POLITICAL: Is a very sad “laugh test” indeed

Thursday, October 29, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/ron-paul/benghazi-baloney/

House Benghazi Hearings: Too Much Too Late
By Ron Paul
The Ron Paul Institute
October 27, 2015

*** begin quote ***

Why no House Committee hearing before President Obama launched his war on Libya? Why no vote on whether to authorize the use of force? Why no hearing after the President violated the Constitution by sending the military into Libya with UN authorization rather than Congressional authorization? There are Constitutional tools available to Congress when a president takes the country to war without a declaration or authorization. At the time, President Obama claimed he did not need authorization from Congress because the US was not engaged in “hostilities.” It didn’t pass the laugh test, but Congress did next to nothing about it.

*** and ***

The problem is the ideology of interventionism, not the management of a particular intervention. Interventionism has a terrible track record, from 1953 in Iran, to Vietnam, to 2003 in Iraq, to 2011 in Libya and Syria. A real Congressional hearing should focus on the crimes and mistakes of the interventionists!

*** end quote ***

In listening to the news the other night, we heard about the rescue of 70 Kurds by a mixed force of Kurdish and US troops. A certain young lady turned to me a said (I quote) “Where are there US troops fighting? President Obama ended all the wars.”

My response: “I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that propaganda. We have troops everywhere.”

Argh!

I have no idea how to get the runaway Gooferment back in control of “We, The Sheeple”.

Perhaps a good start would be for Congress to get serious about its Constitutional responsibilities with respect to “war”.

And, budgets. And, debt. And, and, and.

A lawless President should be so busy vetoing stuff he doesn’t like that he has no time for fund raisers or golf.

I can’t believe how far we have “fallen” and so fast.

Dona Nobis Pacem

# – # – # – # – #  2015-Oct-27 @ 10:42  


LIBERTY: End of Political Correctness

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/brandon-smith/stamp-cultural-marxism/

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation
By Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com
October 26, 2015

*** begin quote ***

Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights: Collectivism’s ultimate propaganda message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism. Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.

Maintain your rights; they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude, his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing. “We live in a society”, they say, “and everything we do affects everyone else…”. Don’t take such accusations seriously; these people do not understand how freedom works.

*** end quote ***

Sorry I am not politically correct.

(I know because a beautiful young woman bought me a t-shirt that says “#nofilter”. And, my friends just shake their head at my crazy rantings, like ZAP, gold coins, and the various forms of tin foil hat conspiracy theory questions I ask.)

Our rights come from God or the Universe or our essential humanity.

They are not open to debate. And, “molon labe”, try to take them from me.

“…if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” -Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 1, The Gathering Storm (London: Cassell, 1948, 272, on the British guarantee to Poland in Spring 1939.

Negative rights are basically peaceful. 

Translated in to the language of children, since that seems to be the comprehension level of “We, The Sheeple” — don’t hurt people or take their stuff.

Dona Nobis Pacem

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Gooferment Motors bailout has cost over 32B$ dollars so far

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/10/24/not-news-uaw-considering-plan-milk-unemployment-system-if-it-calls-gm

Not News: UAW Considering Plan to Milk the Unemployment System If It Calls a GM Strike
By Tom Blumer | October 24, 2015 | 10:30 PM EDT

*** begin quote ***

The news coming out of Detroit about near-deadline negotiations between the United Auto Workers union and General Motors has been pretty quiet. As the Sunday 11:59 p.m. deadline approaches, the Associated Press only has a four-paragraph blurb indicating that the union wants to get a richer package than it just garnered in negotiations with Fiat Chrysler. A Reuters report goes into detail about GM’s cost structure still being higher than that seen at Toyota’s and Nissan’s U.S. plants by about 15 percent and 31 percent, respectively. The New York Times is only carrying reports from the wires.

One note of substance about the UAW’s strategy covered at Bloomberg News — surely known to others following the industry who are filing bland reports — is that it plans to milk the unemployment insurance system in the event of a protracted strike.

To be clear, such a strike would appear to be very unlikely, if for no other reason than the fact that Americans remember that the Obama administration bailed out GM at a considerable cost several years ago. The final fully-loaded cost involved was $26.5 billion — not the $11.2 billion touted by the press last year. It’s safe to say that quite a few people would not take kindly to the idea of the primary beneficiaries of that unprecedented largesse walking out on their jobs when so many others are still unemployed and under-employed over six years after the most recent recession’s official end.

(Additionally, the linked $26.5 billion analysis appears not to have picked up the effect of the government permitting GM to carry forward $16 billion in tax losses incurred by the “old GM” into the “new GM” — even though “a business that undergoes a change in ownership usually has to forfeit the old company’s net operating losses,” which certainly happened during the bailout. At the statutory federal income tax rate of 35 percent, that decision alone cost the U.S. treasury $5.6 billion.)

*** end quote ***

Argh!

And the UAW isn’t happy?

Talk about Crony Capitalism.

Now they want to stick the taxpayer — via unemployment insurance — with the cost of their “strike”.

Guess no one remembers the current 18T+ national debt and the guesstimated 200T+ in unfunded liabilities that our posterity will have to deal with!

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: HRC lied; four men died

Monday, October 26, 2015

https://youtu.be/gN6sNp0b1WE

Failed Leadership

# – # – # – # – # 

In a ninety second video, a talking head asks “Does Hillary believe that the American People are that stupid?”

Yes, she does.

And, sadly, yes, they are!

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: Questions for Hillary

Sunday, October 25, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/andrew-p-napolitano/questions-for-hitlery/

Questions for Hillary Clinton
By Andrew P. Napolitano
October 22, 2015

*** begin quote ***

Mrs. Clinton, isn’t it true that you put the travel plans of Ambassador Stevens onto nongovernmental Internet venues? Isn’t it true that at the time you did that, he asked you for more security in Libya and you did not provide it? Mrs. Clinton, isn’t it true that to fight your secret war against the government of Gadhafi, you sent American arms into the hands of his opponents? And you did this without a congressional declaration of war, right?

*** end quote ***

I’d like to hear the answer to that one myself.

Argh!

If she was asked the Judge’s questions, then I think the game would be over and the plea dealing could begin.

The Gooferment has failed in this case to keep the faith and confidence of even the most clueless member of “We, The Sheeple”!

# – # – # – # – # 


POLITICAL: HRC seems to be immune

Saturday, October 24, 2015

http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2015/10/20/five-dirty-little-secrets-about-hillary-that-the-media-isnt-talking-about-n2068087/page/full

Five Dirty Little Secrets About Hillary That the Media Isn’t Talking About
Ed Klein | Oct 20, 2015

*** begin quote ***

  • The Smoldering Gun
  • Bill Clinton’s Advice on How to Deal With Marco Rubio
  • How Chelsea’s Husband, Marc Mezvinsky, Takes Advantage of His Clinton Connection
  • Hillary’s Health Issues
  • Hillary Ignores Obama’s Orders
  • Valerie Jarrett’s Six-Pronged Investigation of Hillary

*** end quote ***

I don’t understand why she hasn’t been held to account for the email breech.

Impeach, indict, or just be held by “We, The Steeple” as unsuitable in a position of trust.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


RANT: Obviously, it mattered since she did it!

Friday, October 23, 2015

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2015/10/23/pbs-anchor-why-does-it-matter-hillary-lied-about-youtube-video

PBS Anchor: ‘Why Does It Matter’ Hillary Lied About a YouTube Video on Benghazi?
By Tim Graham | October 23, 2015 | 9:49 AM EDT

PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff came to bury the Benghazi committee on Thursday night’s program. “What difference does it make” seemed to be her Hillary-echoing mantra. Or in her case, it was “Why does it matter?” Lies? Coverups? Who cares about that?

# – # – # – # – # 

PBS is a propaganda outlet that the Federal Gooferment forces me to pay for. Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 

If it didn’t matter, then why did she do it?

Obviously, it mattered since it was 8 weeks before the election.

They lied, cheated, and stole.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


GOVEROTRAGEOUS: End eminent domain!

Friday, October 23, 2015

2015-Oct-23

http://www.wgrz.com/story/life/2015/10/19/unstoppable-100-year-old-works-6-days-week/74251790/

Government takes family’s land near Area 51
By Glen Meek , Kyle Zuelke | kzuelke@8newsnow.com
Published 10/16 2015 06:17PMUpdated 10/19 2015 09:58AM

*** begin quote ***

Private land overlooking the secret base at Area 51 has officially been taken from the owners and transferred to the United States Air Force.

Last month, the U.S. Air Force condemned the Groom Mine property when the family who owns it rejected a government buyout they felt was unjust.

The I-Team broke the story of the family’s fight with the government.

The Sheahan family, which until now owned the mine, knew they faced an uphill fight. They also expected the government would probably take the land through eminent domain even though the Sheahan’s owned it since Abe Lincoln was in the White House.

*** end quote ***

From Kelo, to this, in countless cases, the right of the people to be secure in their property is run rough shod over by the Gang called Gooferment!

Why do we or “We, The Steeple”tolerate this?

# – # – # – # – #  

Now — literally with the stroke of a pen — a federal judge has turned the land over to the U.S. Air Force. The only part of the fight left for the Sheahan family now is compensation and what will happen to the equipment, buildings, even human remains, still at the site.


GOVEROTRAGEOUS: Keep the current debt ceiling to squash the Warfare/Welfare State

Thursday, October 22, 2015

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/18/debt-ceiling-debate-don-t-mention-warfarewelfare-state/

Debt Ceiling Debate: Don’t Mention Warfare/Welfare State!
written by ron paul
sunday october 18, 2015

*** begin quote ***

The US Treasury’s recent announcement that the government will reach the debt ceiling on November 3 means Congress will soon be debating raising the government’s borrowing limit again. Any delay in, or opposition to, raising the debt ceiling will inevitably be met with hand-wringing over Congress’ alleged irresponsibility. But the real irresponsible act would be for Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

Cutting up its credit card is the only way to make Congress reduce spending. Anyone who doubts this should listen to the bipartisan whining over how sequestration has so drastically reduced spending that there is literally nothing left to cut. But, according to the Heritage Foundation, sequestration has only reduced spending from $3.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion. Only in DC would a less than one percent spending reduction be considered a draconian cut.

*** end quote ***

Let’s make Dave Ramsey the Treasury Secretary.

What would Dave’s advice about taking on more debt?

Will we as the USA ever get back to time when we are debt free?

How about we cut everything 2%?

Everyone takes a haircut.

And eliminate Crony Capitalism by cutting all “welfare” 5% per year for 20 years!

Just remember where it stands — the current 18T+ national debt and the guesstimated 200T+ in unfunded liabilities that our posterity will have to deal with!

Argh!

# – # – # – # – # 


GOVEROTRAGEOUS: Throwing Away Money

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/fred-reed/us-bureaucrats-are-3rd-world/

The Embassy in Bogotá: Into the Third World
By Fred Reed
October 19, 2015

*** begin quote ***

By law, children of the one-hundred-percent-disabled combat vets can receive help, about $8500 a year, with the university expenses of their children. One such vet here, I’ll call him Dad, was accepted for such aid for his kid, whom I will call Kid.

Dad, reasonably enough, asked the VA to deposit the money directly into Kid’s account in Mexico. Direct deposit is instantaneous, secure, and verifiable. But T/VA (Treasury or VA, he isn’t sure which) won’t deposit money electronically to accounts in Mexico.

Well, said Dad, deposit it directly to my account in the US. No, said T/VA, we can deposit money only to an account in Kid’s name.

The government had thus ruled out the only secure means of transferring the taxpayer’s money.

Well, said Dad, send a check to my mail-forwarding service in Laredo. It is not perfectly secure, but far more so than the Mexican mails. No, said T/VA, they could not send the money of Kid in Mexico to a post-office box in Texas.

This ruled out even the reasonably secure methods. T/VA was going to send a large check through the mails of a notoriously corrupt country. This insistence embodied the normal governmental qualities of stupidity, irresponsibility, lack of realism, and unconcern with results. They get paid anyway, nobody knows who they are, and they can’t be fired.

Now, if you are going to send a large check through extremely corrupt mails, the wise thing to do is to send it in a plain envelope, the way banks send replacement credit cards. No. Treasury sends checks in distinctive brown envelopes with a celophane winow, making the check visible. This is stupid even by federal standards, and federal standards are very high. The envelope does not actually say, “Check! Check! Steal me!” It comes close.

If you insist on sending a large check of someone else’s money in an obvious envelope through crooked mails, would it not make sense to endorse the check, “For deposit to account of payee only. Require passport”? Yes, it would. But we are talking about the government. It’s not their money. They don’t care.

The check was stolen and cashed illegally in California by agents unknown.  Exactly the same thing happened to Kid’s second check sent as a replacement, and then to a third check. That is, the feds, who are anonymous, unaccountable, don’t care, can’t be fired, and get paid anyway, threw away $25,000 of the taxpayer’s money. Might the Treasury notice this, and perhaps do something different? No. Why should they? Federal workers get paid anyway.

Why does this happen? Hint: Nobody goes through college thinking, “Gee, I can’t wait to get on with IRS or HUD or TSA and  spend the best thirty years of my life in a boring and meaningless job.” The government gets (1) people who value security over all else, (2) sociology majors with no ambition who need, well, some kind of job, (3) people who are not good enough at what they do–lawyers, accountants, programmers– to get on with real companies, and (4) affirmative-action hires.

*** end quote ***

I always say that the Gooferment is immoral, ineffective, and inefficient. And here’s a classic example.

How much of the Taxpayer’s money is wasted like this? 25, 50, 75% No one knows, but it’s a lot.

In the 80’s with the HANJ tax revolt group, I was part of a group of taxpayers who studied the flow of money between bureaucrats. We roughly figured that every transfer lost ½ to “handling” charges. So $1 to the Fed resulted in 50¢ to the State, then 25¢ to the County; then 12.5¢ to the municipality; then 6.25¢ to the school board; and finally 3.125¢ to the actual program. Argh!

And you wonder why I’m anti-Gooferment?

# – # – # – # – # 

 

By law, children of the one-hundred-percent-disabled combat vets can receive help, about $8500 a year, with the university expenses of their children. One such vet here, I’ll call him Dad, was accepted for such aid for his kid, whom I will call Kid.

Dad, reasonably enough, asked the VA to deposit the money directly into Kid’s account in Mexico. Direct deposit is instantaneous, secure, and verifiable. But T/VA (Treasury or VA, he isn’t sure which) won’t deposit money electronically to accounts in Mexico.

Well, said Dad, deposit it directly to my account in the US. No, said T/VA, we can deposit money only to an account in Kid’s name.

The government had thus ruled out the only secure means of transferring the taxpayer’s money.

Well, said Dad, send a check to my mail-forwarding service in Laredo. It is not perfectly secure, but far more so than the Mexican mails. No, said T/VA, they could not send the money of Kid in Mexico to a post-office box in Texas.

This ruled out even the reasonably secure methods. T/VA was going to send a large check through the mails of a notoriously corrupt country. This insistence embodied the normal governmental qualities of stupidity, irresponsibility, lack of realism, and unconcern with results. They get paid anyway, nobody knows who they are, and they can’t be fired.https://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=lewrockwell&o=1&p=8&l=as4&m=amazon&f=ifr&ref=ss_til&asins=0595151094&MsrketPlace=US

Now, if you are going to send a large check through extremely corrupt mails, the wise thing to do is to send it in a plain envelope, the way banks send replacement credit cards. No. Treasury sends checks in distinctive brown envelopes with a celophane winow, making the check visible. This is stupid even by federal standards, and federal standards are very high. The envelope does not actually say, “Check! Check! Steal me!” It comes close.

If you insist on sending a large check of someone else’s money in an obvious envelope through crooked mails, would it not make sense to endorse the check, “For deposit to account of payee only. Require passport”? Yes, it would. But we are talking about the government. It’s not their money. They don’t care.

The check was stolen and cashed illegally in California by agents unknown.  Exactly the same thing happened to Kid’s second check sent as arepacement, and then to a third check. That is, the feds, who are anonymous, unaccountable, don’t care, can’t be fired, and get paid anyway, threw away $25,000 of the taxpayer’s money. Might the Treasury notice this, and perhaps do something different? No. Why should they? Federal workers get paid anyway.

Why does this happen? Hint: Nobody goes through college thinking, “Gee, I can’t wait to get on with IRS or HUD or TSA and  spend the best thirty years of my life in a boring and meaningless job.” The government gets (1) people who value security over all else, (2) sociology majors with no ambition who need, well, some kind of job, (3) people who are not good enough at what they do–lawyers, accountants, programmers– to get on with real companies, and (4) affirmative-action hires.