I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought. Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation. 'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.
'Great Lakes Air Base. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Iraq.'
After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached Chicago, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time.
As I reached for my wallet, I overheard soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to Chicago.
His friend agreed.
I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq it's almost like you are doing it for him.'
Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?' 'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked.
She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. 'This is your thanks.'
After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.
Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, 'I want to shake your hand.'
Quickly unfastening my seat belt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.
Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.
When we landed in Chicago I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!
Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'
Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals.
It seemed so little...
"A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it."
Quote of the Week
It’s hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.
-Thomas Sowell
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Election Is In The Air
As election day approaches those who have not done early voting must really start to consider not only their favorite candidate, but in this election the deeper question of voting. TV adds, your political friends, parents, facebook posts all tell you who you should and should not vote for with countless "facts" to back it up and how atrocious the other candidate is.
Some go on tangents and say they are not voting and blame it on the choices, the electoral college or just being lazy. I truly believe that it is our duty as American's to vote. Not voting regardless of the low quality of choices is wrong. We hear all the time how our ancestors died for this right. Truth is, although that is true for some, many of us are not decedents to any who were here during the revolutionary war, so for them you need another reason. That reason is all over the world, there are people in so many countries wishing they had this gift we take for granted the ability to have a say-no matter how small-in your political system, the ability to go out and vote and not worry about being shot or blown up on the way there. Admittedly, many will say one candidate or the other will take away some or all of this security if they are elected, but at least for now we can go there knowing we have this right that so many dont.
That being said when asked if your vote matters it is all based on perception. Your vote should matter to you, regardless of its low significance in the election as a whole.
Everyone should focus so much more on local elections because even though voting in the presidential election should be done, it should not have your full attention. Local politicians will have far more impact on your life in the short term, especially relative to how much more important your vote is in that election. What I say in the rest of the blog is about national elections, local elections are a different beast. At times it can come down to a few votes, where your vote really could matter. With that being said voting in essence against someone in a local election, although not preferred is understandable. Admittedly I am slightly a hypocrite because the only local elections I know well are in RI and I have never been registered there nor do I live there any longer. Where I am registered I don't live and where I live I don't know much about. My slightly lame excuse is constant moving recently, when I finally settle somewhere I will correct this.
I believe voting should not be against a candidate that you don't like it should be for one that you do. As I already said, purely voting for someone means you are not throwing away your vote regardless of who you vote for (unless you are one of the thousands of people that write in Jesus, I mean I am sure he would probably do a good job, but if we all voted for him who would our president be? - him being dead an all)
So the real question, who did I vote for? I am not one of the many that say Obama and Romney are the same. They are not. They are very different. But if you told me I had to pick between them who would be better......... I have no idea what I would pick. Each side can bash the others, but the truth is, they are both crooked, one won't release his college files (I don't think Obama was born in another country, but I do think he has filled out paperwork that says he was to get extra benefits) and one wont release his tax returns, you only refuse to release something you are embarrassed about.
I refuse to vote for a candidate just because I dont want the other one in, I did it last election and I didn't feel like I did the right thing afterwards. I really and truly believe that voting against a candidate or not voting at all is a true wasted vote.
That being said I am sure you can probably guess at this point who my vote went to. His name is Gary Johnson, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do agree with his honesty and forwardness about what he thinks. He is not someone that caters to which ever crowd that he is in front of (and that is a shot at both candidates not just Romney).
My vote will have no impact on the election, just as it would not have if I voted for either Romney or Obama. It is not in essence a vote for Obama or Romney because I believe there are just as many people who vote for Johnson that would have voted for Romney as for Obama. If everyone that didn't really want either Obama or Romney in office voted for what they really wanted, maybe it would be a close race between Jill Stein (for all those true environmental liberals) Or Stuart Alexander (for all those true socialists) - even though many call Obama a socialist, the only socialist thing he has done is Obamacare, which was modeled after Romneycare, Gary Johnson (for all those moderates out there) and Rush Limbaugh[I know he is not running] (for all those conservatives out there that want someone who always sticks to the party line, not flops from one side to the other).
As I said I dont agree with everything Johnson wants, but you will never agree entirely with one candidate. I do actually like him better than Ron Paul (a sin for any true libertarian, so I guess I am out of that party too) because he takes a more moderate view. The world is not about absolutes but interpreting a million shades of grey (and no I am not referencing 20 shades of grey). Ending the Fed is not the right first step(Paul), but auditing it is(Johnson). Scaling back spending (Johnson) rather than cutting entire departments(Paul) on BOTH military and social programs is necessary to get this country out of a fiscal hole, specifically Paul would get rid of the EPA, Johnson would simply shrink it along with the other departments. Democrats and republicans tend to just shift the same pool of money from one pot to the other. Sadly it appears that none of the three care about the environment much right now with the economy on everyone's mind. So even though it is a sad truth, the environmental topic is not a differentiating factor and if that truly is your only passion, Jill Stein is the candidate for you.
Johnson recognizes that gay rights is part of equal rights and that the 2nd amendment protects the first, not the other way around. Obama saying the second amendment was about hunting was just depressing. The second amendment is about freedom and liberty. And the protection of them both. Saying it is about hunting is like saying voting is about getting a free cookie at the election hall. It’s an added bonus but really has nothing to do with the right. To reduce violence, brought on by a few, you would strip liberty of the many?
Choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing between government and corporate greed. Both greeds feed on each other, who care's which you start with.
I leave it to wiser men then me to decide if the two party system really is the right solution. Many point out that the Nazi party came to power through this multi-party system (although others would counter that they would have found a way to take control regardless), but I put my trust in John Adams, who agreed with George Washington when he said:
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Some go on tangents and say they are not voting and blame it on the choices, the electoral college or just being lazy. I truly believe that it is our duty as American's to vote. Not voting regardless of the low quality of choices is wrong. We hear all the time how our ancestors died for this right. Truth is, although that is true for some, many of us are not decedents to any who were here during the revolutionary war, so for them you need another reason. That reason is all over the world, there are people in so many countries wishing they had this gift we take for granted the ability to have a say-no matter how small-in your political system, the ability to go out and vote and not worry about being shot or blown up on the way there. Admittedly, many will say one candidate or the other will take away some or all of this security if they are elected, but at least for now we can go there knowing we have this right that so many dont.
That being said when asked if your vote matters it is all based on perception. Your vote should matter to you, regardless of its low significance in the election as a whole.
Everyone should focus so much more on local elections because even though voting in the presidential election should be done, it should not have your full attention. Local politicians will have far more impact on your life in the short term, especially relative to how much more important your vote is in that election. What I say in the rest of the blog is about national elections, local elections are a different beast. At times it can come down to a few votes, where your vote really could matter. With that being said voting in essence against someone in a local election, although not preferred is understandable. Admittedly I am slightly a hypocrite because the only local elections I know well are in RI and I have never been registered there nor do I live there any longer. Where I am registered I don't live and where I live I don't know much about. My slightly lame excuse is constant moving recently, when I finally settle somewhere I will correct this.
I believe voting should not be against a candidate that you don't like it should be for one that you do. As I already said, purely voting for someone means you are not throwing away your vote regardless of who you vote for (unless you are one of the thousands of people that write in Jesus, I mean I am sure he would probably do a good job, but if we all voted for him who would our president be? - him being dead an all)
So the real question, who did I vote for? I am not one of the many that say Obama and Romney are the same. They are not. They are very different. But if you told me I had to pick between them who would be better......... I have no idea what I would pick. Each side can bash the others, but the truth is, they are both crooked, one won't release his college files (I don't think Obama was born in another country, but I do think he has filled out paperwork that says he was to get extra benefits) and one wont release his tax returns, you only refuse to release something you are embarrassed about.
I refuse to vote for a candidate just because I dont want the other one in, I did it last election and I didn't feel like I did the right thing afterwards. I really and truly believe that voting against a candidate or not voting at all is a true wasted vote.
That being said I am sure you can probably guess at this point who my vote went to. His name is Gary Johnson, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I do agree with his honesty and forwardness about what he thinks. He is not someone that caters to which ever crowd that he is in front of (and that is a shot at both candidates not just Romney).
My vote will have no impact on the election, just as it would not have if I voted for either Romney or Obama. It is not in essence a vote for Obama or Romney because I believe there are just as many people who vote for Johnson that would have voted for Romney as for Obama. If everyone that didn't really want either Obama or Romney in office voted for what they really wanted, maybe it would be a close race between Jill Stein (for all those true environmental liberals) Or Stuart Alexander (for all those true socialists) - even though many call Obama a socialist, the only socialist thing he has done is Obamacare, which was modeled after Romneycare, Gary Johnson (for all those moderates out there) and Rush Limbaugh[I know he is not running] (for all those conservatives out there that want someone who always sticks to the party line, not flops from one side to the other).
As I said I dont agree with everything Johnson wants, but you will never agree entirely with one candidate. I do actually like him better than Ron Paul (a sin for any true libertarian, so I guess I am out of that party too) because he takes a more moderate view. The world is not about absolutes but interpreting a million shades of grey (and no I am not referencing 20 shades of grey). Ending the Fed is not the right first step(Paul), but auditing it is(Johnson). Scaling back spending (Johnson) rather than cutting entire departments(Paul) on BOTH military and social programs is necessary to get this country out of a fiscal hole, specifically Paul would get rid of the EPA, Johnson would simply shrink it along with the other departments. Democrats and republicans tend to just shift the same pool of money from one pot to the other. Sadly it appears that none of the three care about the environment much right now with the economy on everyone's mind. So even though it is a sad truth, the environmental topic is not a differentiating factor and if that truly is your only passion, Jill Stein is the candidate for you.
Johnson recognizes that gay rights is part of equal rights and that the 2nd amendment protects the first, not the other way around. Obama saying the second amendment was about hunting was just depressing. The second amendment is about freedom and liberty. And the protection of them both. Saying it is about hunting is like saying voting is about getting a free cookie at the election hall. It’s an added bonus but really has nothing to do with the right. To reduce violence, brought on by a few, you would strip liberty of the many?
Choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing between government and corporate greed. Both greeds feed on each other, who care's which you start with.
I leave it to wiser men then me to decide if the two party system really is the right solution. Many point out that the Nazi party came to power through this multi-party system (although others would counter that they would have found a way to take control regardless), but I put my trust in John Adams, who agreed with George Washington when he said:
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Only in America
1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all
Monday, September 17, 2012
World War III: the unthinkable cost of preserving the petrodollar
As noted by many of our readers, one of the key topics omitted from our article on the inevitability of economic collapse was the petrodollar system. Due to its significance, we felt that this subject deserves its own article. If you have never heard of the petrodollar, don’t be surprised. There’s a good reason for this. No major news network will dare touch this subject because if this information was ever to become public knowledge, politicians would find it next to impossible to convince American people to support any more wars. Public approval of wars is only possible as long as people remain ignorant of the primary driving force behind our foreign policy. The reason you haven’t heard of the petrodollar system is because our government wants you to think that we start wars to spread democracy.However, if you want to distinguish truth from propaganda, if you want to know the real reasons behind the global conflicts in our recent history, you must first learn about the petrodollar system. Without this crucial piece of info, you will have a hard time understanding what really happened in Libya, what’s happening in Syria right now and what’s going to happen in Iran next.
World War III: the unthinkable cost of preserving the petrodollar
http://www.crisishq.com/why-prepare/world-war-3-preserving-petrodollar/
Why did NATO and the U.S. aid Libyan “rebels” in killing Gaddafi? Why was our government willing to support and arm the same terrorists that would later turn on our embassy and murder US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens? Why was killing Gaddafi so absolutely imperative?
Why are we now doing the same thing in Syria? Why are U.S. operatives currently on the ground in Syria aiding Al Qaeda to topple Assad? Why are we willing to work along side known terrorists just to destabilize Syria and overthrow the regime there?
Why are we willing to risk World War 3 by attacking Iran, a key ally to Russia and China? Pakistan and North Korea already possess a nuclear stockpile, but Iran is years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has no military capability to target the U.S. and it has not attacked another country since 1798. Yet the media is trying to convince us that we are weeks away from Ahmedinajad unleashing his non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Sound a little familiar? Have we heard this before, maybe?
So what is the petrodollar system and why is it so important? Why is the United States willing to trigger a new world war just to maintain the hegemony of the petrodollar? To get a proper perspective we need to start with a quick historical background:
Bretton Woods Conference
Bretton_Woods
In July of 1944, as World War II was still raging, 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to setup institutions and procedures to regulate the international monetary system and to establish the rules for commercial and financial relations among the world’s major industrial states.
The Bretton Woods Agreement established the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage, was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 per ounce. The fixed dollar to gold convertibility rate established a stable platform for global economic growth.
As the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, the United States promised to print dollars in direct proportion to its gold reserves. However, this promise was based on “the honor system” since the Federal Reserve refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.
The U.S. defaults on its obligation to convert dollars to gold
In the years leading up to 1970, expenditures on the Vietnam war made it clear to many countries that the U.S. was printing far more money than it had gold. In response to this and the negative U.S. trade balance, nations began demanding fulfillment of America’s “promise to pay” – that is, the redemption of their dollars for gold. This of course set off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar. The situation climaxed in 1971 when France attempted to withdraw its gold and Nixon refused.
On August 15, President Nixon made a televised announcement
referred to as the Nixon shock, stating the following:
“I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to
take the action necessary to defend the dollar
against the speculators. I have directed Secretary
Connolly to suspend temporarily the convertibility
of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets,
except in amounts and conditions determined to be
in the interest of monetary stability and in the
best interest of United States.”
This was obviously not a temporary suspension as Nixon claimed, but rather a permanent default. For the nations of the world who entrusted the United States with their gold, this action was outright theft. Overnight, dollars transformed into fiat currency and the Federal Reserve was now free to print away. By abandoning the gold standard, the U.S. government removed all restrictions from the Federal Reserve. However, the ability to print money out of thin air comes with a pitfall. This is because each new printed dollar devalues the existing money supply already in circulation. That is unless there is a growing demand for dollars to counterbalance the newly issued currency. So, under the direction of the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a brilliant political and economic idea was soon devised referred to as the petrodollar system.
The birth of the petrodollar leads to global domination
In 1973, President Nixon promised King Faisal of Saudi Arabia that the US would protect Saudi Arabian oilfields from any and all invaders. In return, Saudi Arabia and by extension OPEC, agreed to sell their oil in US dollars only. Essentially, this meant that all countries purchasing oil from OPEC had to do so in US dollars, or ‘petrodollars’. This forced the world’s oil money to flow through the US Federal Reserve, creating ever-growing international demand for U.S. dollars. As if that weren’t sweet enough, as part of the deal, OPEC countries were required to invest their profits in US treasuries, bonds and bills. This strengthened the US dollar, resulting in a steady US economic growth.
While other countries exchanged their currency for the dollar (forfeiting value in the process), the U.S. simply printed more money to match their needs and purchase their oil – essentially for free. Of course rather than exchange currencies, many countries focused on exporting goods to the U.S. to maintain their constant supply of the Federal Reserve paper. Paper went out, while everything America needed came in and in the process the United States got very, very rich. It was the largest financial con in recorded history.
As the coffers got fatter and fatter, the U.S. military machine continued to expand at an accelerated rate. The arms race of the Cold War was a game of poker. Military expenditures were the chips and the U.S. had an endless supply of chips. With the Petrodollar under its belt, the U.S. was able to raise the stakes higher and higher, outspending every other county on the planet. Until, eventually, U.S. military expenditure surpassed that of all other nations in the world combined. The Soviet Union never had a chance.
The collapse of the Communist block in 1991 removed the last counterbalance to America’s military might. The United States was now an undisputed super power with no rival. Many hoped that this would mark the beginning of a new era of peace and stability. Unfortunately, there were those in high places who had other ideas.
Petrodollar system must be maintained at any cost
That same year, the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War. And after crushing the Iraqi military and destroying their infrastructure, including water purification plants and hospitals, crippling sanctions were imposed on Iraq, which prevented its infrastructure from being rebuilt. These sanctions, which were initiated by Bush Sr. and sustained throughout the entire Clinton administration, lasted for over a decade and were estimated to have killed over 500,000 children. The Clinton administration was fully aware of these figures.
Excerpt from a May 5, 1996 interview:
Lesley Stahl from 60 Minutes show, asks Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright about the U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
“We have heard that a half million children have died.
I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima.
And, you know, is the price worth it?“
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replies:
“I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price–we think the price is worth it.”
What exactly was it that was worth killing 500,000 kids for? Let’s see if you can spot a pattern here.
Iraq… In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil exclusively in euros. This was a direct attack on the petrodollar and it wasn’t going to be tolerated. In response, the U.S. government with the assistance of the mainstream media began to build up a massive propaganda campaign, claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them.
In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq. Once the U.S. had control of the country, oil sales were immediately switched back to dollars. This is particularly notable due to the fact that switching back to the dollar meant a 15-20% loss in revenue due to the euro’s higher value. It doesn’t make any sense at all unless you take the Petrodollar into account.
Excerpt from a March 2, 2007 DemocracyNow interview:
So I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” and he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that”, he reached over on his desk, picked a piece of paper and he said:
“I just got this down from upstairs today (meaning secretary of defense office) today. This is a memo that describes how we’re going take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing of Iran.”
– Wesley Clark, Retired 4-Star General and Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000
Libya… Muammar Gaddafi harbored the Lockerbie Bombers and allowed various terrorist organizations establish training camps in Libya. He tried to buy a nuke from China in 1972. In 1977, he approached Pakistan, then India. He sought nerve gas from Thailand. Then he did something totally insane. Gaddafi decided to move away from the petrodollar in favor of a gold-based currency. Seeking nukes and harboring terrorists is one thing, but threatening the petrodollar is quite another. Within a year, ‘internal’ elements rose up in rebellion against Gaddafi. After taking control of the region, U.S. and NATO armed rebels executed Gaddafi in cold blood and immediately setup the Libyan Central Bank.
Iran… In 2005, Iran sought to create an Iranian Oil Exchange, thus bypassing the US controlled petrodollar. Fear that western powers would freeze accounts in European and London banks put an end to that plan. More recently however, Iran was able to secure agreements to begin trading its oil in exchange for gold. In response, the U.S. government, with mainstream media assistance has been attempting to build international support for military strikes on the pretext of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In his recent State of the Union address, Obama went as far as to say that when it comes to Iran and the insistence they dismantle their nuclear program, “no options are off the table”. By stating ‘no options’ this would include nuclear deployment as a deterrent. In the meantime, the U.S. established sanctions that, U.S. officials openly admit, are aimed at causing a collapse of the Iranian economy.
Syria… Syria is Iran’s closest ally and they’re bound by mutual defense agreements. Syria is currently being destabilized from within by the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), in its intensifying effort to topple Assad. It is a well known fact that FSA consists of multiple terrorist factions from Afghanistan to Chechnya, most notably Al Qaeda. Yet this is not stopping United States or NATO from providing covert assistance to FSA. Despite warning from Russia and China to the United States, the White House has made statements within the past month indicating that the U.S. is considering military intervention.
However, it should be clear, that military intervention in Syria and Iran isn’t being considered. It’s a forgone conclusion, just as it was in Iraq and Libya.
World War 3: a calculated risk to preserve the petrodollar
The U.S. is actively working to create the context which gives them diplomatic cover to do what they already have planned. The motive for these invasions and covert actions becomes clear when we look at them in full context and connect the dots.
The petrodollar paradigm is saving the dollar from crashing by accomplishing two things. First, it creates a mandatory international demand for the Federal Reserve paper, preventing dollar inflation from going into hyperinflation. Second, the oil profits from OPEC pay for a portion of our ever expanding national debt, helping perpetuate a giant Ponzi scheme in the U.S. treasury market. Those who control the United States understand that even if only a few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency it will set off a chain reaction and the dollar will collapse. They understand that there’s absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the dollar at this point, and so does the rest of the world.
World War 3
But rather than accepting the fact that the dollar is nearing the end of its lifespan, the powers that be have made a calculated gambit. They have decided to use the brute force of the U.S. military to crush each and every resistant state in the Middle East and Africa.
That, in and of itself, would be bad enough. But what you need to understand is that this is not going to end with Iran. China and Russia have stated publicly and in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran or Syria. Iran is one of their key allies, one of the last in independent oil producers in the region. And they understand that if Iran falls, then they will have no way to escape the dollar without going to war. And yet, the United States is pushing forward despite the warnings.
What we’re witnessing here is a trajectory that leads straight to the unthinkable.
It’s a trajectory that was mapped out years ago, in full awareness of the human consequences.
Who Is Pulling The Strings?
But who was it that put us on this course? What kind of psychopath is willing to intentionally set off a global conflict that would lead to millions of deaths just to protect the value of a paper currency?
It obviously isn’t the president. The decision to invade Libya, Syria and Iran was made long before Obama had risen to the national spotlight. And yet he’s carrying out his duty just like the puppets that preceded him. So who is it that pulls the strings?
Often the best answer to questions like these are found by asking another question. Cui bono? Who benefits?
Obviously, those who have the power to print the dollar out of thin air have the most to lose if the dollar was to fall. Since 1913, that power has been held by the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE entity, owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world. And the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings. To them, this is just a game. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chess board. And like a spoiled four year old who tips the board on to the floor when he starts to lose, the powers that be are willing to start World War III to keep control of the global financial system.
Remember this when these wars extend and accelerate. Remember this when your son or your daughter comes back home in a flag draped coffin. Remember this when they point the finger at the new boogeyman.
So, what can we do about all this?
Today’s Geo-political climate coupled with the desperation of the banking cartel to save the petrodollar, makes World War III a legitimate concern more than ever. If we’re lucky enough, maybe we will avoid a global military showdown between Russia, China and the West. But, regardless if WW3 is triggered or not, we can not avoid an economic collapse. This is because, no matter how many Mideast regimes we topple, we simply can not stop China and Russia from dropping the dollar in the near future. Both of these countries have already signed significant agreements purposed to move them away from the dollar. Despite the best efforts of the banking cartel to preserve the petrodollar, this paradigm is starting to crumble.
So what can we do about all this? First, let’s admit the obvious. The power to prevent any of this is not in our hands. But, at the same time, we don’t have to just sit idly while the dollar is circling the drain. There are specific things we can and should do.
1. We need to be more discerning and we need to learn the real truth as ugly as it is.
Critical thinking and common sense are in decline these days.
Rather than just swallow what we’re fed by the mainstream media, we need to question it.
Most people are just unaware that 90% of all American media is controlled by six global conglomerates that also hold assets in the military complex, oil industry and are interconnected with major banking interests.
The truth is, we are not in the middle of an economic recovery, we are actually nearing a total economic collapse that is now inevitable.
Our politicians are bought and they are not going to get us out of this mess, regardless of who wins the next election.
Read both of the articles linked just above and make sure to watch the videos. Remember, be discerning, so crosscheck the info on in these articles. These posts will help you understand just how deep of a hole we’re in.
2. Once you know the truth, spread it like wildfire using social media.
Individually we are ineffective, but together we have a chance. The powers that be count on the sheeple to be asleep. They also count on our willful ignorance, because they know that rather than accept the unpleasant reality, people readily deny the obvious.
Still, the internet gives us a distinct advantage over the system. Social media makes it possible for information to spread among millions of people in matter of days. We need to make articles and videos like this go viral by Tweeting, posting on Facebook, emailing everybody we know, posting on forums, etc. You can do your part right now by clicking on the floating “Share” button on the right and using some of the social media icons on that menu.
3. Start making necessary preparations for the coming crisis
There’s a ton of online resources on this subject. Sometime the information is helpful and practical and other times it’s outdated or incomplete. Also, beware of the sites out there that try to scare the crap out of you just to sell you their eBooks on emergency preparedness. Still, if you take your time, you can find lots of good info online.
That said, we are currently working on a free “how to” guide with an easy to follow step by step action plan. It will outline practical but critical actions you should take right now to get ready for the ensuing chaos, along with financial advice to safeguard whatever savings you might have. FYI, CrisisHQ.com does not sell gold or bunkers or anything else for that matter. Our single mission is to help you be prepared instead of scared.
http://chrisinmaryville.net/world-war-iii-the-unthinkable-cost-of-preserving-the-petrodollar.html
Friday, July 6, 2012
North Carolina in the News
You don't have to be a resident of North Carolina to realize it sure has been in the news a lot lately and not for good reasons.
Started with the sad vote for amendment 1 on May 8th. Not only was this an attack on the gay community but also had other potential repercussions on non-married heterosexual couples as far as limiting doctors visits and employee benefits. Although the law does specifically refer to "personal relationships" which does include most heterosexual couples living together. Homosexual couples have every right to have the same legal rights as heterosexual ones. As I have said before I think marriage is more of religious based term and should be determined by those institutions with the government simply providing the legal rights of partnerships.
North Carolina next sad move was on sea level rise. For the time being with global temperatures increasing causing both sea ice to melt and ocean water expansion to just base sea level rise on past increases is illogical. Things change we cannot say just because something has happened in the past it will continue to happen just that way.
I don't think anyone said it better than Colbert in his "The Word - Sink or Swim": http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414796/june-04-2012/the-word---sink-or-swim
The most recent now being legalizing fracking due to a voting mistake. Fracking is such a difficult issue to deal with because of how little known on its more longer term affects. The even larger issue in NC being that many of the underground water reserves are connected so that if one gets contaminated it could affect many others. Although many environmentalists would utterly prioritize avoiding this contamination over any economic benefits I think both must be considered. Sadly this as many environmental issues can not be solved completely by property rights since free flowing air or water is hard to define as being owned by one person or another. As fracking technologies increase, so do those attempting to help with the contamination issue. A great example of this is a group of students at Duke trying to do a start up company: http://safetna.com/
Started with the sad vote for amendment 1 on May 8th. Not only was this an attack on the gay community but also had other potential repercussions on non-married heterosexual couples as far as limiting doctors visits and employee benefits. Although the law does specifically refer to "personal relationships" which does include most heterosexual couples living together. Homosexual couples have every right to have the same legal rights as heterosexual ones. As I have said before I think marriage is more of religious based term and should be determined by those institutions with the government simply providing the legal rights of partnerships.
North Carolina next sad move was on sea level rise. For the time being with global temperatures increasing causing both sea ice to melt and ocean water expansion to just base sea level rise on past increases is illogical. Things change we cannot say just because something has happened in the past it will continue to happen just that way.
I don't think anyone said it better than Colbert in his "The Word - Sink or Swim": http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414796/june-04-2012/the-word---sink-or-swim
The most recent now being legalizing fracking due to a voting mistake. Fracking is such a difficult issue to deal with because of how little known on its more longer term affects. The even larger issue in NC being that many of the underground water reserves are connected so that if one gets contaminated it could affect many others. Although many environmentalists would utterly prioritize avoiding this contamination over any economic benefits I think both must be considered. Sadly this as many environmental issues can not be solved completely by property rights since free flowing air or water is hard to define as being owned by one person or another. As fracking technologies increase, so do those attempting to help with the contamination issue. A great example of this is a group of students at Duke trying to do a start up company: http://safetna.com/
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Happy 4th of July: A Look Back
Have a great 4th of July and always remember history:
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors,and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants,nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated,but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to
pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him,and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer,Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed,and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his
children vanished. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: freedom is never free!
It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball
Friday, May 25, 2012
Buckling up in the Nanny State
Let’s say you’re unlucky enough to live in a state that has a mandatory “buckle up for safety” law. But you prefer not to wear a seat belt – for any of several perfectly valid personal reasons, none of which are anyone else’s business or at least, not the government’s business. Not unless you also believe that whether you eat your veggies, exercise three times a week and get a good night’s sleep each night are also ticket-worthy matters of public concern.
So, you don’t wear the belt.
You go about your business, harming no one. One day, Officer Not-So-Friendly issues you a ticket for not wearing the belt. This irritates you, because you don’t accept the right of people who aren’t your spouse or your parents to lecture you about your personal lifestyle choices – much less cotton to the notion that the state has any legitimate business harassing (fining!) you over such things. You accept that the state has the right – the duty – to intervene when your actions cause harm to others. But how is not wearing a seat belt a threat to anyone other than oneself? And is that any more the state’s business than the girth of one’s waistline? Or one’s diet? One’s recreations? Of course not. This is America – not nursery school.
So, you crumple the ticket into a little ball and throw it where it belongs – in the trash.
A few months down the road, you find yourself coming up on a “safety” checkpoint. You are forced to stop your car, roll down your window and hand over ID and other paperwork to another Officer Not-So-Friendly. He informs you that your “privilege” to drive has been suspended on account of your having not paid the fine for the seatbelt ticket of several months back. But he “gives you a break” – and says he’ll only issue you a ticket, which will be dismissed later on provided you pay the original fine. You of course have no intention of paying the fine but, wishing to end the encounter and be on your way, sign the new ticket and prepare to drive off. “Buckle your seat belt,” orders Officer-Not-So-Friendly. You do not. And drive off.
So does Officer-Not-So-Friendly.
Now you are ordered out of your car and arrested for driving a motor vehicle without the requisite permission slip. And for refusing to wear your seatbelt. Your car is hauled off to the impound lot. Several hundred dollars later, you bail-bond yourself out of the Hotel Graybar and your friend (because you have lost your “privileges”) drives home your car.
Now things begin to get heavy.
Because you were convicted of driving without a valid/current permission slip, your insurance company has cancelled your policy. Since insurance is mandatory, if you want to keep your vehicle legally registered, you are forced to go begging to another one of the cartel’s members – which makes you an offer you can’t refuse: No insurance, or SR-22 insurance – and a premium jump from the $300 a year you were paying as a “good driver” with no accidents or claims filed against you to $2,000 a year as a newly minted “bad driver” – based on the record of your driving without permission because you didn’t pay the original seatbelt fine.
Well, you have a mortgage and other bills and only so much money – unlike the state, which has limitless access to millions of helpless victims’ pockets. So you decide not to purchase the “service” you are ordered by the state to purchase. You also decide that, on the principle of the thing, you will not pay that seatbelt fine.
A few weeks later, you go to get the mail and find a letter from the DMV. A random spot check has discovered that you have a currently registered vehicle that’s not covered by insurance, as per law. Your driving “privileges” are now revoked rather than merely suspended and you are ordered to pay another, even larger fine. Which you decline to pay.
At which point, you have become Tazer bait. Defend yourself against the uniformed goon and you become a felon.
All because you refused to pay a fine for an “offense” that’s of a piece with ignoring a high school hall monitor – only the assistant principle wasn’t armed and usually the worst he could do was order an afternoon or two’s detention.
This is not America. Or rather, it’s not what America was.
Is it not a tragic thing that we’ve allowed the country to become a large-scale reformatory in which almost everyone is guilty of some “offense” against the system – but hardly ever guilty of committing an actual harm? In which we’re treated like idiot children by heavily-armed busybodies empowered and prepared to do literally anything to us in order to obtain our submission? And to what end? Or rather, where does it end? Will it actually get to the point that armed men will hover over our dinner tables to make sure we’ve eaten all our veggies? Will we have “physical jerks” in front of the TV each morning a la Winston Smith in 1984? What will prevent things from going that far?
The answer, of course, is – nothing.
Nothing, that is, short of a wholesale rejection of the idea that how we live our lives is anyone’s business except our own – so long as we’re not harming anyone in the process. And a renewed appreciation for what Jefferson styled the pursuit of happiness. Our right to live our lives as we see fit, no matter what others may think of our choices, free of nannying-at-gunpoint.
I hope I live long enough to make it to the day when Americans – enough of them to turn the tide – recover their senses. And learn once more to live – and let live.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Last Exit Ramp on the Road to Unlimited Government.
George F. Will: Coercion is antithetical to concept of a contract
Amicus brief to Supreme Court's Obamacare case argues a different path against the individual mandate.
By George F. Will, Washington Post Writers Group
Memphis Commercial Appeal
Posted March 25, 2012 at midnight
WASHINGTON --
On Monday the Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments concerning possible -- actually, probable and various -- constitutional infirmities in Obamacare. The justices have received many amicus briefs, one of which merits special attention because of the elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be.
Hitherto, most attention has been given to whether Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, may coerce individuals into engaging in commerce by buying health insurance. Now the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, has focused on this fact: The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron.
The brief, the primary authors of which are IJ's Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law "from which there is no escape." And "coercing commercial transactions" -- compelling individuals to sign contracts with insurance companies -- "is antithetical to the foundational principle of mutual assent that permeated the common law of contracts at the time of the founding and continues to do so today."
In 1799, South Carolina's highest court held: "So cautiously does the law watch over all contracts, that it will not permit any to be binding but such as are made by persons perfectly free, and at full liberty to make or refuse such contracts. ... Contracts to be binding must not be made under any restraint or fear of their persons, otherwise they are void." Throughout the life of this nation it has been understood that for a contract to be valid, the parties to it must mutually assent to its terms -- without duress.
In addition to duress, contracts are voidable for reasons of fraud upon, or the mistake or incapacity of, a party to the contract. This underscores the centrality of the concept of meaningful consent in contract law. To be meaningful, consent must be informed and must not be coerced. Under Obamacare, the government will compel individuals to enter into contractual relations with insurance companies under threat of penalty.
Also, the Supreme Court in Commerce Clause cases has repeatedly recognized, and Congress has never before ignored, the difference between the regulation and the coercion of commerce. And in its 10th Amendment cases ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people") the court has specifically forbidden government to compel contracts.
In 1992, the court held unconstitutional a law compelling states to "take title to" radioactive waste. The court said this would be indistinguishable from "a congressionally compelled subsidy from state governments" to those who produced the radioactive waste. Such commandeering of states is, the court held, incompatible with federalism.
IJ argues: The 10th Amendment forbids Congress from exercising its commerce power to compel states to enter into contractual relations by effectively forcing states to "buy" radioactive waste. Hence "the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to compel a party to take title to goods or services against its will." And if it is beyond Congress' power to commandeer the states by compelling them to enter into contracts, it must likewise be beyond Congress' power to commandeer individuals by requiring them to purchase insurance. Again, the 10th Amendment declares that any powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.
Furthermore, although the Constitution permits Congress to make laws "necessary and proper" for executing its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, it cannot, IJ argues, be proper to exercise that regulatory power in ways that eviscerate "the very essence of legally binding contracts." Under Obamacare, Congress asserted the improper power to compel commercial contracts. It did so on the spurious ground that this power is necessary to solve a problem Congress created when, by forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals because of pre-existing conditions, it produced the problem of "adverse selection" -- people not buying insurance until they need medical care.
IJ correctly says that if the court were to ratify Congress' disregard for settled contract law, Congress' "power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point." Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.
Contact George F. Will at georgewill@washpost.com.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Equal Application of Obamacare

FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION!
ON "ABC-TV" DURING THE "NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE".... OBAMA WAS ASKED:
"MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."
AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...??
WE (THE AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!! THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!!
PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT EXTENDS TO EVERYONE... NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS.... WHILE THE WASHINGTON "ELITE" KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE COVERAGES.
The Republic has a CONSTITUTION???
Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .
Monday, February 27, 2012

Even if the system is currently broken it does not mean you can't make it worse. The individual mandate is unconstitutional, the federal government cannot mandate people buy something. I don't understand how both sides can disagree on such similar issues. Both the Virgina law and the healthcare law are unconstitutional, to agree with one is to agree with the other, yet one is very liberally backed and the other is conservatively backed, I just don't understand.

This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how
it also applies to the U.S.A., U.K. and Australia .
THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH
Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to
her local newspaper. This is one ticked off lady...
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was
it or was it not, started by Islamic people who
brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001
and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered
that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from
the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
Do you think I care about four U. S. Marines urinating on some dead Taliban insurgents?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were
claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a
nation they are fighting against in a brutal Insurgency.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle
East, start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief
of which, is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are
sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head, while Berg
screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called insurgents
in Afghanistan , come out and fight like men,
instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in Mosques and behind women and children.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow
themselves up in search of Nirvana, care about the
innocent children within range of their suicide Bombs.
I'll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that
their freedom of Speech on stories, is more important than
the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting
at home, to hear about them when something happens.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a
CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent
terrorist to obtain information, know this:
I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the
head when he is told not to move because he
might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care. Shoot him again.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes
it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.'
Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it.
I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to
all your E-mail Friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to
the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete
button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't
complain when more atrocities committed by radical
Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering, if
during their life on earth, they made a difference in
the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.
I have another quote that I would like to
share AND...I hope you forward All this.
One last thought for the day:
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The British Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The US Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul,
the other four, for you and your children's Freedom.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Who's On Unemployment
Who's On Unemployment
By Bob Beauprez
1/26/2012
Barack Obama spent considerable time during the State of the Union address on jobs and the economy – both of which are in a sorry state. Credit is due to Barry Levinson, the famed Academy Award winning director, screenwriter, and producer who created and first published this two months ago in the Huffington Post. Enjoy!
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To who?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work...
Those who are out of work stopped looking.
They gave up.
And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
Now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving, and you should now understand the State of the Union .
Bob Beauprez
Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Beauprez was a dairy farmer and community banker. He and his wife Claudia reside in Lafayette , Colorado . You may contact
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)

















