deepwater Horizon and with the little that was removed, something is still out there, lurking and waiting to show itself.

But there's a larger problem. Most of us really don't want to see the world get completely trashed in the search for energy and drilling in the Gulf, regardless of industry propaganda, is a dirty business. But we must have energy to maintain our economy and our way of life. Hell, we must have energy, period.

The arguments that surround the energy debate usually seem to miss that one simple point. We WILL use energy to survive. The only question is, what kind? All energy sources have risks and they'll pretty much all kill in one way or another, whether oil taints the food, coal mines collapse, air pollution causes cancer, radiation poisons or we simply set the house on fire burning wood. Dead is dead.

Many on the left seem to believe that windmills and sunshine (doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?) can get the job done. Really? Realistically, if you like your A.C. and heat, driving your car, working in a nice white collar job, having a grocery store with more than two aisles in it and most everything else we take for granted today we either have to burn carbon based fuels or use nuclear. Anything else moves us back.

I'm old enough to remember when houses didn't have air conditioning and neither did cars. I remember when our TV's were 13" and black and white. When I was a kid they didn't call off school because it was too hot and we didn't have air conditioning in the classrooms, either. We didn't have microwaves, computers, cell phones, stereos or i-anything. In other words, our energy footprints were much, much smaller but our lives were much less pampered, too. Hell, I'm the first generation in my family that didn't have to use the privy in the backyard! How much energy do we use just flushing toilets?

All this is to say that we need to come to grips with reality in our arguments over energy. We have to decide what we want. Flush toilets or two-holers in the back yard? Central heat, coal burning furnaces or fireplaces in the winter? Do we want to maintain our modern lifestyle and comfort or will we accept a return to a much simpler and less energy reliant life?

Because, in all our bickering about energy, carbon footprints, nuclear meltdowns and everything else this is the central issue. Until we're honest about the subject there's no point in having the argument.

UPDATE:

"The Coast Guard said on Sunday that miles-long patch of discolored goop floating in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be caused by river sediment.

The Coast Guard collected and tested samples of a dark substance after receiving varying reports on Saturday of possible pollution floating on and beneath the water's surface.

The largest sighting described the substance as stretching 100 miles into the Gulf, south of Grand Isle, Louisiana.

An analysis found only trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease — all at levels well within the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's clean water standard.

Sediment carried down the Mississippi River and possibly agitated by dredging is believed to have caused the dark substance, according to a Coast Guard news release.

The Coast Guard also investigated on Sunday an oily substance washing up along the Louisiana shoreline.

Samples of that substance will be tested. It is not suspected to be residual oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in April."
MSNBC

THANKS FOR THE MENTION MR. STRANAHAN

2011-03-20T19:38:00.000-05:00

Wow! I'm humbled by the number of people looking at this blog at the moment. It seems they've been directed here from another blog named Lee Stranahan.com. I've never seen this many hits - ever!

It seems that Mr. Stranahan stumbled across this blog while looking for something related to my post regarding Minneapolis House File 171, the bill that has been reported by left wing websites across the web as making it illegal for the poor in Minnesota to have more than $20 in cash in their pocket at any one time. He says that mine was the only site that bothered to track down the law and look into the truth. Based on my searching on Friday I'd have to agree with him.

He noted on his site that I would probably be considered "The sort of fellow that liberals would call a right wing nutjob, if they were being kind." I suspect he's right.

That being said I noticed something on his site, something missing from far too many sites, both right and left; a respect for the truth.

That's all that any of us can ask. Look, we can disagree on damned near any issue. But, if the truth isn't at the root of our disagreement then all we are arguing about is meaningless. We're facing a truly unique time in human history, a time when everything we've known is about to change. If we don't stick with the truth, if we don't insist on the facts, how can we ever arrive at an answer? Right, left, middle, who cares? We're all people and we all have a stake in the future. We must have the facts presented to us so we can make a decision.

We've been put at each others throats as a distraction. We watch the right hand while the left moves the ball. We need to get past our petty differences and have honest conversations about the problems we all face, not as Republicans, Democrats, Marxists or Capitalists but as people, focused on the truth and nothing else.

We're being played by both sides. Pray for wisdom.

MINNESOTA REPUBLICANS AND LEFTY LIARS

2011-03-18T17:00:00.001-05:00

This story is all over the lefty sites on the net:

"Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.

On March 15, Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee testified in front of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee on House File 171. Buechner told committee members, “We would like to address the provision that makes it illegal for MFIP [one of Minnesota’s welfare programs] families to withdraw cash from the cash portion of the MFIP grant - and in fact, appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets. How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?”

House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP - and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid - could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card."
Fight Back News

Now, maybe it's just me but when I see a whole group of people going crazy and just reposting the same thing, word for word, on every site that supports a particular political view I get a bit suspicious. So I went and checked the bill out on the Minnesota House of Representatives website. Hard to believe that you can find such obscure info with just a couple clicks, isn't it? Here's, at least in part, what I found:

"Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.

Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a) must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household's name printed on the card. The card must also state that "It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages." This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient's name printed on the card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need to meet the requirements of this section.(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from vendor."

After reading this, does it appear to you in any way that the Republicans are trying to limit the amount of cash anyone is allowed to carry? No. They are merely limiting the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from the state issued debit card. I don't know this for certain but I'm guessing that the intent of this is to control how the public monies are spent, limiting purchases to legitimate items and most likely aimed at reducing the ability of the welfare recipients to use public money to purchase drugs and other illegal goods.

What's wrong with this? Does society have nothing to say about how the money it hands over to the indigent is spent? It's our money and we can set the rules. That seems to be a just social contract, social justice if you will.

The internet is a wonderful way to stay on top of the issues of the day but all people, regardless of political persuasion, need to check their facts before running with a story. It's way too easy to become party to the spreading of lies meant to harm one group or another.

SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE

2011-03-18T13:43:00.000-05:00

"One would think that after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Americans could at least catch a break for a while with deflationary forces keeping the cost of living relatively low. That’s not the case.

A special index created by the Labor Department to measure the actual cost of living for Americans hit a record high in February, according to data released Thursday, surpassing the old high in July 2008. The Chained Consumer Price Index, released along with the more widely-watched CPI, increased 0.5 percent to 127.4, from 126.8 in January. In July 2008, just as the housing crisis was tightening its grip, the Chained Consumer Price Index hit its previous record of 126.9.

“The Federal Reserve continues to focus on the rate of change in inflation,” said Peter Bookvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. “Sure, it’s moving at a slower pace, but the absolute cost of living is now back at a record high in a country that has seven million less jobs.”...

...Bottom line: The cost of living for Americans is now above where it was when housing prices were in a bubble, stock prices at a record, unemployment low and consumer confidence was soaring. Something has gotta give."
CNBC

As the cost of not only living but also doing business continues to climb one of the things that's going to give is jobs. Here's the deal: businesses are seeing their margins squeezed by the high cost of goods sold while they are finding it nearly impossible to raise their prices due to the unemployment rates in this country. We're going to start seeing more and more small businesses shut their doors as rising costs make it impossible to remain profitable. As an example, this story from our local paper this week:

"After 144 years in business, Droege's Supermarket is turning off the lights. The downtown institution will close next month.

Owners John "Butch" and Judy Droege made the announcement Friday. Employees were told that morning.

"Making the decision to close was a very difficult one for Judy and me," said Butch Droege. "This store is my family's legacy and we feel a personal commitment to our community and the good people of Washington.

"Like many small businesses, we found it increasingly difficult to compete with larger grocery chains and other retailers that stock food items. We believe we have competed admirably, but with continuing changes in the marketplace and consumer buying habits, closing the store now is a prudent decision for our family."

Established by a son of a German immigrant, Droege's Mercantile opened on the corner of Main and Oak in 1867. The store moved to its current location at Main and Lafayette street in 1896, and has been in continuous operation there, headed by a member of the Droege family."
Washington Missourian

I don't know the details and what the actual issues driving this decision were but I'd be willing to bet that at least in part the decision to shut the doors was driven by inflation in their cost of doing business while not being able to pass the costs along. Washington has a Walmart and a couple large chain grocery stores in it and I'm sure that their efficiencies of scale couldn't be matched by the mom and pop operation.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other small businesses are closing their doors and how many workers does that put out on the street? Further, as the cost of fuel, clothing and food continue to rise and eat into the paychecks of those still fortunate enough to have work how long can even the large chain stores remain profitable? At some point consumers are going to be forced to make major changes in how they spend their money and this will impact everything, most assuredly causing the lose of even more jobs and creating a cycle of collapse. Who's going to buy a new television or computer when they can't even pay the electric bill easily?

And what about the people that have taken crappy minimum wage jobs and the like just to get by after losing their good paying job in the last couple years? At some point they're going to start doing the math and realize that the cost of employment, primarily the cost of fuel to get to work, has become so high that it doesn't make sense to keep going in. Then what? Another guy back on the dole looking for money that we are going to have to borrow from future generations to give to him.

So yeah, a whole lot of things are about to give. Prepare and pray.

BANKERS COMMIT FRAUD IN MISSOURI AND NOBODY WILL DO A THING

2011-03-18T11:32:00.000-05:00

This is absolutely amazing. The Missouri Attorney General knows fraud has been committed yet he is essentially refusing to do anything about it because it would take too much work. WTF?!!!!

There's no doubt that some people should be foreclosed upon. But there's also no doubt that the bank or loan servicer that wants to foreclose should have to produce the paperwork to prove that they have a claim on the property they want to foreclose on. That means an unbroken chain of wet signatures each and every time the loan was sold. That means that all taxes and fees should be paid to the county recorder each time a mortgage is sold and that the sale should be recorded in the county courthouse.

Your loan is current? This doesn't affect you? Well, let's think this through. If the banks that are foreclosing on property can't produce a valid note that fulfills all the legal requirements to prove they have the right to foreclose what makes you think that after you pay off your mortgage the piece of paper they give you is valid? How can you be sure that you actually have the title to your property? In Florida banks have foreclosed on property that is owned free and clear because of paperwork problems. And they don't say sorry and just walk away when they get questioned. Homeowners are forced to go to court to defend against these predators.

Just because you pay off the mortgage to the loan servicer how can you be sure that someone else can't still make a claim? In some states title insurers are refusing to insure titles because they can't untangle the web created by MERS.

Our Attorneys General need to do their jobs and fix this problem regardless of how difficult it is. Oh, and regardless of how much money the banks funnel into the political system, too.

BARRY AND SARAH

2011-03-18T05:59:00.002-05:00

I don't know, and it really amazes me that I can say this, whether Obama is anything he claims to be. But then I don't know that I believe anything anymore when it comes to the world of politics, science or finance. Everything is slight of hand and mis-direction, lies and disinformation. And I know I'm not alone.

So the question is if this constant stream of crap that leaves us all feeling as though we've stepped through the looking glass is being intentionally generated to undermine the confidence of the people in the institutions they've come to rely on?

It seems to me that through most of recorded history man has looked outside himself and his institutions for support. We are religious beings. We've always, until the last couple hundred years or so, beginning with the Enlightenment (even the name of that one is a lie), looked to our God for answers in times of stress. Now we've reasoned God away, putting government, science and business in His place.

We've built our houses on the sand of human knowledge rather than the rock of God's wisdom and now the storms are beginning to wash us away.

We're dangerously close to a time that people will begin to look for answers to the hell we've created for ourselves. Since most have lost, because it's been purposely taken from them, the spiritual foundation that is necessary to turn back to God they will focus on the temporal world for a savior. And I'm sure one will rise from the smoke, the fire and the ashes to lead them.

Buckle up and pray, pray, pray!

U.S. CRITICAL OF JAPANESE HANDLING OF NUKE CRISIS - OBAMA DITHERS

2011-03-17T05:17:00.000-05:00

"U.S. officials are alarmed at how the Japanese are handling the escalating nuclear reactor crisis and fear that if they do not get control of the plants within the next 24 to 48 hours they could have a situation that will be "deadly for decades."

"It would be hard to describe how alarming this is right now," one U.S. official told ABC News.

President Obama has been briefed by nuclear experts."
ABC

He may have been briefed but does he care?

"President Barack Obama will take his first official trip to Brazil this weekend where he will speak in the popular Cinelandia Square in downtown Rio de Janeiro...

...The Obama family will also take in the sights in Rio. A trip to Corcovado mountain, where the Christ the Redeemer statue stands (France gave us Lady Liberty, gave Brazil Jesus) is supposedly on the itinerary. What trip to Rio would be complete without it?"
Forbes

SCOTUS - "IN GOD WE TRUST" STANDS

2011-03-14T10:40:00.001-05:00

"The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an atheist activist’s appeal challenging the national motto “In God We Trust.”

Michael Newdow has charged that government references to God are an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state and infringe on his religious beliefs. He has filed numerous lawsuits on the subject. His latest suit concerned the national motto’s place on U.S. coins and currency, contending it makes him an unwilling bearer of a religious message.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals said in an earlier ruling that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion,” the Associated Press reports."
EWTN

Beyond the obvious relief that I feel in this decision not to take up this case I'm left with a sense of confusion. If Newdow thinks the phrase "In God We Trust" infringes on his religious beliefs and that it violates the First Amendment how does his use of government power to inflict his religious beliefs on the rest of us differ in intent or effect?

This is the problem, well at least one of the problems, with atheists. While they rail against religion of all forms they never quite seem to realize that atheism is as much a religion as Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe in nothing as it does to believe in God! One can make a logical argument for the existence of God based on reason alone. Obviously, complete belief is a matter of faith but at least reason can get you close. Arguing for the existence of nothing is just a bit trickier. Even if one were to accept the material arguments for the material world put forth by science those arguments still don't supply an answer for the existence or non-existence of a prime mover.

To say that God doesn't exist is an act of faith and as such atheists, following their own logic, should not be allowed to use government to further their religious agenda by using it to replace the established religious symbolism that is part of America's heritage.

THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-RED SKELTON

2011-03-12T08:59:00.000-06:00

I know the America I grew up in 50 some odd years ago wasn't perfect - but can't we agree it was better?

SCANDAL BREAKS OUT IN NEW YORK

2011-03-09T05:18:00.000-06:00

Scandal:

"According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum. It is not the physical cause of a neighbor's sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin (this is strictly inductive scandal, which some call co-operation in a broad sense), or in a large sense, as when a person without being directly concerned in the sin nevertheless exercises a certain influence on the sin of his neighbor, e.g. by committing such a sin in his presence (this is inductive scandal in a broad sense)."
Catholic Encyclopedia

When reading about Gov Cuomo and the Archbishop this morning scandal is the first thing that came to my mind. Why? Simply because, and this is purely a guess on my part, the Gov., being a politician, is hoping to cut a deal with the Archbishop regarding his current fallout with the Church over the issue of communion and his lifestyle and the Archbishop, by agreeing to meet and discuss state support of Catholic education gives the impression that he he would be open to an accommodation.

Honestly, I don't know what the two men talked about. Maybe Dolan read him the riot act and stated unequivocally that the Church would have nothing more to do with Cuomo until he repented and confessed. If so I applaud the actions of the Archbishop. Unfortunately, based on the articles below, my guess is that this isn't the case.

"Dr. Edward Peters, a consultant to the Vatican’s highest court of canon law, told CNS News that Cuomo committed an “objectively sacrilegious” act that “produces grave scandal” when he received communion on New Year’s Day. Cuomo, a Democrat, is pro-choice and supports gay marriage, two positions the church vocally opposes. Of serious concern to Peters, however, is that Cuomo, who divorced Robert Kennedy’s daughter Kerry eight years ago, is currently living with Food Network host Sandra Lee...

...Peters says that Cuomo should be denied Communion under a rule known as Canon 915 from the church’s Code of Canon Law. According to the code, persons “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” He also criticized the pastor who celebrated the mass, Bishop Howard Hubbard, for not challenging “the governor to begin his reform of the state with a reform of his person.”"
Daily Caller

"New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan emerged from a private lunch with Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday with quips, quick reflexes to avoid tough political questions and a pledge from the governor to take a new look at the role of Catholic schools.

Dolan wouldn't discuss with reporters any private discussions he may have had about the recent ruckus sparked by a Detroit-based lawyer for the Vatican's high court. Conservative blogger Edward Peters criticized the governor, who is Catholic, divorced and supports abortion rights, for living with his girlfriend, food TV star Sandra Lee, and for taking Communion.

"That's the kind of delicate pastoral issue that this is probably not the best forum to speak about," Dolan told reporters afterward. "Do we dodge those issues? No, we don't. But there is a time and place for everything.""
The Republic

So how is this scandalous? To the average person it will appear that the moral depravity of the Governor is something that can be excused by the Church for a price. If the whole issue of refusal of communion unless the Governor repents is quietly dropped while the state somehow, again quietly, begins to support Catholic schools with tax dollars, it will be obvious to all that the leaders of the Catholic Church don't really believe the words they teach. And if they don't believe them why should anyone else?

Look, it was bad enough when the Vatican was selling redemption in the 16th century to fund the building of churches. But at least they expected people to use their own money. In this case, if the governor cuts his deal, it will appear that Cuomo is being allowed to purchase his salvation with the money of others, a double whammy of ugliness!

So, a word of advice to the Archbishop from out here in the cheap seats. Before you make a deal with the devil and let the state get its claws into our education system, address the personal problems of the Governor. You must separate the two issues because to leave it as it seems is to cause scandal and to potentially lead others into sin. And I'm almost positive that this is not part of your job description.

MUSLIM MADNESS DRIVES DESTRUCTION AND DEATH

2011-03-08T04:57:00.000-06:00

Sure, I know that there's no difference at all between Islam and Christianity but really, when was the last time you heard of a bunch of Presbyterians going on a rampage?

"A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George. There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.

Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."

A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village.

This incident was triggered by a relationship between 40-year-old Copt Ashraf Iskander and a Muslim woman. Yesterday a "reconciliation" meeting was arranged between the relevant Coptic and Muslim families and together with the Muslim elders it was decided that Ashraf Iskander would have to leave the village because Muslims torched his house.

The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians."
AINA

"Istanbul police’s anti-terror unit apprehended two suspects accused of plotting to assassinate a priest in the city’s Fatih district, Doğan news agency, or DHA, reported Saturday.

Law enforcement officers alleged that a suspect who was identified only as E.T., and who was reported to be under 18 years of age, offered 18-year-old Okan G. 50 Turkish Liras to kill the unnamed priest."
Daily News

"International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that in the past two days, thousands of Muslims have razed five churches and the homes of two evangelists in Asendabo, Ethiopia. Christian leaders are asking for protection after the Muslim attackers continued burning churches even after the federal police were sent to the town.

The Muslims started the attacks yesterday after falsely accusing the Christians of desecrating the Qur'an. More than ten thousand Muslims shouted "Allah Akbar" (Allah is great) as they burned down five evangelical churches. The government sent the federal police force to protect the Christians after the Muslims burned down the first three churches. The Muslims overwhelmed the police force and burned down two more churches today.

Speaking with ICC, Christian leaders expressed their fear that Muslims will start killing the Christians unless the government sends more security forces to contain the Muslim attackers."
AINA

THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND THE LAWLESS STATE

2011-03-05T07:59:00.001-06:00

"Attorney General Eric Holder appeared on Capitol Hill to testify about the Department of Justice's budget request Tuesday and wound up fielding a number of pointed questions on a range of topics. Chief among them was the Department's announcement that it will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in current court proceedings.""
Fox News

The question is, can the DOJ, acting under the orders of the President, refuse to enforce federal law? More specifically, can the president order this?

What is the Defense of Marriage Act?

"The Defense of Marriage Act (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities."
Wikipedia

This passage of the bill followed the guidelines established in the Constitution:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[2] If he approve he shall sign it..."
Article 1 Section 7 U.S. Constitution

And President Obama swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Memory.loc.gov

Last year a federal judge declared DOMA unconstitutional:

"In a major victory for marriage equality advocates, a federal judge in Boston ruled Thursday in two separate cases that a critical portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, U.S. district judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married."
Advocate

A stay was issued on part of the decision:

"A Massachusetts federal court decision striking down as unconstitutional a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act will go on hold pending any appeal by the government.

The U.S. Department of Justice and parties represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on Wednesday agreed to a stay of the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro last month in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management."
Law.com

This means that all parties involved in the decision agreed to leave the law as it was written pending final adjudication. So DOMA is still, for all intents and purposes, federal law. Yet the DOJ is refusing to enforce it under the orders of the President. This seems to me to be illegal, and if it is, it seems someone should be going to jail or at the very least be brought up on charges of some sort.

And so we have this:

"Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, said in an interview that he would support impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if the White House does not reverse its decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Franks also said he would "absolutely" support defunding the Department of Justice if the administration did not begin defending the 1998 law, when asked by ThinkProgress's Scott Keyes.

Asked whether he would support impeaching Obama and Holder if the administration doesn't reverse course as former speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested, Franks responded, "if it could gain the collective support, absolutely.""
The Atlantic

Dare I point out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration regarding the health care bill and it's very similar legal journey?

"A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void."
Fox News

A stay was issued in this case just this week by the presiding judge:

"Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson has ordered a stay on his own ruling voiding the Affordable Care Act because of Constitutional issues. This will allow states and the federal government to continue to implement the health care law while the case is under appeal.

Vinson actually framed the order as a “clarification” to his order from last month. Some states were using the ruling to stop implementation of the law. Vinson cleared this up by staying the ruling, provided that the Justice Department appeal to a higher court within one week..."
Firedoglake

The thing is, even though a stay was issued months ago in the DOMA case, meaning that it remains in force, the fed has refused to enforce the law. In the case of the health care bill a conditional stay was just issued two days ago, meaning that for all intents and purposes, up until that time, the health care bill was, at least arguably, no longer law. Yet the administration continued and continues to act as though it were.

We are supposed to be a country based upon the rule of law yet it seems that our commander in chief and his administration consider themselves above that very same law. If the law is not binding on the government then how can it be binding on the people? Have we ceased to be a Constitutional Republic? If so, what have we become?

I think that this does raise constitutional questions that must be addressed and for this reason I believe that impeachment is the proper course of action. The power of the federal government and more specifically the executive branch of that government must be reeled in and brought back under the law established in the Constitution.

And if it can't be, what then? I don't know. But at the very least we'll stop lying to ourselves and everyone else about the nature of our government. The first step to fixing a problem is to admit that you have one.

Below I've reprinted Archbishop Timothy Dolan's remarks concerning the DOMA. They're well worth the read.

"The announcement on February 23 that the President has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an alarming and grave injustice. Marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a singular and irreplaceable institution. Only a man and a woman are capable of the “two-in-one-flesh” union of husband and wife. Only a man and a woman have the ability to bring children into the world. Along with that ability comes responsibility, which society historically reinforces with laws that bind mothers and fathers to each other and their children. This family unit represents the most basic and vital cell of any society, protecting the right of children to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their mother and father. Thus, marriage represents the bedrock of the common good of society, its very foundation and future.

Contrary to the Attorney General’s statement, DOMA does not single out people based on sexual “orientation” or inclination. Every person deserves to be treated with justice, compassion, and respect, a proposition of natural law and American law that we as Catholics vigorously promote. Unjust discrimination against any person is always wrong. But DOMA is not “unjust discrimination”; rather, it merely affirms and protects the time-tested and unalterable meaning of marriage. The suggestion that this definition amounts to “discrimination” is grossly false and represents an affront to millions of citizens in this country.

The decision also does not stand the test of common sense. It is hardly “discrimination” to say that a husband and a wife have a unique and singular relationship that two persons of the same sex—or any unmarried persons—simply do not and cannot have. Nor is it “discrimination” to believe that the union of husband and wife has a distinctive and exclusive significance worthy of promotion and protection by the state. It is not “discrimination” to say that having both a mother and a father matters to and benefits a child. Nor is it “discrimination” to say that the state has more than zero interest in ensuring that children will be intimately connected with and raised by their mother and father.

Protecting the definition of marriage is not merely permissible, but actually necessary as a matter of justice. Having laws that affirm the vital importance of mothers and fathers—laws that reinforce, rather than undermine, the ideal that children should be raised by their own mother and father—is essential for any just society. Those laws serve not only the good of the spouses and their children, but the common good. Those laws are now under relentless attack. If we forget the meaning of marriage, we forget what it means to be a human person, what it means to be a man or a woman. Have we wandered away so far in our society as to forget why men and women matter, and eroded the most central institution for our children and for our future?

The Administration’s current position is not only a grave threat to marriage, but to religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy as well. Our nation and government have the duty to recognize and protect marriage, not tamper with and redefine it, nor to caricature the deeply held beliefs of so many citizens as “discrimination.” On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I express my deep disappointment over the Administration’s recent decision. I have written of these concerns to the President in separate correspondence, and I pray that he and the Department of Justice may yet make the right choice to carry out their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage, and in so doing protect the future generations of our children."
USCCB

NUDIST CHURCH

2011-03-04T14:49:00.000-06:00

Why...oh...why?

MADE IN AMERICA

2011-03-04T10:23:00.002-06:00

I don't know when it happened or why but somewhere along the line our country made a decision that working with our hands was a bad thing. We decided that we'd become a nation of managers, where everyone would have a college education and this would somehow translate into solid jobs and a happy life.

It's a lie.

The truth is that if we don't build things, if we don't take raw materials and create something of value from them them we aren't creating wealth. And as we've now seen, if we try to make money by just skimming a little off the top of other peoples wealth by charging management fees we will, slowly but surely, starve.

We've created a system that rewards non-productive activity with insane amounts of money and punishes those that use tools by forcing the real wages paid to tradespeople down, year after year. Consequently, America has lost the ability to build. Everyone wants to be an office guy with a desk and a computer. The last thing they want to do is sweat and hurt. Everybody wants to make money trading stocks but nobody wants or knows how to use a hammer and a saw to produce something that has intrinsic value and creates real wealth.

I'm not saying that management skills aren't important. They're essential. But we need fewer managers and more producers working in the fields and on the factory floors. We need our managers to be managing productive activity, not just more and more layers of management managing itself. We've got way too many chiefs and not enough warriors.

Now we've lost our factories and plants along with our skills and rebuilding an economy based on production will take years. But, if we don't, we'll be left with nothing. If we can't stand on our own two feet, if we absolutely rely on the Chinese and Indians to make basic essential products then we have become their slaves and we'll be forced to do as they demand.

REP. ALLEN WEST - I JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF THIS GUY

2011-03-03T19:31:00.001-06:00

REALITY SUCKS

2011-03-03T06:17:00.001-06:00

"As Congress considers potential federal budget cuts for the upcoming year, the nation's Catholic bishops warned again that the proposed reductions would hurt the poor – both in this country and overseas.

“These are drastic cuts – draconian cuts – that disproportionately target the poorest people,” Bill O'Keefe, Senior Director of Advocacy for Catholic Relief Services, said on Feb. 23."
Catholic News Agency

OK, we get it. The Congress, at least the Republicans, are trying to cut $60 billion out of a $3.84 trillion budget. That's what, 2%, or less? These numbers are so big my grade school math skills fail me. Regardless, these cuts are less than a drop in the bucket. So to call them draconian is an exercise in hyperbole. But we've come to expect that haven't we?

I wonder how Director O'Keefe would solve the problem. Print more money? The economy will collapse. Cut military spending? I'm all for it. Bring our troops home, screw the rest of the world. Of course, that would have a major impact on the poor of the world as dictators and despots fill the vacuum left by the departure of our military. But even this won't stop the collapse. It'll just push it back a bit, or accelerate it, depending on what oil prices do as radical Muslims seize power and the oil fields.

The only way to maintain our sovereignty, thus our ability to help the poor is to reign in our spending, and not by 1 or 2 percent but by something a bit larger, say 40-50 percent. To do that we have to start talking about entitlements because they're the real gorilla in the room, the thing that really makes our economy completely unsustainable, and I'll bet that Mr. O'Keefe will really get upset if we touch anything there.

So to all the Mr. O'Keefe's out there, get over it. All the special interests need to realize that if we don't make "draconian" cuts there won't be an America left. And no matter what else happens, without America the poor will suffer to a much greater extent.

We can't have it both ways anymore; the day of reckoning has arrived. If we don't do what we have to and get our house in order we won't have a house to argue about. The fantasy of limitless resources has come to an end. For the rich and the poor. And the rest of us, too

THERE IS NO PRIVACY LEFT - OR FREEDOM

2011-03-02T19:41:00.000-06:00

It's time. It's time for our government to be broken. It needs to be smacked down and hard. We must return to the limited government that our Founders envisioned. If it takes a complete collapse then so be it. I understand the hardship, I understand the violence, I understand the absolute terror we're going to go through. But in the end, it seems that unless this corrupt state is destroyed we will be slaves.

We already are.

"Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports...

...In August of last year, Joe Reiss, the vice president of marketing of security contractor American Sciences & Engineering told me in an interview that the company had sold more than 500 of its backscatter x-ray vans to governments around the world, including some deployed in the U.S. Those vans are capable of scanning people, the inside of cars and even the internals of some buildings while rolling down public streets. The company claims that its systems’ “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.” But Reiss admitted that the van scans do penetrate clothing, and EPIC president Marc Rotenberg called them “one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”"
Forbes