Why I’m Unsubscribing To The New York Times

Copies of the New York Times sit for sale in a rack July 23, 2008 in New York City. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

I am a lifelong Democrat, a political liberal, a Reform rabbi, and for four decades, until last week, a New York Times subscriber. What drove me away was the paper’s incessant denigration of Israel, a torrent of articles, photographs, and op-ed columns that consistently present the Jewish State in the worst possible light.

This phenomenon is not new. Knowledgeable observers have long assailed the Times lack of objectivity and absence of journalistic integrity in reporting on Israel. My chronic irritation finally morphed into alienation and then to visceral disgust this summer, after Hamas renewed its terrorist assaults upon Israel and the Times launched what can only be described as a campaign to delegitimize the Jewish State.


The Middle East conflict is complex, but the root cause of Israel’s confrontation with Hamas is not. Committed by its charter to “obliterate” Israel and kill all Jews everywhere, Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S., Britain, and the European Union, a designation substantiated by its raining rockets down on Israel’s civilians and tunneling under its border to kill and kidnap, indisputable war crimes.
Renowned Israeli novelist, leftist, and self-declared “Israeli peacenik” Amos Oz captured the essence of the conflict in two questions he posed to a German radio audience. “What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery? What would you do if your neighbor across the street digs a tunnel from his nursery to your nursery in order to blow up your home or in order to kidnap your family?”

The answers are self-evident to everyone except the New York Times. Its obsessive focus is on Palestinian civilian casualties, especially children, publishing photos of their corpses and little else, as if they tell the whole story. The deaths of innocents in wartime are tragic and heartbreaking; they diminish us all. But a newspaper committed to balance and fairness would provide context and perspective. It would show traumatized Israeli children running to shelters, cowering, wetting their beds, and suffering nightmares. It would publish photos and accounts of militants launching rockets from the roofs of mosques, a church, and a media hotel, alongside schools, refugee shelters, clinics and hospitals, and of weapons concealed by Hamas in UN facilities. It would substantiate casualty figures from Hamas, which is known to have falsified them in the past, before reporting them as fact. It would highlight Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields, its urging civilians to ignore Israel’s advance warnings to depart, so that Gazans would be killed and inflict PR damage on Israel. Such a paper would cover the threats of death that inhibited reporters and photojournalists from telling the true, full story. But the Times did not.

What it did instead is revealed by a sample of headlines: “As Israel Hits Mosque and Clinic, Air Campaign’s Risks Come Home;” “Israelis Watch Bombs Drop on Gaza From Front-Row Seats;” “Questions About Tactics and Targets as Civilian Toll Climbs in Israeli Strikes;” “Foreign Correspondents in Israel Complain of Intimidation;” “Israeli Shells are Said to Hit UN School;” “Military Censorship in Israel;” “A Boy at Play in Gaza, a Renewal of War, A Family in Mourning;” “Israel’s Supporters Try to Come to Terms with the Killing of Children in Gaza;” “Israel Braces for War Crimes Inquiries on Gaza;” “Resisting Nazis, He Saw Need for Israel. Now He Is Its Critic.”

Then there are the op-eds: “Israel’s Puppy, Tony Blair;” “Israel’s Bloody Status Quo;” “How the West Chose War in Gaza;” “Darkness Falls on Gaza;” “Israeli Self-Defense Does Not Permit Killing Civilians;” “Israel Has Overreacted to the Threats it Provoked;” “Zionism and Its Discontents;” “U.S. Should Stop Funding Israel, or Let Others Broker Peace;” “Israel’s Colonialism Must End;” “Unwavering Support of Israel Harms U.S. Interests, Encourages Extremism;” “Eight Days in Gaza: A Wartime Diary: Life and Death in the Gaza Strip.” The last column consumed nearly the entire op-ed page.

The straw that broke my subscription’s back came on Aug. 19, when Hamas violated yet another truce, sending a fusillade of rockets into Israel. The Wall Street Journal’s headline read, “Gaza Rocket Strikes End Cease Fire.” A U.S. State Department spokesperson condemned the renewed rocket fire, holding Hamas responsible for causing the ceasefire to break down. The Times headline: “Rockets From Gaza and Israeli Response Break Cease-Fire.” Seriously? A newspaper that cannot distinguish between starting a fight and defending oneself is intellectually deficient, morally obtuse, and profoundly unworthy of its readers.

I know the Times won’t miss me. The feeling is mutual.

Rabbi Richard A. Block is president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

An Item From The “Truth Is Much Stranger Than Fiction” Department.

Stolen from Observations

Mobile, Alabama’s hometown TV station WALA FOX10 reports the following story, which contains comments that will leave most people scratching their head in disbelief.

An unidentified man who was shopping at the local Family Dollar store in Mobile saw a masked man pointing a gun at an employee and leading the employee toward the front of the store.

When he moved closer to investigate, he found the following: “He had the gun to his head. He had him on his knees,” said the man. “I drew my gun on him and I said 'Hey, don't move.' At that point he swung around and before he had a chance to aim the gun at me, I fired. I didn’t want to shoot him,” he said.

The gunman, 18-year-old Adric White, was not killed, and was transported to a local hospital where he was treated and is now recuperating in police custody at the hospital. A second young man, 19-year-old Tavoris Moss has been arrested as an accomplice to the Family Dollar robbery, although the FOX10 story did not explain the role he is accused of playing in the incident.

Court records show that Adric White was out on bond for robbing The Original Oyster House at gunpoint a little more than a month before the Family Dollar robbery, and records show the Baldwin County District Attorney's Office has now filed to have the bond in that case revoked.

Summarizing this incident, a young man out on bond for armed robbery was holding an employee of a retail establishment at gunpoint, and was challenged by a Good Samaritan with a gun, who then shot the young man when the Good Samaritan thought he was about to be shot.

Where this story gets really strange is in the reaction of Adric White’s family. The relatives of this young man who had already been charged in one armed robbery and was wounded in a second attempt to rob a store at gunpoint might reasonably condemn the young man’s behavior and be thankful that this wayward son is still alive and in relatively good condition, and therefore might be subject to rehabilitation. But that is not how at least some of his relatives reacted.

A female family member who did not want to be identified said the 18-year-old should have never been shot to begin with.

“If his (the customer’s) life was not in danger, if no one had a gun up to him, if no one pointed a gun at him - what gives him the right to think uhat it's okay to just shoot someone?” said the relative. “You should have just left the store and went wherever you had to go in your car or whatever,” FOX10 reported the relative as saying.

Apparently, judging from this relative’s comments she believes the victim in this scenario is the robber holding the employee at gunpoint, not the employee being held at gunpoint. And, the person who has done wrong is not the guy holding an employee at gunpoint during a robbery, but the Good Samaritan who thwarts a robbery and saves the employee from possible harm or death at the hands of the robber.

Where does such upside-down thinking develop? Is it a feature of only a relative few troubled minds, or is it far more widespread? Is it born in a soul convinced that he/she is entitled and therefore can do no wrong, or somehow is not subject to the laws governing our behavior? Is it a product of a failing culture that has not imparted basic American and human values to more recent generations?

Interestingly, FOX10 had interviewed Adric White’s parents, but the station reports that they later called the station and demanded the video not be aired. We are left to wonder whether they share the screwy morality of the relative whose sentiments were reported above.

For the record, the police emphasize that the Good Samaritan – whose name was not released, perhaps for his own protection – who shot the alleged robber was justified and broke no laws.

"[Criminals] tend to think that they are the only ones with guns," the Good Samaritan told FOX10. "I’ve been legally carrying my firearm for a little over four years now, and thank God I’ve never had to use it until, of course, last night. It just goes to show it's good to have a concealed carry [permit]. You never know when you’re going to need it.”

This story is sure to contribute to the fierce debate over gun control. It is a point in favor of the idea held by many of those who defend the constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms that the best way to combat a bad guy with a gun is the presence of a good guy with a gun. It shows that there may be positive results when law-abiding citizens are armed.

Whichever side of that argument you are on, we can all acknowledge that because of the behavior of this man legally carrying a gun, a robbery was thwarted and the perpetrator did not harm anyone.

Happy New Year!

Deinstitutionalization Is Madness ... J. D. Longstreet

Stolen From Faultline USA

The definition of "deinstitutionalization" is simple. It is taking mentally ill patients from mental institutions and placing them on your street corner and/or in local jails.

Ever wondered where all those mentally ill "homeless" people came from? Blame it on "deinstitutionalization."

Now, I realize there are millions of Americans who see or hear the word "deinstitutionalization" and have no clue what it means nor to what it is referring.

So let's see if we can shed a little light on it.

First we must understand the Law of Unintended Consequences. "The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is this: that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended." SOURCE

So what makes the law of unintended consequences work? Well, the "Wise Geek" says the following: "The two top reasons why the law of unintended consequences works, according to Merton, is that the framers of a social change are either ignorant of possible far reaching effects of the law or make errors when they develop a change that don’t have the effects they desired. Other reasons why we sometimes see changes occur after any type of event, new scientific development, or treaty is passed may have to do with “self interest,” so much so that a person who desperately wants to see a change doesn’t evaluate the ultimate effects of that change." SOURCE

Deinstitutionalization is a clear result of the law of unintended consequences. They go together like bread and butter.

The idea behind deinstitutionalization was this -- that patients fare much better when they are looked after in a supportive and loving environment than when they are placed in a human warehouse, as mental institutions were sometimes referred to in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

So, America closed down many of its mental institutions without making sure the community supports were in place ad ready to receive the former mental patients. As a result, the mentally ill wound up on our streets, in our jails, and in unprepared homes where they created much discord and, in some cases, even committed heinous crimes that tore those families apart.

To understand what happened and the grievous error our government made by releasing much of the country's mentally ill onto society, we have to go back to the 1960's. (Surprise! Surprise!) Since, roughly, 1960 it has become almost impossible to hospitalize a person with a serious mental illness.

Deinstitutionalization is a clear case in which the "do-gooders" have managed to bollocks things up to a fair-the-well.

Civil Rights was the battle cry of the political left of the sixties and it was their actions at the time that led, eventually, to the mess we have now with the insane roaming the streets of America as "homeless" people. It was their actions that led to the courts placing a limit on involuntary institutionalization and on the courts setting minimum standards for care in institutions. Read more here.

Unfortunately, as the mentally ill were invited OUT of the mental hospitals they found few services or support waiting for them outside. In many cases, it fell to their families to take care of them, most often, those families were not prepared and were overwhelmed. Far too many of the formerly institutionalized mentally ill eventually wound up on the streets of America as homeless people and/or in the nation's jails.

Clayton E. Cramer, in a piece entitled: ‘Deinstitutionalization’: Mass Murder and Untreated Madness, which was published at PJMedia says the following: "For those of you under 40 — it used to be startling indeed to see people begging in the streets or obviously insane in public. Homelessness and various forms of urban degradation were byproducts of deinstitutionalization." SOURCE

In Mr. Cramer's book: "My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill." Mr. Cramer says: "... for centuries the connection between mental illness and violence was considered sufficiently obvious that the legal system provided various ways to hospitalize the severely mentally ill when they first provided clear indications that they were a hazard to themselves or others. Only in the 1960s and 1970s did our society decide that this system was unfair. It then embarked on a policy of “deinstitutionalization.” The idea: standards for long-term, involuntary commitment of the mentally ill should be just a bit less demanding than the standards of proof for criminal conviction.

Unsurprisingly, emptying out the mental hospitals and making it difficult to hospitalize people with serious mental illness problems meant that society as a whole became a bit more like a low-grade mental hospital."

There is a compelling argument that those supporting gun control in America are missing the importance of treatment for our mentally ill. Consider the role of mental illness in all the recent mass shootings all across the country."

Mr. Cramer says: "Supporters of gun control argue that we need stricter laws because ordinary, law-abiding people just “snap” and go on rampages. There are people who indeed snap and go on rampages (and not just with guns) — but they are seldom ordinary. Often, they are people with long histories of mental illness who in 1960 would have been hospitalized before they killed someone." SOURCE

Deinstitutionalization is not working. It is not going to work. It is far too late to even consider “fixing” it.

America needs Congress to step up on this problem and make the necessary changes to existing laws and/or pass new laws that will allow us to gather the mentally ill from our streets and prisons and from families that are at their wit’s end, and place them in institutions in which they will be cared for, and locked away from society -- for their sake AND for ours.

Deinstitutionalization was a "feel good" project. In action it has been worse than a train wreck.

When one considers all the harm to individuals, to families, and to the country as a whole, it is difficult to determine which is more insane – the patient, or the deinstitutionalization policy.

How Many Of America’s “Poor” Are Like This Lady And Her Husband?

Stolen from Observations

The way that many welfare recipients think was revealed in a call to a radio talk show on KLBJ-AM in Austin, Texas. Lucy, a 32 year-old married mother of three, whose parents also had been on welfare, said this about her situation:

“I just wanted to say while workers out there and people like you that are preaching morality at people like me that are living on welfare, can you really blame us? I mean, I get to sit home, I get to go visit my friends all day, I even get to smoke weed, and people that I know that are illegal immigrants, that don’t contribute to society, we still going to get paid. Our check’s going to come in the mail every month and it’s going to be on time. And we get subsidized housing, we even get presents delivered for our kids at Christmas. Why should I work?”

“So you know what? You all get the benefit of saying, ‘Oh, look at me. I’m a better person,’ because you all are going to work. We’re the ones getting paid. So can you really blame us?”

Asked if her husband works, she said he does sometimes, but “he doesn’t really see the need for it.” Has she ever worked? “A couple of times.” Does she ever feel guilty about gaming the system and taking money other people have earned? “But you know, if someone offers you a million dollars, would you walk away from it? It’s easy to preach morality, and that’s the only reason why I called. It’s easy to say, ‘Well, yeah, you know, you’re making your living off of other people’s backs.’ But, you know, if somebody gave you a million dollars, and said that, here, you don’t got to work for it, no strings attached. Here, just take it, you can do whatever you want to do with it. You would take it, too.”

The host asked if she was calling in on an “Obamaphone” (a cell phone provided by the federal government) and she answered that she was. Then, when asked how much she received each month, she said she only pays $50 a month for rent that should be $600, so that’s $550, $425 in food stamps, $150 for her electric bill, and $100 on her water bill from the City of Austin. That comes to $1,225 a month, $14,700 a year, just less than the current federal minimum wage. Plus the cell phone.

She also said that when you are in government programs, “they are always coming to you and offering more programs,” and will even pay you to go to find out about where you can get more money. “They encourage you to stay on the programs.”

Asked if her money was cut off, would she get up every day and go to work, she said, “yes, I’d have to.”

This situation makes perfect sense to people like Lucy and her husband, who never learned the lesson that mature, responsible human beings make their own way in life, and who now live a relatively comfortable life without having to do anything to help themselves. They are a product of the failed War on Poverty for which we can thank President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), the namesake of the radio station Lucy called. They are among a large and growing number of Americans being taught that the government will take care of them, and they don’t have to do well in school, or learn a trade, or look for a job, or do much more than draw breath.

Last year the Census Bureau reported that 46 million Americans were in “poverty.” But how many of those are really poor and need some help, and how many are like Lucy and her hubby; playing a system that allows those eager for a free ride to get one?

Census Bureau data reveals the following about people classified as “poor”: eighty percent of poor households enjoy air conditioning; nearly three-fourths own a car or truck, and 31 percent own two or more cars or trucks, nearly two-thirds subscribe to cable or satellite television, 50 percent own a personal computer, and one in seven owns two or more computers; 43 percent subscribe to Internet access; one-third own a wide-screen plasma or LCD television; one-fourth own a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo; more than half of poor families with children own a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

Poverty ain’t what it used to be.

It isn’t government’s job to help individuals who are down on their luck, and as the War on Poverty has demonstrated, it does a lousy job of it. And it surely isn’t government’s job to give taxpayer’s money to people who don’t really need it, or to actively recruit people who don’t need welfare onto welfare roles. That is the epitome of government disservice, and elected official’s self-service.

George Bernard Shaw’s famous quote has been used a lot recently, but it has never been truer than today: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

"Living wage" Mentality Reflects Misunderstanding Of Business Reality.

Stolen from Faultline USA

Fast food workers in seven cities were on strike last week demanding a "living wage" of $15 an hour, more than twice the $7.25 they currently make. Empathy aside, this expectation is a fantasy.

Every job has a value, but it is based not on what the person who has the job thinks it should be worth, or what sympathetic observers think it should be worth, but on its role in the business.

How important is the job to the business, compared to other jobs? Are other people who can do the job a scarce commodity, or are there thousands of them? Some jobs require substantial training, while others do not, and individuals with the required training deserve higher pay than those without training. Minimum wage jobs in the fast food industry require no formal training; the worker can learn on the job, and while the worker is learning to do the job satisfactorily, the boss endures lower-than-necessary productivity.

Who exactly works for the minimum wage? These jobs are entry-level work intended for people just getting started in the workaday world, like students trying to earn a little money while pursuing their education, or people with little or no skills or experience looking to get some skill and experience. About half of the 1.6 million minimum wage workers are under 25 years of age. The minimum wage is not intended to be, and cannot be, a “living wage.”

The minimum wage is, indeed, a low wage, but most of those workers get a raise in less than a year, and there are fewer of them today than in the past. The number of people making at or under the minimum wage today is 28 per 1,000 wage and salary workers, while in 1976 there were 79 per 1,000 wage and salary workers.

Most employers want the best workers they can find, so if most workers produce 10 of something an hour and Joe can produce 12 an hour, or if Mary’s work is of higher quality than other employees, the boss is likely to give them a raise to keep them on staff.

For people in minimum wage jobs with few or no skills, demanding their salary be doubled to a "living wage" is somewhat akin to high school students demanding they be given a college diploma. And anyone earning minimum wage that is unhappy with it can go look for a better-paying job. If they can't find one, do their best at the current job, and get some training that will qualify them for something better.

An organization calling itself Socialist Alternative illustrates graphically the failure of a “living wage" minimum wage in an article titled "Profit is The Unpaid Labor of Workers."

"Hypothetically, lets assume that our job pays $7.50 an hour and our boss wants us to work for twenty hours," the article says. "At $7.50 an hour for twenty hours, that’s a total of $150. In that same period of time, however, the work we do will probably make $300, $400, or $1000 worth of pizza."

And here's where it gets good: "What does this mean? Just for arguments sake, lets assume we only create $300 worth of pizza. After our boss gives us $150 for our week’s worth of work – meaning our own labor essentially pays our wage – he is left with an additional $150 that he did not work for."

There’s a brilliant bit of insight hidden in that paragraph: "our own labor essentially pays our wage." To the socialist mentality, the only cost of running the pizza parlor is what the boss pays the pizza maker. Everything else – flour, sauce, pepperoni, cheese, insurance, rent/mortgage, electricity, water, sewage, trash pickup, taxes, fees, etc. – the boss apparently gets for nothing, and the money collected for the pizza that is not paid to the pizza maker is ill-gotten gains.

The "living wage" strikers similarly do not understand business, and what happens when wages go up. Raising the minimum wage requires a commensurate raise in all wages, to avoid causing strife among the other workers, and that means price increases that make the business less competitive. That could lead to staff cutbacks or ultimately closing the business.

The strikers and the socialists fail to understand and appreciate the investments of the owner(s), who may have mortgaged their home to finance the business, and managers of larger businesses, who usually have spent years in training and working to get where they are, perhaps starting as a minimum wage employee themselves.

Owners get whatever is left over after everyone else – employees, venders, lenders, taxes, etc. – have been paid. Often, particularly in the beginning or during hard economic times, that is little or nothing. And, few employees work as hard as the owner of a small business, and particularly a new business, yet the Socialist Alternative begrudges them making a decent return on their investment of capital and time.

It’s easy to criticize the boss from the sidelines. The best course for these critics would be their forced entry into the business owner’s world. At their own expense, of course. They would undoubtedly see things differently in short order.

Tiny Minds Think Alike

Pat Condell rants about the Loonies on the left and their idea of Free Speech.



Click here if the video fails to load.

Firearms, Size And Movie

I received this via email from Norman

Take this for what it is worth.  A wonderful rant by a Texan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello once more from the Regional Headquarters Of Conspiratorial Right Wing Jingoistic Conclusion Jumping Constitution Supporting Conceal Carry Believers Of West Texas.

FIREARMS:

Within the past week we have seen the reports of the Muslim Terrorist attacks on one British and one French soldier in their respective countries.Keep in mind that both France and England have been two of the European countries who have welcomed the believers in Islam with open arms. As I understand it, the French soldier was still alive but of course the British soldier was beheaded by two Muslim Terrorist Extremists.

Then on the following day, 5/24/13 I was listening to a morning news report when they played the tape of a 9-1-1 call to the Oregon State Police. In this audio a lady had called her local 9-1-1 responder which was the local Sheriff's Department and found that the Sheriff's Department was closed and no Deputy available at that hour and the call was forwarded to the State Police Operator. The lady told this operator that her ex-boyfriend was breaking in her home and she was alone and was afraid that he was going to harm her. According to the news report this boyfriend had beaten up this caller in the past.

The operator told this lady that she had no one to send and suggested that the lady ask this ex-boyfriend to just leave. WOW! What great advice.

Now, it seems as the reason for the Sheriff's Dept. being closed during certain hours was being blamed on the "Sequester" and lack of funds for this Oregon Sheriff's Department. I personally am surprised that they did not blame George Bush, whom we all know is responsible for Hurricane Katrina and many other mishaps.

BUT, the point of all three of these stories is this. England and France have laws which prohibit firearms ownership by most citizens, much less the citizens being authorized to carry these firearms. And I am surprised that this dispatcher never even asked the lady in Oregon if she had a firearm in her home. I would have to believe that the answer would have been NO.

Now I am not saying that the attacks on those two soldiers could not have happened here in the U.S. BUT, I am saying that attacks such as these would probably incite bystanders to act a bit more aggressively than just filming the murder with their cell phones. I would imagine that an armed attacker in almost any location in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, and a number of other states would be met with armed resistance and the likelihood of them beheading anyone would be highly unlikely. BUT their being shot would be HIGHLY PROBABLE.

I just wonder if any of these three people who were victims of attacks would have had a Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Socialist view of firearms possession by honest people? I will wager that they wouldn't.

BUT, the Obama Administration and the rest of the Socialist jerks in our country have the typical view that since they don't own or carry or desire to own a firearm that NOBODY should be able to do something other than what they approve.

AND, if they get their way, firearms ownership and self protection aren't the only things which will be taken from us.

MOVIE:

A couple of days ago I was passing through one of our rooms and looked at the TV screen and thought that perhaps the Turner Classic Movie Channel or the A&E Channel were showing a repeat of the old Annette Funicello - Frankie Avalon movie, "Beach Blanket Bingo". Then I took a closer look and found that I was watching a news channel showing the new love affair between Barack Obama and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

I don't know how many people still believe that Chris Christie is a Conservative Republican, but I'll bet I could fit them all into a telephone booth.

I wonder just how many people in New Jersey really believe that Barack Hussein Obama really gives a damn about their particular problems?

It is amazing how many people watch this phony operator of the world's largest shell game make a television appearance in Oklahoma and actually believe that this vermin gives a damn about the people in Oklahoma which was maybe the reddest of the red states. I read in one report that not one single county in Oklahoma was carried by the Obama/Biden ticket in the 2012 election.

BUT apparently the voters in New Jersey, who seem to be confused as to what a Conservative Republican really looks like, are totally enamored by the appearance of the world's most articulate and intelligent human who shows up on the Jersey Shore for no other reason than a political one.

And of course in my estimation the love scenes between Barack Hussein Obama and Chris Christie are much more torrid than those between Frankie and Annette.

SIZE:

And no, I am not discussing the weight loss of the aforementioned Chris Christie. I am referring to the SIZE of our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

We have all watched various politicians and members of the Mainstream Media tell us for several weeks that we can't expect Barack Hussein Obama OR Eric Holder OR the various musical chair directors of the IRS to know what every single person in their departments is doing.

REALLY? Funny, but I DO EXPECT these heads of government and governmental agencies to keep abreast of major investigations and of major policy violations by the people working for them.

Do not in one sentence try to tell me that Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton and a myriad of other Obama appointees are the most efficient and knowledgeable people on the planet and in the next breath try to convince me that they are just folks like us who cannot be expected to be aware of everything going on under their supposed leadership.

The truth of the matter is that our federal government and the expanded bureaucracy promoted by the Obama Administration has, in fact gotten way out of hand and needs to be DOWNSIZED.

If you have been watching any of the reports of Benghazi; the IRS; and the Justice Department scandals then you will come to the same conclusion as me. First of all, I do not believe that Barack Hussein Obama has appointed ANYONE who would have the balls to make a major decision without first getting his approval.

Our government has grown way too many arms and legs and while I don't believe for a second that these scandals were put in motion without the knowledge and approval of Barack Hussein Obama there might not be any way to prove that he is culpable in any of them. That, of course depends upon his underlings having the guts to take the blame themselves. We shall see.

One thing that this administration is downsizing is our military. And, in my opinion, that is the one area where we can least afford to be short with the world situation being what it is today.

On May 27th, when all the banks and government offices were off for the Memorial Day Holiday, I was drinking coffee with a friend at a local coffee shop. A young man walked up to place an order and my friend told me to look what it said on this man's shirt. It had the name of a U.S. Military base and when the young man turned, my friend asked him if he had been stationed at that base and the young man answered, "Yes Sir". This was a young Hispanic man who looked to be in perhaps his early thirties. He was very clean cut looking and very articulate.

My friend told him that he had been stationed for awhile at that base during the Korean War. We learned that this young man had just been discharged from the U.S. Military after having served 12 years. We asked him about his reasons for leaving and he told us that he had to have some surgery on a tendon in his leg and that although his surgery had been successful he had been medically discharged, although he actually wanted to continue his career in the military. He said that his branch of service was caught in a move to DOWNSIZE and his position was abolished. Without asking him to commit to any political views we inquired as to his thoughts about the downsizing of the U.S. Military and he was obviously dead set against it. He said that there were many people who did not wish to make the military their career who were still in the service. He was pretty disenchanted with the present situation regarding the leadership in the top levels of the U.S. Military. This young man had served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to me that there are a bunch of government which could do with a good dose of downsizing or complete elimination BUT NOT OUR MILITARY.

QUOTES:

"This time of year, as college students return home for the summer, many parents may notice how many politically correct ideas they have acquired on campus. Some of those parents may wonder how they can undo some of the brainwashing that has become so common in what are supposed to be institutions of higher learning.".............................THOMAS SOWELL

"Problems found in low-income black ghettos in the United States are found in low-income white neighborhoods in Britain, where none of the usual excuses about racism, slavery, etc. apply. The only thing that is the same in both countries is the welfare state and its poisonous ideology".... THOMAS SOWELL

"What is a tax loophole? It is a provision in the law that allows an individual or an organization to pay less taxes than they would be required to pay otherwise. Since Congress puts these provisions in the law, it is a little much when members of Congress denounce people who use those provisions to reduce their taxes.".................THOMAS SOWELL

"The real danger to us all is when government not only exercises the powers that we have voted to give it, but exercises additional powers that we have never voted to give it. That is when public servants become public masters. That is when government itself has stepped over the line.".... THOMAS SOWELL

"An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!....Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.... Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.... Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of the chains of slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."..... PATRICK HENRY

VARMINT LIST:

Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, George Soros, Joe Biden, Louis Farrakhan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DNC Chairperson), Leon Panetta, Supreme Court Justices - Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, AND John Roberts, Eric Holder, John McCain, Valerie Jarrett, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Lanny Davis, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Claire McCaskill, Gary Johnson, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Kathleen Sibelius, Bill Richardson, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, Al Gore, COLIN POWELL , Michael Moore, John Boehner, John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, Former President Jimmy Carter. Al Gore, Kevin Brady (R-TX) by request, Chuck Hagel, Dick Durbin, Andrew Cuomo, Chris Christie , Michael Bloomberg, Sheila Jackson Lee, F. Chuck Todd, Chris Christi (R-NJ), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Diana DeGette (CO), Hank Johnson (GA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Patrick Leahy, Deval Patrick (Gov-MA), Ben Bernanke

Juan Williams (FOX News), Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC), Morgan Freeman, Michael Steele (MSNBC), ACLU, Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, UNITED NATIONS, Bob Beckel (FOX News), Geraldo Rivera (FOX News), Bill O'Reilly (FOX News), Chris Matthews (MSNBC), Dan Rather, NBC, Rachael Maddow (NBC,MSNBC), Al Sharpton (MSNBC), MSNBC, David Gregory(NBC), Alan Colmes (FOX News), Southern Poverty Law Center, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Tom Brokaw (NBC), Ellis Henican (FOX News), Freedom From Religion Foundation, Planned Parenthood, LA RAZA, MOVEON.ORG, Martha Raddatz, Candy Crowley, Columbia Professor Mark Lamont Hill PH.D(FOX News), Anderson Cooper (CNN), Sheppard Smith(FOX News), PETA, CAIR, TIME MAGAZINE, Sandra Fluke, BOB COSTAS (NBC), ESPN, EdAsner, The NFL, The BCS, Mediamatters.org, CNN, Piers Morgan(CNN), The IOC, Dennis Rodman, CBS, Jim Carey, Tom Brokaw, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Julian Bond

MORE STUFF:

On May 23rd, Obama in one of his public appearances made a statement about respecting STATE SOVEREIGNTY in dealing with foreign countries. Wonder what his views are on the SOVEREIGNTY of the FIFTY STATES which compose our own country? It doesn't seem to me as if he is all that concerned with our individual states having any rights or input in governing the citizens of that state.

--------------------------------------

I imagine we have all heard the female supposed heckler interrupting Obama's speech and calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo. She went on ranting for a good while before she was removed from the room, at which time Obama said that we should all be listening to what that heckler had to say and that he supported what she said. First of all, I don't believe for a second that she was a dyed-in-the-wool, garden variety heckler. I am convinced that she was a PLANT in order to try and convince the American people that the prison in Guantanamo which holds ONLY TERRORISTS is a really important issue with the American people. Forgive me if I have the opinion that the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about the prison OR its occupants.

-------------------------------

I also listened to Obama make a comment about how the Muslim-American Community has sided with law enforcement in fighting Muslim Extremist Terrorists....... To that I politely say BULLS**T!

---------------------------------

I don't know about the rest of you but if I have to listen to another in depth report of John McCain going to Syria to meet with the Syrian Rebel Leadership I will probably do like Michael Jackson in a Pepsi Commercial and burst into flames. The first few reports I heard made it sound like McCain had at great risk to himself gone deep into Syria to meet with the Syrian Rebel leadership to try and determine just what level of assistance the U.S. should give the rebel army.

A little later in the day one reporter said that the meeting location was LESS THAN A KILOMETER inside the Syrian border. Now I am not saying that going anywhere in Syria is not dangerous but I am of the same belief as retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and believe that we need to keep our asses out of that conflict lest we end up backing the same brand of folks we backed in Libya and Egypt. I guess what I am saying is that in Syria, I am not sure there is a right side. I feel sure that the Rebel leadership will be just as one sided and as hard on the Syrian people as is the turd who is now in power.

-------------------------------------

Please contact your elected Representatives and Senators and let them know in no uncertain terms that any weakness on their parts in the gun control debate will result in you working against them in their next bid for re-election. Right now, I am pretty darn pleased with Texas Senator Ted Cruz since he is being branded as a bully by Harry Reid. Of course I would imagine that in Harry Reid's eyes, Pee Wee Herman would be a bit of a bully. Reid is pure sissy in my opinion.

-------------------------------------

Oh, before I forget, I would like a show of hands from everyone who believes that George Zimmerman will receive a fair hearing in his trial for shooting; "LITTLE TRAYVON MARTIN". I do hope his attorney does his job but I am forming the opinion that the District Judge hearing this case is a liberal squawk which is not good for the Zimmerman team.

Beware the Dictators of Virtue

Stolen  (With permission) from Patriot's Corner

This article was so good, that I had to share it here in its entirety. Credit goes to Daniel Greenfield (AKA Sultan Knish), and the original can be found on Daniel Greenfield (AKA Sultan Knish), and the original can be found here.

************************************************************

America is becoming a more tolerant nation, we are told. Each new thing that we learn to tolerate makes us more progressive. But tolerance is a relative thing. For every new thing we learn to tolerate, there is a thing that we must stop tolerating.

Tolerance can only be allocated to so many places. The balance of tolerance and intolerance remains the same no matter how progressive a society becomes. A tolerant society only allocates its intolerance differently.

America today tolerates different things. It tolerates little boys dressing up as little girls at school, but not little boys pointing pencils and making machine gun noises on the playground.

The little boy whose mother dressed him up in girlish clothes once used to be a figure of contempt while the little boy pretending to be a marine was the future of the nation. Now the boy in the dress is the future of the nation having joined an identity group while the aspiring little marine is suspected of one day trading in his sharpened pencil for an assault rifle as soon as the next gun show comes to town.

The Duke of Wellington once said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton. What battles will the boys playing on the playgrounds where dodgeball is banned and finger guns are a crime win and what sort of nation will they be fighting to protect? The trouble with tolerance is that there is always someone deciding what to tolerate. A free society does not tolerate people; it allows them to live their own values. And a tolerant society is not free. It is a dictatorship of virtue that is intolerant toward established values in order to better tolerate formerly intolerable values.

A free society does not tell people of any religion or no religion what to believe. A tolerant society forces them all to pay for abortions because its dictators of virtue have decided that the time has come to teach this lesson in tolerance. An open society finds wisdom in its own uncertainty. A tolerant society, like a teenager, is certain that it already knows all the answers and lacks only the means of imposing them on others. It confuses its destruction of the past with progress and its sense of insecurity with righteousness.

To the tolerant, intolerance is the most powerful act possible. They solve problems by refusing to tolerate them. School shootings are carried out with guns and so the administrative denizens of the gun-free zones run campaigns of intolerance toward the physical existence of guns, the owners of guns, the manufacturers of guns, the civil rights groups that defend gun ownership and eventually toward John Puckle, Samuel Colt, John Moses Browning and the 82nd element in the periodic table.

None of this accomplishes a single practical thing, but it is an assertion of values. The paranoid mindset that cracks down on little boys who chew pop tarts into deadly shapes, little boys who point pencils and fingers at each other, is not out to stop school shootings, but is struggling to assert the intolerance of its tolerant value system over the reality of violence. It’s not about preventing school shootings, but about asserting a value system in which there is no place for the aspiring marine, unless he’s handing out food to starving children in Africa in a relief operation or serving as a model of gay marriage to rural America.

To understand the NRA’s argument about the moral value of a gun deriving from the moral value of the wielder would require a worldview that is more willing to accept a continuum of shades, rather than criminalizing pencils and pop tarts for guilt by geometric association. A free society could do that, but a tolerant society, in which everything must be assigned an unchanging value to determine whether it will be tolerated and enforced or not tolerated and outlawed, cannot.

That is as true of Newtown as it is of Boston. The same tolerant liberalism that can see deadly menace in a pencil or a pop tart is blind to the lethal threat of a Chechen Islamist. If a gun is innately evil, then a member of a minority group, especially a persecuted one, is innately good. In the real world, it may take bad guns to stop good Muslims, but the system just doubles down on encouraging students to recite the Islamic declaration of faith while suspending them for chewing their pop tarts the wrong way. Liberal values are at odds with reality and they are not about to let reality win. In their more tolerant nation, there is more room than ever for little boys who dream of one day setting off pressure cooker bombs at public events in the name of their religion, but very little room for little boys dreaming of being the ones to stop them.

The little boy in a dress has put on the uniform of tolerance while the little boy making rat tat noises with a pencil is showing strong signs of playing for the wrong team. The wrong team is the one that solves problems by shooting people, rather than writing denunciations of them to the tolerance department of diversity.

The complainer is the hero and the doer is the villain. Reporters and lawyers are the heroes because they are the arbiters of tolerance. Soldiers and police officers are the gun-happy villains because they respond to realities, rather than identities. They unthinkingly shoot without understanding the subtext.

A free society is practical. It acts in its own defense. A tolerant society acts to assert its values. The former fights terrorists and murderers, while the latter lets them go to show off its tolerant values.

This is the clash of values that holds true on the playground and on the battlefield of war. On the playground, little boys are suspended for waving around pencils and on the battlefield, soldiers are ordered not to defend themselves so that their country can win the hearts and minds of the locals in the endless Afghan Valentine’s Day that has stacked up a horrifying toll of bodies. In their cities, men and women are told to be tolerant, to extend every courtesy and to suspect nothing of the friendly Islamists in their neighborhoods. It is better to be blown up as a tolerant society, they are told, than to point the pop tart of intolerance on the great playground of the nanny state.

Another Example of How Our Miseducation System is Failing Our Kids

Stolen From Stop The ACLU

This goes under the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot category.

Remember how you were taught in school how to add a series of numbers? Remember how you were told to write each set of numbers on top of each other, to stack them so you could then add them together to get a total?

Kids aren’t taught that any more. In fact, the system of “cubes, sheets, sticks and dots” they are taught now is so convoluted, involved and confusing that it often results in wrong answers. But correct answers isn’t the goal for today’s fetid school systems. “The process” is all that is cared about.
If you aren’t infuriated by this video…


Click here if the video fails to load.

These are unionized teachers perpetrating this crime on our kids, folks.

Remember that.

I don't know about you, but after the first 30 seconds I wanted to find the teacher and punch him or her out.  And we are suppose to train these children to be the engineers, doctors and scientists of the future.  Really?

Americans Have Been Sequestered By Their Elected Public Servants

By James Shott

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has produced an economic report using The Budget and Economic Outlook: FY 2013 to 2023 from the Congressional Budget Office that paints the true picture of the impact of the sequester on federal spending.

It has become standard practice in recent years for the federal government to spend more than a trillion dollars above what it takes in. In 2013 the budget deficit will be a little over $900 billion, adding nearly another trillion dollars to the national debt. According to Mercatus, the government planned to increase spending by $2.54 trillion through 2023. That represents an increase in government spending of 72 percent over ten years.

And then came the sequester, which President Barack Obama told us would wreak all sorts of havoc on the government and the nation, throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of work, and all manner of other horrors.

We were told that the sequester was a cut to government funding levels, but that was not true. The sequester wasn't cutting anything, merely reducing the amount of additional money government got each year over the previous year, so that over that 10-year period spending would only increase by $2.40 trillion. With the reductions in spending increases under the sequester, spending would still increase by 68 percent over ten years. Instead of spending an average of $540 billion more each year, government could only spend $400 billion more each year. What a hardship.

Putting this equation in dollar amounts that people can identify with, let's say that you earn $43,000 a year, -- the average wage in the U.S. -- and your employer told you that each year for the next ten years you would get paid $2,540 more than the previous year. But then the company had a financial crisis and was only able to pay you $2,400 more than last year, about 5.5 percent less. Would you have to sell your second car to make ends meet? Would you have to move to a less expensive home, or eat only bread and beans? Would your life really change at all because your pay raise was $140 less than you expected?

Actually, you could spend money on things just like you did the preceding year, and have money left over.

Returning to the federal situation, how could the government having $400 billion more to spend in FY 2013 than it had in FY 2012 cause such horrific results as those the president warned us about? Well, because those in the position to create horrific results decided to make the most of the situation, and create as much pain as possible.

And why would they do that? Quoting that famous socialist philosopher, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." In other words, use this situation to help you achieve your selfish goals by creating a lot of pain and blaming it on your political opponents.

And how would they do that? Well, when faced with two possible areas to spend less, where one was painful and the other wasn't -- such as not filling government positions opened through attrition (painless) or releasing illegal alien criminals back onto the streets (painful and dumb), these public servants choose to release illegal alien criminals. Of course, everyone with common sense recognizes that decision is stupid and dangerous, but common sense is unwelcome in this entirely political situation. What matters most to these malpracticing public servants is causing enough pain to get the people to clamor for relief from the painful decisions, and restore things to their pre-sequester status.

This is the path that Barack Obama and the other big spenders chose to try to reverse the sequester that was originally their brain child. It is revealing that the president refused to accept the authority to decide how best to accomplish spending a little less than originally envisioned, which was offered to him by U.S. Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and James Inhofe (R-OK), who authored an alternative to give him discretion to allocate the sequester’s cuts largely as he sees fit. Mr. Obama, who never is responsible for anything bad, wanted no part of it, because then whatever pain couldn't be avoided would be his responsibility.

The president wants to blame new economic problems on the sequester. But the actual effects of the sequester are only to reduce budget increases by an amount small enough that competent managers could adequately and nearly painlessly deal with. But, of course, the president turned down that authority.

The real pain and suffering that occurs after the sequester took effect will have resulted primarily from decisions deliberately made to cause pain for no better reason than to allow the president and our other employees in government to create a situation that benefits them and their spending addiction.

This behavior is the antithesis of the ideal of public service and should earn every public servant who indulges in it a quick ejection from their job. Unfortunately, many Americans are more concerned with outcomes than with following an honorable process to achieve them.an honorable process to achieve them.

Overcoming Their Own Worst Enemy

Stolen from  Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
 
Liberal guilt created a permanent underclass of citizens in America about one hundred and fifty years ago and still there is no light at the end of the tunnel for that underclass to claw their way towards IF they ever hope to crawl out of the societal hole liberals tossed them into at the end of America's "War Between the States."  

There is another entirely different commentary to be written about the way liberals have suckered the black race in America and taken credit for any and all advances American blacks have made since the Civil War.  Most of the left's claims are pure bovine scatology but their willing accomplices in the intellectual community, the halls of academia, and the Mainstream Media have taken those lies and transformed them them into what is recognized today as history.  Never mind that that so-called "history" is mostly lies.  It IS the official record.  And that, dear reader, is THAT.

It is the national leadership of the black community in America where, I think, the problem lies.

But there is a crying need for leadership at a much more critical level.  In the home, in the family, and in the black neighborhoods.

The black family desperately needs two parents at the head of the family unit ... a mother and a FATHER.  That young black male can learn much from his mother --  but -- how to be a responsible, disciplined, self-respecting man, a masculine contributor to society,  can be learned ONLY from a father.  The home is where real leadership begins, where it is born, and where respect for leadership is taught.  It is also where accountability is learned and where one learns to take responsibility for one's own actions or inactions.

It is jaw-dropping to realize that an entire race of people in America were given freedom over 150 years ago and so little progress has been made as a race, as a class, in bettering themselves, taking advantage of the blessings of this country,  seizing the guilt offerings from white America and using all of it to make their way up the ladder of progress  until they truly stand on a level societal field. It just has not happened. 

If anything, with exceptions, of course, the vast majority of American blacks seem to take pride in their victimhood, assumed or real.  See, little is expected of victims.  It is SAFE to play the part of the victim. And besides, white America loves to "rescue" victims by lavishing all sorts of goodies on them if only to assuage the guilt they (white America) feel for having victimized the poor "victim" in the first place.

Then along comes someone like Dr. Ben Carson and blows a hole the size of the moon through all the BS the leaders of the black community have thrown up the past 150 years -- and what happens?  Well, of course, he is attacked for it.  He's not "down" with the "cause."

See, Ben Carson is an embarrassment to the black community.  That alone should tell you just how convoluted the thinking within that hapless community of people really is.

Here's a man who made the most of every opportunity he found, or came his way, or that he himself could create. Ambitious?  HELL, Yes!  But ambition is a necessary element in striving to better your lot in life.

"Black people created their own stereotype. Now its hard for me to be a educated young black man without being labeled as 'acting white." (Quote from "unknown.")

Nobody seems to know who actually created or verbalized the quote above but it is unarguably true.

Mychal Massie, in an Article for WND entitled: "Blacks: Their own worst enemy" said the following: "If you are black, when was the last time you applauded the accomplishment of another black who didn’t play victim or have an edge of militancy earmarking said accomplishment?

Blacks are inculcated from the womb to believe that whites, especially conservatives, are out to get them. Living under that onus creates a debilitating vestige of rage, resentment and inferiority. In reality, whites, apart from liberals who trade on black immiseration, are not interested in holding blacks down or treating them unfairly. And in no way do they reference blacks in the same disparaging ways blacks do them."  SOURCE

(Mr. Massie is, himself, black. He is the former chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk-radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie's website is mychal-massie.com.)

In the very same article Mr. Massie goes on to say: "Many blacks may not like it, but all too often, when they’re not being their own worst enemies, they are giving their tacit stamp of approval for others to portray them that way."  SOURCE

For evidence of the truthfulness of Mr. Massie's statement above simply look at the leaders the American black community has chosen to represent it and consider how those very same leaders embellish the victim-hood label.

I agree with Mr. Massie who says in the same article:  "It is time to stop feigning insult over nothing, and over that which could be avoided by appropriate behavior, and start promoting positive stories of blacks, regardless of their party affiliation. It is time to stop honoring malevolent anti-social behavior and victimology."  Read more at here
  
The self-appointed leaders of America's black community continue to play the "blame game" and continue to preach hatred and divisiveness when they ought to be preaching a message of repentance and turning away from immorality.   As a result, American blacks have simply traded one enslavement for another.

At some point, blacks are going to have to relinquish their death grip on the battles of the past, accept that most of those battles have actually been won, and join with the rest of us battling today's problems and preparing as best we can to face the unknown problems about to assail us from the future.

Look. Bigots and racists are EVER with us,  have always BEEN with us,  and will always BE with us.  Unfortunately, it is a part of the human condition.  It is a part we can choose to allow influence us -- or -- we can choose to ignore it/them and move forward.   I hope we as a people, both black and white, choose the latter.

America is facing an uncertain future in which she will need all her children, black, white, brown, whatever,  dedicated to her survival.

WE can do this, but we can do it so much better TOGETHER!

When I Was A Kid!

This was sent to me and I realized how true it was.  What a difference a few decades make.

When I Was A Kid: Reflections Of A 50-Year-Old American (Edward L. Daley)

When I was a kid…

If you mouthed off to an adult – even a teacher in school – you’d more than likely get the taste slapped out of your mouth, and anybody who saw you get smacked would assume you had it coming.

Doctors made house calls, and they were usually paid in cash for that service.

Boosting a kid’s self-esteem was maybe the last thing any teacher cared about. Forcing their students to study and get good grades was the top priority, and accomplishing that goal naturally led to kids feeling better about themselves.

Climate change was a concept we were keenly aware of, although, back then we just called it weather.

Black folks were called blacks, colored people or Negroes by most whites and blacks alike. There was no such thing as an African-American. Even immigrants from Africa who had passed their citizenship tests weren’t called African-Americans, they were just Americans like the rest of us.

There wasn’t a single kid in my school who couldn’t read, write, do basic math or recite the Pledge of Allegiance by the time they were eight years old… not one.

The word gay just meant cheerful.

Wearing a helmet while riding your bike was far more dangerous than not wearing one, because if other kids saw you in sissy gear like that, they’d beat the crap out of you.

Israelis were known as the survivors of the worst genocide in modern history, and Palestinians were thought of as just a bunch of Arab Nazis pretending to be the victims of Jewish tyranny.

A rich person was somebody you aspired to be like, not somebody you sought to punish.

Communism was an almost treasonous concept that only doped-up, America-hating hippies experimented with.

Every classroom in my grammar school had a Christmas tree in it at Christmas time, and if any parent had complained and tried to force us to remove them, that person’s car would have ended up with sugar in its gas tank, a busted windshield, four flat tires and the words ‘Merry Christmas’ spray-painted on its hood.

Our heroes were people like George Washington, Neil Armstrong, Mother Teresa, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart, Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, General George S. Patton and Albert Einstein.

We understood that the Vietnam War wasn’t lost by U.S. military forces, it was lost by incompetent politicians in Washington DC.

Only wimps played tee-ball.

Most folks had home computers, although they were more commonly known as calculators.

After school, on weekends and during the summer months – unless the weather was particularly bad – kids could be found outside playing with their friends. We didn’t hang around inside, watching TV or playing board games before dinner, and even if we’d wanted to do that, our parents would have forbade it.

Most black voters were Republicans.

Popular music was incredibly diverse, and most performers knew how to play instruments, compose complex melodies and lyrics, and sing entire songs without proving to their audiences that some notes can, indeed, be strangled to death.

Able-bodied people who received public assistance were pitied by other folks, and most of them felt shame for allowing themselves to become dependent on the government for their sustenance.

Nobody played any game just for the fun of it. That’s why we always kept score. If you weren’t playing to win, the game was pointless.

If you saw a grown man cry, it was probably because either his mother or his dog had just died or his team lost the World Series or Super Bowl.

It was mostly Europeans who thought of Hitler’s Nazi party as a right-wing political movement. Americans generally understood what the term National Socialist implied.

Reality TV shows included Mutual Of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, Candid Camera and The Undersea World Of Jacques Cousteau.

We didn’t need government warming labels on everything. We knew that electrical appliances were dangerous if used improperly, that smoking was bad for you, that swallowing things like marbles and those little, plastic, toy soldiers could choke you to death, and that placing a scalding hot cup of coffee between your thighs while riding in a car was as good a way as any of proving to emergency room staff just how freakin’ stupid some people can be.

Books were more popular than food stamps.

Respect was something that your parents were entitled to, your friends earned, and politicians pretended they deserved.

Gas station attendants didn’t just take your money, they pumped your gas, washed your windshield, checked your oil level and even applied a pressure gauge to your tires if you asked them to. And their service didn’t cost you a penny extra.

Only teenage boys bragged to their friends about having sex, especially when they hadn’t. Most teenage girls denied that they’d had sex, especially when they had.

Heavy drinkers didn’t have a disease, they simply lacked self-control. Diseases were things you had no control over.

A liberal was an open-minded, intellectually honest individual who looked at all sides of an issue before arriving at a thoughtful conclusion, not a scatterbrained, reactionary jackass whose natural inclination was to spout socialist theory as a default position on practically every topic.

Everybody who was born in America was a native American.

Men were builders, risk-takers, hunters, warriors, protectors and heads of their households. Women were refiners, nesters, nurturers, teachers and disciplinarians who were usually willing to let their male counterparts delude themselves into thinking that men were the heads of their households.

Most folks understood the difference between discrimination and bigotry.

Marriage was an institution that a man and a woman entered into when they wanted to exhibit their commitment to one another, their willingness to accept adult responsibilities, and their desire to legitimize their offspring. It had nothing to do with making a political point.

Teenagers bringing guns to their high schools was commonplace – especially during hunting season – and anyone who complained about such a thing was generally considered a nutcase.

Illegal aliens were called illegal aliens by practically everyone, because that term best described foreigners who’d snuck into our country in defiance of our laws.

The greatest movie ever made was The Great Escape.

On the scale of human trustworthiness, the vast majority of politicians fell somewhere between used car salesmen and coke whores. In fact, the only people who ever exhibited any level of trust in politicians were the people who had enough money to buy them off.

Plumbers were more respected than Harvard law students.

My friends and I genuinely cared about nature because we spent a lot of time hanging out in it. We went into the woods and built forts, fished in streams, and made campfires, employing the lessons we’d learned in the Boy Scouts and from studying American Indian cultures. We respected nature because we knew what nature really was; a hostile, unforgiving place that would kill you if you didn’t know your way around it. We loved the challenge of the wilderness, and soldiering through it made us appreciate our cushy home lives all the more.

Making fun of other kids or calling them names – while generally frowned upon – wasn’t considered bullying. A bully was a guy who punched you in the head and took your lunch money.

The President of the United States wasn’t a father figure to anybody but his own kids.

Mainstream news reporters were pretty much the same sort of biased, dim-witted, arrogant, ass clowns that they are today, only we didn’t have the internet at our disposal to easily prove just how unreliable they were.

Video games were things you played at arcades, unless you were lucky enough to get an Atari Pong console for Christmas.

Abortion wasn’t a privacy issue, it was a moral issue, and people who committed abortions weren’t “pro-choice”, they were baby killers.

The application of oil and its byproducts to run machinery and generate electricity was widely understood to be as important to the advancement of human civilization as the discovery and utilization of fire, the practices of cultivating crops and breeding livestock, and the development of a written language.

Nobody I knew gave half a damn what people in other countries thought about anything.

Concepts like honor, integrity, courage and chivalry were alive and well.

The United States of America was the greatest nation in the history of the world, bar none, and just about every American school kid knew why. Our brilliantly conceived Constitution, Judeo-Christian ethic, free market economic system, adherence to the rule of law and willingness to embrace people from every culture on Earth made us great, and we were conspicuously proud of that fact.

Mary Hopkin - Those Were the Days 1968


Click here if the video doesn't load.

Looking At The United States By The Numbers

Stolen From Hat Tip Faultline USA

By James Shott

As the end of 2012 draws near, here are some interesting and revealing statistics about our country.

The Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate has been anemic all year, but had its biggest increase in the 3rd quarter, rising 2.7 percent. That was double the 2nd quarter’s 1.3 percent, and beat the 1st quarter’s 1.9 percent. From 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP Growth Rate averaged 3.2 percent.

* * *

In 2011 the population of the U.S. was 313.8 million and 153.6 million Americans were in the labor force. The nation produced total GDP of $15.1 trillion, roughly $49,000 in per capita GDP.

The U.S. Treasury collected tax revenue of a little more than $2.3 trillion and as a percent of GDP the economy is taxed at slightly more than 15 percent. However, the federal government spent about $3.8 trillion, creating a budget deficit of more than $1.3 trillion, or 8.63 percent of GDP. Each man woman and child citizen’s share of the cost of government is more than $12,000.

Currently, the national debt is roughly $16.3 trillion, which works out to about $51,000 per man, woman and child. This year’s federal budget deficit adds $3,500 or so of additional debt per citizen.

* * *

The November jobs report listed 146,000 new jobs and a U-3 Unemployment Rate of 7.7 percent, two-tenths lower than the October figure. Unfortunately, this news is not as good as it appears. To have a truly meaningful effect on unemployment, more than 300,000 new jobs must be created each month. The Labor Department revised downward new job numbers in October from 171,000 to 138,000, and from September in 148,000 to 132,000.

The drop in the unemployment rate resulted not from lots of people going back to work, but because 350,000 people dropped out of the workforce.

The Labor Force Participation Rate dropped from 63.8 percent to 63.6 percent. The 146,000 new jobs have a much greater effect on a smaller labor force than on a larger labor force. If the labor force remained the same as it was in January 2009, U-3 unemployment would be 10.7 percent. The more accurate U-6 Unemployment Rate, which includes not only those working and those looking for work, but also those who have become discouraged and given up looking for jobs, is 14.6 percent for November.

* * *

In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments. By November, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June. In the same six-month period the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.

* * *

Back in July of 2008 candidate Barack Obama said this about the $4 trillion in debt that we incurred under the Bush administration: “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

According to the U.S. Treasury, on July 2, 2001, the national debt was approximately $5.7 trillion. On inauguration day 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Last Thursday, it stood at $16.3 trillion. That means the debt has increased $5.7 trillion during Mr. Obama’s first four years, and that is more than all presidents through Bill Clinton, and the first five months of George W. Bush’s tenure. In the name of U.S. taxpayers Mr. Obama has borrowed more than $49,500 per man, woman and child.

* * *

Inflation in October was 2.2 percent, up from September at 2.0 percent, August at 1.7 percent and July at 1.4 percent. The highest level of inflation since 2000 was 5.6 percent in July of 2008.

* * *

Are we drowning in regulations? Ayn Rand’s classic Atlas Shrugged in paperback has 1,088 pages. The 2011 Federal Register totals 82,419 pages, nearly 76 times more than Ms. Rand’s book. A popular estimate of the cost of regulations on the economy is $1.75 trillion annually, which is nearly 76 percent of total amount of tax revenue collected last year.

* * *

In 1913 the U.S. tax code was 400 pages. Today, it’s more than 73,000 pages, which means we added on average 730 new pages each year. It is estimated that U.S. taxpayers pay $431.1 billion annually, or 19 percent of total tax revenue collected last year, just to comply with and administer the U.S. tax system.

Their Usefulness Is Over

Once the usefulness of a group is over to the liberal elites they are thrown by the waste side.  Under Stalin the peasants and workers of the Soviet Union were starved into submission to the State.  Here in the United States the Liberal elites are starting the same policy by cutting Food Stamps.

Ohio families receiving food stamps could get an unwelcome surprise come January: $50 less every month in assistance.

For the 869,000 households enrolled in the program for the poorest Ohioans, that could amount to about $520 million annually out of the grocery budgets.

Because of the way the federal government calculates utility expenses for people receiving the benefit, a mild winter nationwide last year, and a lower price for natural gas, many families could experience a significant cut in aid, those familiar with the program say.

Recipients should get a letter from the state Department of Job and Family Services this month explaining the change, said Ben Johnson, a spokesman for the agency.

Meanwhile, food banks and others that distribute food assistance are bracing for increased demand.

“They are going to increase hunger among our most vulnerable — working families, seniors, children, and persons with disabilities,” said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks.

Ms. Hamler-Fugitt said her organization is particularly concerned that some seniors or persons with disabilities who have a low benefit amount could lose all their monthly assistance.

We’re really worried about [the change],” she said.

What’s called the “standard utility allowance” — the amount deducted from a person’s income when the state determines his or her eligibility for the food stamp program — will decrease by $166 for 2013, translating to about $50 less per household in food assistance. State Job and Family Services officials tried to appeal the change to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food stamp program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but the USDA denied the request.

USDA officials did not respond to requests from The Blade for comment.

State and county Job and Family Services officials say there is little they can do other than letting their clients and community partners who provide food assistance know about the changes.

“This is a federal issue,” said Joel Potts, executive director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Directors’ Association. “It is what it is. They have a formula. ... We just think it is going to be really hard on families and individuals. They will see significantly less money starting in January.”

The average food-stamp recipient receives $138 per person, per month, according to state statistics. As of August, more than 1.7 million individual Ohioans, or about 869,000 families, received the assistance. A total of $3 billion in benefits was issued in 2011 in Ohio; the program is federally funded.

In Lucas County, about 91,000 people — 46,000 households — receive the benefit. Fifty fewer dollars per household per month would amount to about $27 million annually.

“It’s a concern,” said Deb Ortiz-Flores, director of Lucas County’s Job and Family Services agency. “Fifty dollars can buy quite a bit of food.”

Jack Frech, director of the Athens County Department of Job and Family Services in southeastern Ohio, said the loss of funds will cause a true hardship.

“Fifty dollars would be devastating” to families, he said. “These are folks that have already fallen off the fiscal cliff.” Mr. Frech added that many of his agency’s clients are not affected by lower natural gas prices.

“The majority of folks [here] don’t heat with natural gas in the first place,” he said. “They heat with fuel oil and propane.”

The Rev. Steve Anthony, executive director of Toledo Area Ministries, said, “It will put a strain on all organizations that provide emergency food. We’re going to have to find alternatives. We can’t pull food or money out of thin air.”

TAM runs the Feed Your Neighbor program, which has 13 food pantries in Toledo and surrounding suburbs.

Source

The price of food is rising yet the State of Ohio is cutting food stamps.  I expect many states will be doing this soon to cut expenses and reduce their debts.  I wonder what other "Welfare" programs are going to be cut.  And the funny thing is that the poor fools don't even know that they voted for this to happen.

Obama Administration Denies Mother Answers About Her Son’s Murder

Stolen From Hat Tip to Observations

Why is my son dead?

That is all Pat Smith wants to know. Her son, computer specialist Sean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed on September 11th in the terror attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. A month after she buried her son, a month after everyone all the way up to the president of the United States promised her answers, she says she is still awaiting those answers.

“That's a funny subject,” Mrs. Smith said. “I begged them to tell me what was -- what happened. I said I want to know all the details, all of the details no matter what it is, and I'll make up my own mind on it. And every one of them, all the big shots over there told me that -- they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened. As soon as they figure it out.”

“No one, not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people,” she said. “Hillary promised me. Joe Biden -- Joe Biden -- they all told me that -- they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened.”

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a made-in-Washington disaster, a result of naive foreign policy consisting of apology and appeasement – projecting weakness surpassing even that of Jimmy Carter.

Every other world leader defends and promotes his country, but Barack Obama agrees with our critics and apologizes for America. His pusillanimous posture sent a message to our enemies, and they have acted on our well-advertised weakness.

And now in the face of that inglorious policy failure in Libya, Mr. Obama has retreated to doing what he does best: passing the blame. “We didn’t do that; it was that video.”

Suggesting that an anti-Muslim video that hardly anyone on Earth had seen was responsible for that attack was ridiculous on its face, and was almost immediately discredited. Still, the administration continued to blame the video for about two weeks, before finally admitting what everybody else already knew: it was a planned terrorist attack. It then shifted blame to intelligence agencies for providing the administration bad information.

But, as time passed, the tawdry details emerged, showing that the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stubbornly refused to provide additional security forces for Libya as repeatedly requested.

The leader of the military security team in Tripoli, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, told various TV outlets that he and other embassy officials unsuccessfully attempted to extend his team’s tour of duty in Libya because of mounting security concerns. “The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,” Colonel Wood said. “Diplomatic security remained weak.”

A former security officer, Eric Nordstrom, said he was told in a phone call in July that the deployment of a 16-member American military site security team based in Tripoli could not be prolonged, according to a report by The New York Times. Although the Africa Command that oversaw the unit was willing to extend the deployment, the State Department said “no.”

Mr. Nordstrom told a Congressional committee recently he tried to improve security by asking for 12 agents, only to be told by a State Department official that he was asking for the “sun, moon and the stars.” “It was abundantly clear: we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Mr. Nordstrom said. “And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?” We now know the answer.

Although he is still a State Department employee, Mr. Nordstrom expressed strong frustration in trying to work with the Department. “It’s not the hardships,” he said. “It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.” And he made this revealing comment: “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

There is no way the administration can fix this colossal, deadly screw-up, but it could at least keep its word by honoring Mrs. Smith’s loss and help give her peace in her hour of grief.

Mr. Obama should drop the cover-up and come clean with the American people. That means admitting the dramatic failure of his foreign policy, and admitting to playing petty politics to distract the public. However, accepting responsibility isn’t in the Obama Playbook, especially this close to the election.