<![CDATA[BREAKING ALL THE RULES Forum - All Forums]]>http://forum.batr.net/2013-05-21T12:12:39ZMyBBBreakingAllTheRulesForum-AllForumshttp://feedburner.google.com2013-05-21T09:02:18Z2013-05-21T09:02:18Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2678<![CDATA[Revenue Budget Projections]]>http://www.batr.org/negotium/052213.html
The Obama administration is looking for any good news as their culture of scandals unravels. What better economic development than a reduction in deficit finances for a breath of fiscal cheer. The essential questions that persist about a stalled economy and a suffering middle class still are unanswered. In addition, the premise that raising taxes, especially on the besieged tax payer, is a productive method to close the gap on public spending, is simply more of the same flawed policy that contributes to the increase in the national poverty level.
When the Congressional Budget Office issues their Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023, the assumption that spending will not increase is about as plausible as a dramatic reduction in food stamps is probable.
"If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to &36;642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.
Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015. However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in 2023, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. By comparison, the deficit averaged 3.1 percent of GDP over the past 40 years and 2.4 percent in the 40 years before fiscal year 2008, when the most recent recession began. During the next 10 years, both revenues and outlays are projected to be above their 40-year averages as a percentage of GDP."
To the extent that borrowing less is real, not everyone believes it is desirable. From the Christian Science Monitor, Federal deficit falling fast: Is that a good thing ... or a bad thing?
"The federal government is on track to spend &36;82 billion less this year than last year, while pulling &36;363 billion more in tax revenue out of consumer wallets.
"The [deficit] is coming down too fast given the still weak economy," says Jared Bernstein, an economist and former Obama administration adviser, in his blog."
Pray tell, the Keynesians are coming back out of the closet once again now that sequester-related spending cuts start going into effect. When will big government proponents celebrate the first positive reduction in the growth of federal spending?
A more balanced assessment follows:
"A USA Today poll of economists in February found that many see long-term deficit reduction as a plus for the economy in the short run. Fully 9 in 10 said that, if a "grand bargain" on deficit reduction is reached, it would make the economy at least somewhat stronger next year."
The quest for a "grand bargain" on a total revamping of the federal tax code that rejects the failed record of social engineering and corporate welfare would be the most productive development in monetary sanity since the FDR era.
As starved as the taxpayer is for a semblance of optimism in the financial health of the economy, the money-spinning drag coming out of a federal government godfather, is a fundamental reason why private enterprise is unwilling to take the risk of business expansion. As long as the consumer is unemployed or fearful of losing their part time job, how is it possible to ramp up the productive side of the equation, when higher taxes are expected from Obamacare?
The wild card that will scuttle any relief from a reduced deficit squarely comes from the inevitable rise in interest rates. The CBO attempts to provide an answer in the analysis, How Different Future Interest Rates Would Affect Budget Deficits. Now get ready to increase your dosage of hypertension medicine.
"Not only was inflation higher in the 1980s and 1990s than is currently projected for the next decade, real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) were also higher during those periods than in CBO’s baseline projections for the coming decade. If real interest rates over the next decade ended up matching those historical values, it might be because the economy (and thus demand for credit) was stronger than in CBO’s projections. In that case, revenues would be greater than the amounts projected in the baseline, offsetting some of the increase in interest costs."
What kind of distorted world do the bureaucratic inbreeds populate? Any consumer who visits a supermarket knows all too well that inflation is dramatically higher than that reported in government projections. Nevertheless, assuming CBO estimates, the Wall Street Journal in, If Rates Rise, Larger Deficit Follows, offers a fateful warning.
"If interest rates rise to the averages seen between 1991 and 2000 — that is, 4.9% on the 3-month Treasury bill and 6.7% on the 10-year Treasury note in 2023 — then the deficit would be &36;274 billion bigger in that year than it would otherwise be — and &36;1.44 trillion bigger over 10 years.
Or, in a slightly different scenario, if interest rates rise as the highest 10 predictions of the private-sector economists surveyed by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators — that is, 4.5% on the 3-month Treasury and 5.8% on the 10-year in 2023 — then the federal deficit will be &36;157 billion bigger in that year then it would otherwise be, and &36;1.14 trillion bigger over ten years."
The WSJ conclusion: "But the point is clear: A government that borrows a lot will spend a lot more on interest when rates return to normal."
Even if you want to believe in the official projections, events have a way of going from bad to worse. La La Land has a talent of fostering "good government" for the political class. The rest of us are left to pay the interest on their deficit spending.
James Hall – May 22, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26782013-05-19T10:09:05Z2013-05-19T10:09:05Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2677<![CDATA[Media Once Bitten, Forever Scorn]]>http://www.batr.org/totalitariancollecti...51913.html
Hurrah, the worm has turned! Or has it? The corporatist controlled mass media love affair with the puppet spinmeister seems to be on the rocks. For progressive propagandists, the profession of journalism has long sunk into the sewer. Withal, the elitist snobbery of the self-appointed gatekeepers for the globalist power structure got a slap in the face and a wakeup call, from Associated Press spy-gate. The reporter darlings for the Obama “Chicago Outfit” protection racket just got a taste of unexpected payback appreciation. Slow on the uptake, Obama Lapdog Andrea Mitchell on IRS Scandal: “One of the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen in all my years in journalism” “Wait until this fossil finds out about AP records being seized.”
This sentiment typifies the insincere shock from the hypocrites that ignored the criminal pattern of governance for the last four plus years. Just listen to their temper tantrum in the YouTube video, Media turn on Obama in response to AP probe. Oh, woe is I, how can our esteemed profession be treated in such a way by our celebrity creation rock star? How could he betray us, after we covered for him at every turn?
Well, the fact that the "Chicago Gangster Organization" of the Obama crew targeted the electronic communications of the press should not be a shock in the age of the Patriot Act. The real bombshell is that the Justice Dept. Wiretapped the House of Representative's Cloak Room. "California congressman Devin Nunes made the claim yesterday that the Justice Department wiretapped telephones in the House of Representative's Cloak Room, an exclusive part of the Capitol where members are able to privately interact with one another.
"Will the newly invigorated and hardy souls of the "Fourth Estate" become bloodhounds and sniff out the ugly stories behind the headlines? Before the long beleaguered news consumer regains confidence that the muckraker tradition of the Washington Merry-Go-Round has returned, consider who really benefits from this miraculous turn of conscience.
Let’s get right down with the despicable truth that most mainstream news is simply a product of disinformation that benefits the shadowy forces that control the editorial content of the spin. Polite company is supposed to ignore that Zionism and the Media has an Israel-First agenda in reporting. The direct links of tribe ownership, editorial approval and journalists staffing is simply a fact within the industry.
The linkage of a systemic slanted viewpoint and sympathy for an ideology that conflicts with traditional Americanism is a reality that cannot be denied by any honest observer. Prodigious lies from politicians are expected, but repeating the prevarications, while professing a claim that objective journalism is their trade, is a primary reason why presstitutes are so despised.
In order to understand the current media scorn towards the Obama regime needs a shot of bold courage for analysis of the geo-political influence that dictates the perspective that goes into print. Since the mass media is a top down cabal of groupthink, it is entirely explicable that some political objective is at the core of the "so called" fabricated media outrage.
The Obama administration has demonstrated a reluctance to do the bidding of the most bellicose pro Zionists. The significance that an illegal preempted strike on Iran, a priority for Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling coalition, has not received approval from Barry Soetoro means that the string is running out on Obama usefulness. Interminable media speculation has been registered about Barack Hussein Muslim sympathies. Leaving the extent of such motivations aside, the critical question is whether a teleprompt reader, tutored by the CIA to become an asset for the agency, is really making foreign policy decisions.
Consider that the red line has passed for Obama, and that operations for false flag distractions are firmly in the hands of his controllers. Stripping the imposter in chief of his political capital and placing blame on his inept and gonzo behavior is a natural for the skilled character blackwash of media assassins.
The most reasonable conclusion from an analysis of the sudden turn by a uniform media is that the order, from on high, went forth that ignoring greater Israel interests, has consequences. From none other than the oracle of Zionist supremacy, the New York Times editorial board Spying on The Associated Press, expresses their new found denigration.
"For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, "calls into question the very integrity" of the administration’s policy toward the press."
The mere mention of the Attorney General from the Department of Injustice, mildly stated is just a little late. "Fast And Furious" Eric Holder is the poster boy for careerist corruption going back to the Oklahoma City Bombing. Why now is the media turning on an AG that makes one longing for the resurrection to office of John Mitchell?
The POTUS proclaims, I Have ‘Complete Confidence’ In Holder.
"President Barack Obama continues to back Attorney General Eric Holder following the fallout over the Justice Department secretly obtaining two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press.
During a Rose Garden press conference, the president stated that he has "complete confidence" in the job Holder is doing."
And why would Obama not back his buffoon sibling in law-breaking? Know Nothing Holder is either the minister of incompetence or the sheriff of selective memory.
"Attorney General Eric Holder used the phrase "I don’t know" or some variation, at least 57 times during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today as House Republicans grilled him over controversies including the IRS’ targeting of Tea Partiers, the Justice Department’s seizure of journalist phone records, and the security lapses surrounding the Boston bombing.
Holder, who says he has recused himself from an intelligence leak probe in which the Department of Justice subpoenaed phone records from Associated Press reporters, repeatedly dodged questions about the growing scandal.
When asked whether the DOJ attempted to work with the AP before seizing the phone records, Holder said, "I don’t know what happened. I was recused from the case."
The Daily Mail expands in the article, Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY, "Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole."
For all those remaining Obama supporters, why isn’t Eric Holder indicted for obstruction of justice as a prelude to impeachment of his boss?
Already we are hearing that many more disclosures are about to break. One such disgrace, coming out of a broadcaster, notable for their ESPN coverage, is the account of the IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office.
"Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today."
The sport of network political coverage has been more about entertainment than accountability coverage. The application of investigative inquiry and objective criteria is mostly absent from the half-truths and feel good treatment of favored political causes and personalities. Quality investigatory reporting of a Robert Novak, Seymour Hersh or a Jack Anderson is very rare today. The standards that they practiced need to be applied by the Washington press corps.
Will the media demonstrate the same intensity of scrutiny, when querying Press Secretary Jay (Ron Ziegler, Jr) Carney as they did during Watergate? Dream on folks, the asymptomatic embellishment in reporting by the progressive media is embedded in their genes. Their function is to enable the collectivist cover-up that has a primal goal of dismantling our constitutional republic.
Independent news organizations need to get down to veracity and confront the power structure with the same vigor and intensity of John Peter Zenger. The publishing trade honed by Benjamin Franklin is dishonored by the journalists that grovel for career recognition from media conglomerates that write deliberate falsehoods.
Journalists know that their editor can strip out any item that does not conform to the "PC" policy of the publisher. The real Associated Press scandal is that the moguls of media stories are in the business of serving the political agenda of their ownership masters.
The reason that alternative news sites are dangerous to the establishment version of information is that the internet readers obtain none filtered content and are able to assess their own conclusions. The rightful contempt due for government political propaganda also applies to the slick talking heads that mouth the scripts of their internationalist overlords. Whom do you trust? The globalist adaptation of reality has no credibility.
SARTRE – May 19, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26772013-05-14T23:21:24Z2013-05-14T23:32:31Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2675<![CDATA[IRS Conducts Inquisition Against Tea Party Activists]]>
The President's assertion is, in fact, what's to the contrary.
These invasions of privacy could very well be the next link forged in the shackles of tyranny, but they may have more than likely been typical operating procedure for decades that may just now be coming to light.
It was for this very purpose of silencing the critics of government that Sen. Lyndon Johnson inserted into the tax code those provisions forbidding tax exempt organizations such as churches and civic associations from directly involving themselves in the specifics and technicalities of electoral politics.
These laws were not motivated by some lofty philosophical concern about safeguarding the doctrinal integrity of our nation's most esteemed institutions in the realms of religion and eleemosynary.
Rather these statutory regulations were promulgated so that crooked politicians such as Lyndon Johnson wouldn't have to be bothered by the likes of the John Birch Society.
Since the John Birch Society is essentially one of the streams from which the Tea Party movement flows, it is only natural that bureaucrats as the functionaries of the political elites would utilize the tax code in the attempt to strangle non-establishmentarian conservatism.
The IRS compelled the victimized within the Tea Party movement to not only turn over copies of their Facebook pages and blog posts but also copies of articles written about those audited along with an assortment of highly technical financial details.
Perhaps these activists should have also handed over soiled sheets of toilet paper and used condoms in the name of providing investigators the most comprehensive picture possible.
by Frederick Meekins]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26752013-05-14T06:32:26Z2013-05-14T06:32:26Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2674<![CDATA[IRS as a Political Hit Squad]]>http://www.batr.org/negotium/051513.html
When the Internal Revenue Service admits to violations of law by targeting limited government advocate organizations, you know that the non-divulged crimes are much worse. The discloser in the mainstream media is a pleasant astonishment. The usual pattern of protecting "Big Government" is still intact, while the noise and agency diversion on the abuses of the IRS avoid the fundamental problem with federal taxation, based upon a system of deductions, exemptions, incentives and grants. The extortion and intimidation in the enforcement of the tax code is the entrusted role assigned to the IRS by the political hacks that administer the social engineering experiment that is fundamentally changing America.
The politicalization of the system is premeditated. The revelation that Obama governance resulted in IRS scrutiny went beyond Tea Party, targeting of conservative groups broader than thought, should not be shocking. The sycophants in federal employment have a deranged hostility towards any voice that defends and promotes constitutional federalism. Foxnews reports:
"The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at Tea Party and "patriot" groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011 briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to "make America a better place to live." It even flagged groups whose file included criticism of "how the country is being run."
By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations involved in "limiting/expanding government," education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform."
The game of citing partisan hypocrisy in describing respective "enemy lists" avoids the necessary task of replacing the taxation labyrinth, designed to select winners and losers. Every administration uses the bureaucracy to punish political foes and most presidencies intentionally engage in illegal retribution, but all share the virtual immunity from prosecution for their misdeeds. What can we reasonably expect from this Obama scandal? It certainly has the hallmark of being a far more severe constitutional violation than those committed in the heyday of the LBJ, Nixon and Clinton outlaws.
Now be forewarned, that the IRS is charged with overseeing compliance under Obamacare. Giving a mandate for expansion under this current cloud of criminality is the height of arrogance. Notwithstanding, the irreversible loss in credibility, the wholesale revamping of the method of taxation should be examined and a trustworthy replacement adopted. However, before reviewing one such alteration, it must be pointed out, that collecting taxes to finance governmental operations is not the primary purpose of the current system.
Perpetual trillion dollar deficits demonstrate that raising revenue to pay for federal programs lacks the ability to balance budgets. The principal function of the Internal Revenue Service is to facilitate the tax avoidance practices of corporatist transnational conglomerates. The retaliatory mission against working class citizens is ostensibly a disciplinary process to maintain control over the finances of producing contributors. Inhibiting upward mobility for the populace, while accelerating elite’s wealth accumulation, is the destructive result of the tax code.
The Hill offers a solution in the article, House GOP seeks to abolish IRS, replace income tax with consumption tax.
"The FairTax Act, from Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), would abolish the 16th Amendment, which was ratified 100 years ago this February. That amendment gives Congress the power to impose income taxes without having to spend the revenues evenly among the states.
Woodall's bill, H.R. 25, would replace the current tax system with a 23 percent consumption tax on all new goods and services. He said Thursday that this change would eliminate the need for a complicated tax code, and would be the kind of tax reform that helps reinvigorate the economy."
The merits or criticism of a consumption tax and certainly any final amount of the levy certainly deserves a vigorous national debate. However, the need for eliminating the byzantine complexity and inherent inequity in the present punitive tax collection system should be unanimous.
Obviously, the prospect that the establishment ruling class would allow the slaughter of their cash-cow is zero. The entire existence of the Tea Party movement grew out of a desire to restore the principle of no taxation without representation. Yet, the efforts out of the authoritarian globalists are to ramp up even more draconian measures to monitor and intrude into every financial affair of normal people.
The only prudent political response to this intolerable obliteration of our eternal right to the pursuit of happiness is to require a return to the pre income tax system of revenue collection. Just listen to the screams, from those progressive socialists, who demand that the State must use their penalizing power to force egalitarian redistribution upon every wealth creator or economic producer.
The calculated fear factor imbedded into the Internal Revenue Service goes well beyond targeting just conservative groups. Every self-respecting American shares a vested interest in restoring a constitutional government. As it stands now, the prospect of achieving even a reasonable prospect of legitimate authorities is incompatible as long as the IRS is allowed to run amok over the masses who are attempting to petition and redress their government.
USA Today reports, Obama calls purported IRS targeting "outrageous", from the latest Obama presidential press conference.
"Obama says first learned about the IRS controversy from news reports. He called the purported targeting of conservative groups by IRS personnel "outrageous and there is no place for it." The IRS has to have "absolute integrity, " Obama adds.
"You don't want the IRS ever being perceived to be biased," Obama said.
The president adds that his administration will get to the bottom of what happened at the IRS. "I have no patience for it. I will not tolerate it."
How can anyone believe that Obama has clean hands or that some faction within the Internal Revenue Service was operating without his knowledge? Well Mr. President, prove the meaning in your words and put forth the political capital to pass the H.R. 25 legislation.
James Hall – May 15, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26742013-05-13T05:26:37Z2013-05-13T05:26:37Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2673<![CDATA[Images - The Same Terrorists in Mumbai & Lahore, Charles Sobhraj & Benazir Bhutto]]>
Quote:The same two terrorists were photographed at the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai India above left and center, and in an attack against the Sri Lankan Cricket Team in Lahore, Pakistan in February 2009 above right. Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab below right, taken into custody in Mumbai November 2008 and hanged in India November 2012..
Had on a Hindu tilak during the Mumbai assault which means he was no Moslem, that he was to emerge to carry out terror in Lahore bespeaks high level complicity in India! Other attackers had stayed at Nariman House, a Jewish hostel in Mumbai which was itself bombed the next day, the last phone call one Mumbai attacker made was to a Mossad agent in New York!
Quote:Benazir Bhutto above center, returned to Pakistan one week after taking a telephone call from then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in October 2007. On the day of her arrival, scores were killed when bombs tore thru the crowd lining the route from the airport, John Negroponte, mastermind of the bombing campaign that is attempting to create a rift between Shia and Sunni in Iraq, was nearby.
December 27, 2007, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yibQu...eature=related"]video footage[/URL] shows a man in dark glasses resembling Charles Sobhraj at left above & inset, fire a pistol at her head, the soundtrack records three shots, the gunman turns as if to bound away, when a suicide bomber in a white shawl detonates his device!
Sobhraj was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Nepal on August 12, 2004, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, that he was at large three yrs later, bespeaks the same high level complicity from the Government of Nepal.
http://s020.radikal.ru/i704/1305/34/7ca5c39dcf0b.jpg]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26732013-05-12T00:35:56Z2013-05-12T00:35:56Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2671<![CDATA[Committing Treason and Benghazi Murder Cover-up]]>http://batr.org/reactionary/051213.html
Take off your partisan hat and open your minds to the actual uninterrupted high treason that is part of the foreign policy establishment. Party politics is often just a show that plays to their respective bases. However, the tract and direction of extending the transnational empire just continues on a global scale. The full-blown treason committed by every administration that practices the internationalist vision of democracy domination is really a masquerade for worldwide dominion. Presidents are mere temporary talking heads for the oligarchy that actually rules. Murdering their own diplomats and hired help is incidental, when 1,455,590 Iraqi deaths since the U.S. invasion are ignored and dismissed.
Just how well is the consistent and bipartisan aggressive interventionist foreign policy doing? Go over the list of The Arab Spring country by country.
The Wall Street Journal provides a timeline on U.S. Government Reaction to the Benghazi Attack. "For days after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, intelligence officials and the Obama administration said it was likely the outgrowth of protests sparked by an anti-Islamic video made in the U.S. Follow some of the administration statements on the Libya attack."The infamous propaganda voice for the Obamaistas, Media Matters puts forth their partisan spin in, What Dick Cheney's Benghazi Criticism Misses.
"David Martosko of the Daily Mail Online provided former Vice President Dick Cheney a platform to criticize the Obama administration's failure to anticipate the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, without noting that seven attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities occurred during the Bush administration."
Such diversion seeks to limit focus on the literal events that caused the Benghazi attack and the real reasons why Ambassador Christopher Stevens was left to perish by the Obama/Clinton foreign policy team of betrayers.
The shameful chronicle of the intentional and politically motivated stand down that doomed Stevens and his defenders was sensitively told during Gregory Hicks' 30 Minute Recount of Benghazi Attack. While the Congressional hearings were praised for the attempt to restrain partisan grandstanding, the Washington press corps avoids placing blame on the administration as a tenant of their loyalty test. A government cover-up is made easy when the imperium friendly media is reporting on a proclaimed progressive administration.
The facts necessitate that even the venerable CBS mainstream media machine reluctantly admits that the Thousands of Libyan missiles from Qaddafi era missing in action, are a central concern with the overthrow of the Libyan regime.
"In the case of Libya's missing MANPADS, there was also concern they would get into the Syrian conflict. "Once they start getting sold on the black market, we can't control them," says one source.
The source added he's unaware of any U.S. attempt to send recovered Libyan MANPADS to arm Syrian rebels seeking to depose President Bashar al-Assad."
According to the Business Insider, the veracity of this CBS source is questionable. Connect the dots and go back to the reason why a cover-up of the Benghazi murders becomes crucial to the long-term goals to destabilize the Middle East. The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels cites the following:
"The Obama administration has decided to launch a covert operation to send heavy weapons to Syrian rebels, Christina Lamb of The Sunday Times of London reports.
Diplomatic sources told the Sunday Times that the U.S. "bought weapons from the stockpiles of Libya's former dictator Muammar Gaddafi."
The heavy arms include mortars, rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and the controversial anti-aircraft heat-seeking SA-7 missiles, which are integral to countering Bashar Al-Assad's bombing campaign."
Now compute the decades old design for the territory as stated by Wes Clark and the neocon dream. Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation in Salon that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:
"General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in ... Iraq, ... Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran"] was this: "They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control." He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in 1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: "But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: "the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?"
The diabolic union between Neoconservatives and Neoliberals produces a litter of demonic adventures that build up the body count and push the region into a globalist cesspit of satanic dimensions. In order to comprehend the interconnection of conflicts it is important to understand the deceptive war on terror and the assembled alliance with the Al Qaeda bogyman.
The message in the essay, It’s Dishonest to Talk about Benghazi Without Talking About the Syrian War, is a reality that many cowardly Americans are unwilling to deal with, much less act upon.
"Both parties are avoiding the bigger picture … The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have been using Benghazi as the center of U.S. efforts to arm the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.
Specifically, the U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:"
What possible justification is there to intervene in Syria? The presupposed civil war is really a designed coup d'état overthrow that only benefits a greater Israel regional expansion. Note how the policy wonks work in their nefarious planning for destabilization. The flagship establishment mouthpiece Foreign Policy has the mission to signal the intentions of government stratagem as the master plans are implemented, in the article How to destabilize the Assad regime.
"In order to re-up its strategy, the administration should employ a cross-governmental approach that enlists the Treasury, Commerce, and Defense Departments. The Treasury Department should use sanctions to limit Assad's ability to repatriate funds from oil exports and more properly enforce the 2012 GRAHVITY sanctions prohibiting the transfer of internet, communications, or surveillance technology to Syria. The Treasury Department should also prohibit U.S. companies from doing business with Assad's enablers by designating those entities that continue to supply him with resources. Congress could bolster the latter measure by requiring federal contractors to certify that they are not in business with Assad's enablers. Congress should also prohibit foreign financial institutions enabling Assad from doing business with U.S. banks. Meanwhile the Commerce Department should secure tighter control over the delivery of information and communications technology to Syria especially through authorized foreign distributors. Finally, as mandated by an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, the Pentagon should cease its business with Rosoboronexport, one of Assad's chief enablers, instead of entering into new contracts as it has expressed the intention to do."
What do you call the treachery, when your own government is committing the subversiveness?
The cryptic psychopolitical spook Dr. Steve Pieczenik presents an astounding analysis that answers this question in the You Tube, Benghazi Truth: Obama Was Running Secret Army. His call to action is a rare and daring challenge to the military that is worth a sober assessment if for no other reason than observing the anxious and flabbergasted reaction from Alex Jones. The treason committed, depends upon the nationalist loyalties of the government agents. In this case, the evidence seems well placed that the security apparatus is serving the wrong master.
The substance of the Benghazi duplicity and scandalous evasion of accountability is an entrenched practice that permeates every level of command and control. The courage of Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom is an act of legitimate patriotism seldom seen out of Foggy Bottom.
If professional State Department public servants can speak truth to power, where are the guts of the General Military Officers? If the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a brood of poodle puppies and lap dogs, God Save the Republic. Dr. Pieczenik is In Search of James Mattoon Scott. Most subservient subjects are oblivious to the Seven Days in May scenario. Perpetuating the myth, that civilian command preserves the constitutional liberties of citizens, does not conform to the record of presidential dictatorship. When state treason is codified normality, the mere murder of four more Americans is hardly an afterthought to the executioners of the country. Respecting commander in chief traitors is an absurd national death wish.
SARTRE – May 12, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26712013-05-11T13:10:03Z2013-05-11T13:21:15Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2670<![CDATA[Lemonade Laws Leave Sour Taste]]>
The thing of it is, though, these lessons have very little to do with how providing a desired product along with attentive costumer service if the way to advance economically. Rather, an increasing number of young people are learning from these undertakings that the America that they will likely live the majority of their lives in (if the country does not collapse entirely) will increasingly become a nation where such blatant displays of individuality and personal achievement will be met with hostility and resistance bordering on what cannot be described as anything other than violence.
In most of these instances, the narrative unfolds something like this.
The children are informed that they cannot operate their lemonade stand because they have not obtained the proper permit from the authorities in question.
Those reading these paragraphs sequentially might be inclined to remark that the situation described above hardly classifies as a threat of violence.
Perhaps it is not directly. But what about the instance that occurred outside the U.S. Open in the neighborhood of the Congressional Country Club in the Washington, Metropolitan Area where one outlaw beverage dispenser was slapped with a &36;500 fine?
With the following observation, renowned economist Walter Williams would likely concur. Whenever a government imposes a fine, what the authorities are actually doing is issuing a threat against the alleged violators of some regulation concocted by any number of state agencies.
If you don't think violence or perhaps rather force (for those that somehow think verbal precision is going to somehow magically protect you from being hauled off to some detention camp or deflect bullets like Superman once the gunfire starts), won't be used against the cited party should they refuse to desist or not pay the fine you have been drinking something far stronger than dixie cup lemonade.
Perhaps the greatest lesson those crushed by the prerogatives of the state in this fashion learn is to never look within themselves to what it takes to get ahead or to do anything that sets themselves apart from the more docile members of the COMMUNITY.
Tis better, in the eyes of the statist, for the individual to accept and embrace the meager pittance and station bestowed upon you by those that have been deemed more qualified than yourself to determine your place for you in the socioeconomic order.
The purpose of these enforcement actions is to rid our nation from such independently inclined riffraff. After all, there are even now so-called "Christians" insisting that what is wrong with the cinematic Western as epitomized by John Wayne and the Cartwrights is not so much gun play but rather that such figures dared to take it upon themselves as individuals or as independent families to do what needed to be done without consultation with the COMMUNITY.
Those observing (especially the young) learn how the regulation is cast is even more important than the regulation itself.
For example, in one case in Georgia, a local police chief justified the disbandment of one particularly notorious lemonade distribution ring composed primarily of adolescent girls on the grounds that the state did not know what was in the distributed concoction.
Unless there is some actionable intelligence that we mere subjects are not privy to, there hasn't been too many Al Qaeda plots intending to disseminate poisoned lemonade through speakeasies operated by juvenile revolutionary jihadists. And even if one stretches back to the old concerns about Halloween delectables being laced with razor blades and the like, most of those accounts were blown all out of proportion by ministers attempting to frighten parents into keeping their children locked inside on that particular autumnal evening.
The next lesson learned is that certain excuses can be invoked in order to perhaps sway popular and bureaucratic opinion as to why the children in question should be allowed to flout the disputed law or regulation. It seems some reasons are some how more noble than others.
For example, in the instance of the youngsters threatened outside the golf course in suburban Maryland, the response in the press was that these youngsters were trying to raise money for charity. But what if the funds were not being raised for that purpose?
Is there something inherently wrong about keeping money for yourself? In exposing the false altruism scandal and other related efforts to squash individuality, Ayn Rand asked what is so bad about individuals attempting to provide for themselves.
On social networks, posters commenting on the issue have gone so far as to remark how dare the media even report on these cases since the accounts cast law enforcement in a negative light because the law must be enforced at all costs because the law is the law. Though American police departments and agencies have not yet deteriorated to the particular level about to be mentioned, it must be pointed out that the Gestapo and the KGB enforced what was considered law in their respective regimes as well.
So-called "conservatives" seem to have no problem whatsoever directing criticism at any assortment of other government agencies. So are they so dimwitted as to lose sight of the higher goal of human liberty when they are distracted by a shiny badge?
Just because a government has enacted a law regarding something, does that mean the temporal statute contramanding the laws of God must be obeyed in all instances? If so, does that mean the family of Corrie Ten Boom got what they deserved? After all, the law is the law.
Some might recoil at the idea of comparing the closing of a bootleg lemonade distillery with some of the greatest crimes in human history as one sheol of a conceptual leap. However, where do you think the framework is laid to get a people once marked by the common sense that flows from natural law to commit deeds that would only be approved by the most warped of consciences?
For, if a people lack the courage to stand for the right of a child to have a lemonade stand, do you think they will muster the courage to speak out regarding more profound incidents when those in power start aiming guns at heads in order to implement their transformative agendas?
By Frederick Meekins]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26702013-05-07T23:19:56Z2013-05-07T23:19:56Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2668<![CDATA[Attacker Misconstrues Scriptural Lesson]]>
The Biblical narratives regarding these young Hebrews have nothing to do whatsoever about lavishing accolades and honors upon terrorists out to kill unsuspecting bystanders and destroy the American way of life.
These accounts are primarily historical in nature detailing the particular circumstances of ancient Israel.
Unless one can book God on “The O’Reilly Factor” or Wolf Blitzer, one cannot have an as definitive statement to the press as to why something transpired in America on the cosmic level.
Couldn’t the testing of Job be just as accurate an analogy on the national level?
These accounts can have a secondary purpose of inspiration.
But the lesson to take away is quite different than that assumed by the original critic spewing the initial allegation at me who despises America to such an extent that he felt it necessary to proudly announce his refusal to salute the nation’s flag or exhibit patriotic sympathies.
The story actually serves as an argument as to why sincere believers can actually hold positions of authority in an otherwise pagan government so long as they are careful not to compromise their fundamental convictions.
by Frederick Meekins]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26682013-05-07T08:54:21Z2013-05-07T08:54:21Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2667<![CDATA[The Warren Buffett House of Cards]]>http://www.batr.org/negotium/050813.html
Now that the financial hype is celebrating a new all time high in the stocks, the time to exit the market may well be at hand. So what will that Oracle of Omaha do with all the insider information available from his compadre network? The business press swoons all over Warren Buffett with every report, while only a few intrepid journalists would dare write about the dark side of Wall Street’s favorite equity cheerleader. The guru of sweet heart deals floats in the rarified air of a political cronyism ongoing honeymoon. So what is likely for his Berkshire Hathaway flagship company now that the ticker is breathing on pure oxygen?
At the Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders Meeting, the forecast projects that the market will continue to rise. Berkshire Cash Hits Record &36;49.1 Billion as Profit Climbs, cites Bill Smead, portfolio manager of the Smead Value Fund, "Warren has organized the company around the rebirth of the United States economy over the next 10 years and this is the beginning of that rebirth."
Not everyone looks at the next decade as a boom for the economy. The easy money out of the Federal Reserve ultimately fuels the hysteria that is pushing the current rally. For the average consumer the markets smell of an elitist stench. The venerability of a top and a collapse has many remnants of the former middle class scared. Should the expectation be that a House of Cards is on the horizon or should the deal from the bottom of the deck continue as the insiders pump and dump their latest speculative fizz?
Examine just how Buffett operates. His reputation as a stock picker largely ignores any of the dirty laundry that follows in his wake. In the event you forget, the audacious reporting of Charles Gasparino, reminds of the methods employed in the investment culture of his associates. Cited in Saint Warren’s dark side, the working of the protecting racket that rewards the Buffett organization, smacks of the very definition of "too big to fail".
"The SEC interviewed Buffett last year over one of the most sordid corporate affairs I’ve seen in a long time: His longtime aide and one-time heir-apparent bought shares in a company called Lubrizol just before Buffett purchased the outfit.
The executive, David Sokol, made a hefty profit from the purchase, and even advised Buffett to buy the company in the first place.
Insider trading? I can’t say if it was outside the law. But the SEC is looking into the matter. (SEC and Sokol spokesmen declined to comment on the probe’s status; Buffett didn’t return repeated calls seeking comment.)
Yet I don’t recall any major media outfit bringing up the sordid affair while Buffett was lecturing the nation on tax fairness. Nor did any jump on Buffett’s bizarre initial reaction as Sokol was resigning from Berkshire last year: He defended Sokol’s actions — which, even if they weren’t illegal, still smack of the kind of corporate favoritism that Obama and the rest of the left continually denounce."
Barrons report another sordid episode swept under the rug in the article, A Buffett Bubble in BYD?
"In September of 2008, just after Lehman Brothers' collapse had taken the financial crisis to a new level, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway scooped up 9.9% of Chinese battery and electric-car maker BYD for HK&36;8 (US&36;1.03) a share. Even a renowned long-term value investor had to be impressed by the near-term sizzle: Within 18 months, BYD shares had rocketed to HK&36;88. Then the engine started to sputter.
BYD also may have been spoiled by the Buffett bubble built into the shares, which some analysts estimate could be as big as a 30%. "People regard Buffett well as an investor and are happy to stick with the stock as long as he is still holding it," says Lewis. His departure could have a huge adverse effect, they say. "A big Berkshire [BRK.A] premium is the only way you could justify where the stock is trading right now," says Lewis. "You've got to ask yourself: Would Warren make the same decision today on BYD? I suspect not." At the least, he will see Berkshire's stake diluted by the offering and local reports say Berkshire won't subscribe further. BYD trades at more than 50 times earnings."
Finally, Forbes reflects on the big daddy of deals with that great vampire squid in the analysis, Goldman Sachs Reworks &36;5B In Warrants Held By Buffett's Berkshire.
"Essentially, Buffett had the right to purchase 43.5 million shares of Goldman at &36;115 apiece until October 1, 2013. Under the new terms, Buffett will receive "the number of shares of common stock equal in value to the difference between the average closing price over the 10 trading days preceding October 1, 2013 and the exercise price of &36;115 multiplied by the number of shares of common stock covered by the warrant (43,478,260)."
The short form: instead of paying Goldman &36;5 billion in cash for stock worth considerably more, Buffett will simply take the amount of stock equivalent to the difference without paying the company."
Now are their examples of special circumstances just the sign of astute investing or is this a pattern of synergetic regulatory favoritism and fusion with ruling governmental outlaws? Poor old uncle Warren, licking his ice cream cone while playing the ukulele. When will the anti-trust laws apply to the game rigging plutocrats? Evidently, the Buffett’s of the fixed exchanges have bought and paid for the best political protection available. Avoiding a speculative melt down is impossible for the man on the street, but the privileged globalists are well entrenched in their protected palaces built upon ill-gotten gain.
Run Buffett out of town on one of his rails, for railroading free enterprise into a dark tunnel. The derailment of our economy benefits the market manipulators, as the rest struggles to dig out of the collapsed slide of rubble that buries us alive. Elevating Buffett as an investment sage defies common sense.
James Hall – May 8, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26672013-05-06T15:55:10Z2013-05-06T15:55:10Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2666<![CDATA[BUYING THE MOON]]>
I don’t think I could have written something as wild as this but since man a named Dennis Hope already wrote it my creative effort is only partly needed. This man seriously claims that he owns the moon---and our solar system’s plant, as well---at least that’s what the Outer Space Treaty is wise enough not to say.
This Treaty has been the guiding document on space law since 1967. While the treaty bars any country on Earth from laying claim to any heavenly body, it makes no rule, or even a mention, of any private companies, corporations, or individuals of doing just that. So this Mr. Hope formed a company called Lunar Embassy Corp. With this phony—but high-sounding name—he “bought” the property rights to the moon, and a whole lot more. With his fiat corporation, Mr. Hope has been (get this) selling off one-acre lots of moon property!
If your born-at-birth commonsense has deserted you, your own small chunk of the moon will cost just &36;19.95 an acre. Don’t laugh, That’s cheaper than you could have gotten it at Walmart. AND, if you never missed an opportunity for gain, and are the least bit greedy, property of Mars are also for sale and will cost a paltry @22.49 an acre. Mr. Hope believes he has solid ground (literally) to stand on. What gives this luna-tic Investor his unshakable confidence? Well, for one thing he was featured in the in documentary Lunarcy, out last month on Epix, if you can believe one Hollywood Reporter, and he’s also and Hope has talked to a number of credible pubs, including National Geographic.
Mssr, Hope has registered his moon claim with the United Nation in 1980. He hasn’t gotten an answer yet, which this interplanetary landlord, assumes is a git-go. There, of course, is an inestimable real estate to be sold, so he looking any day for a property rush, ala the Gold Rush. So far, Hope reveals that as of now he has sold a nominal of each: 600 million moon acres, and 325 million Mars acres.
To prove that if you have enough money, even the universe is for sale, Hope says that two former US presidents are planetary land owners, as well as 250 “very well known celebrities” (names withheld on request). Hell, even two U.S. hotel chains own a piece of off-Earth merchandise.
What does Mr. Hope consider off limits on the moon or Mars sales? The
Apollo landing sites. He hasn’t worked out the landing sequences yet.
comments:
jtmoore1819@juno.com]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26662013-05-05T09:48:40Z2013-05-05T09:48:40Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2665<![CDATA[Human Liberty Is Doomed]]>http://batr.org/autonomy/050513.html
Any discussion on liberty presupposes an understanding of human nature. Today, the utter confusion and distorted mindset of humankind, relegates animal instincts, as the premier motivation for salacious existence. The criteria for a cordial civilization have long been "consigned to the dustbins of history". Standards for civil and moral conduct are debased by a global disintegration to achieve the ‘good’ for the hunt of acting ‘nice’. Polite and pleasant facades are no substitute for truth and meaning. Yet, the heights of evil transactions seem to be hailed routinely, as the only achievement that power hungry sociopaths aspire to impose on the rest of the planet. Never-ending conflict is inherent in the human condition, while the state of liberty is unusual and resides within the character of the ethical spirit.
The spread of international humanism as a social value-system is fundamentally hedonistic. The pretence of caring about humanity by adopting a regulatory anatomical structure of benign coercion has relegated individual dignity to the graves of a universal cemetery. At every turn in the propaganda evangelism cycle, the media masters preach a gospel of fake tolerance and respect, while implementing policies and dictates, based upon hate and oppression.
The confessedly exposed religion of their belief is in a hegemonic demon of worldwide enslavement. The defect in the progressive creed requires the extermination of individualistic sovereignty. The whole, as long as it conforms to the orthodox version of subjugation, requires every unique person, to obey the community master of social welfare.
According to the Barack Hussein Obama II epithet, the epistle of his self-indulgence lecture is offered up as a path to worldly happiness. Mere mortals need to sacrifice their integrity to a demon deity, upon an altar of desolation and abandonment. The devil of state adoration demands mandatory veneration.
Hell on earth is the inevitable result from the elimination of personal liberty. The foundation of civilization rests upon the free will of each mortal and the cement of society is the ability of every person to make independent decisions and accept responsibility for their actions. The principles of the Christian gospel, the sacred heritage of the worth in each person and the traditional values of the golden rule are immutable and indisputable. Even so, the collectivist culture rejects the very core cornerstone that has provided the only intermittent sanctuary from the pillaging of the barbarians.
Even an eastern establishment agent like The Atlantic has to admit the evident in the article, There's No Room for Civil Liberties in Obama's Inauguration View of America. Wendy Kaminer uses the erroneous illusion of a difference in a partisan political ideology. "The authoritarian right and egalitarian left meet in the middle on at least one issue: Neither side values the rights of the individual." Stating the obvious, there is no manifest departure within the communalist system that hates any citizen objections to the supremacy of the State. Ms. Kaminer continues:
"Civil libertarians have been cataloguing and futilely litigating the gross abuses of post-9/11 era for years. They include, but are probably not limited to, summary detention and torture; the prosecution of whistleblowers; surveillance of peaceful protesters; the criminalization of journalism and peaceful human-rights activism; extensive blacklisting that would have been the envy of Joe McCarthy; and secrecy about a shadow legal system that makes the president's "we the people" trope seem less inspirational than sarcastic.
Precisely because civil libertarians have focused on these abuses, they're old news -- which means that progressives reveling in Obama's speech can't claim ignorance of them. When they applaud the president's "muscular liberalism," without qualification, they're effectively applauding his strong-arm security state.
When Obama praised collective action in his address, he wasn't praising efforts by individuals to organize against government abuses. He was praising organized support for government programs."
Conversely, concluding that the state is the ultimate enemy of the individual, missing the true lesson of the human experience. The addiction to authoritarian discipline is not motivated primarily out of a fear of reprisals, but more often stems from a desire to belong to a social order. The dread of being labeled an outsider and a social misfit creates more self-imposed compliance, with an acceptable politically correct stance, than the threat of fines or incarceration.
The artificial disposition of public or even interpersonal discourse, illustrates the extent and length people go to avoid asking the most profound questions, much less an attempt to discover answers for social issues. The lack of meaningful dialogue is symptomatic of a terminal disease that strips away the flesh from the bone of a cadaver, awaiting a funeral.
The essence of a reasoned relationship with another person or an entire society must be founded upon a mutual respect and common interest. How can a solitary national bear loyalty to a government that tramples inherent rights, which are ordained by God at birth, not delegated by government fiat?
With the unholy alliance of the corporatist/state fascist economy, the model of a system of psychopathic delusion becomes the official reality. People relish in their self-induced mental illness and celebrate their diminished capacity from accepting their subservient and docile role. Liberty cannot survive when citizenry willingly surrender.
Mark Tapscott makes the case that Individual liberty cannot survive a republic of civic dunces.
"As with so much else, James Madison captures the profoundly serious implications of raising a generation politically crippled by its gross civic ignorance in a single concise statement about the difference between Europe and America: "In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example ... of charters of power granted by liberty."
If you don’t grasp how Madison’s simple equation makes all the difference in the world in how this country is governed, then you probably don’t understand why liberals and conservatives disagree on just about everything."
The Obama administration is engaged in the Europeanization of America. Note this transition removes the historic race, ethnic and cultural differences, that created the vibrant civilization, which produced Western thought and social institutions. In its place, a new world order of an ecumenical hierarchy of globalist plutocrats, running a technological prison planet of apes, is in the making.
No liberty exists for anthropoids! Ironically, "the Forbidden Zone was once a paradise. Your breed made a desert of it, ages ago", applies to the authoritarians that would be King Kong in domain of Dr. Zaius. When George Taylor laments, "YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! OH, DAMN YOU! GODDAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!’; the fans of the POTUS dictatorship, whoever is in office at the time, deserves their oblivion.
Is it so difficult to see the destructive conversion going on in a country that once understood the purpose of the American Revolution? The preachers from the pulpits of press conferences want you to believe that their pronouncements are from on high. The fools, who extend them credibility in the face of official tyranny, much less their acquiescence and submission, are endorsing treason.
Liberty must be defended, not with superior firepower, but with eternal determination. Since the lack of willpower is the critical problem, what would it take to motivate the lethargic minions to take real affirmative action? Pray tell the squeamish dare not get involved. Just the mere thought of offending your overlords, is far too audacious, in a feeble attempt to practice personal self-respect.
The village of the damned is as close as your adjacent neighborhood. Living a life of liberty is too intrepid of a concept for most registered party voters. As the evidence mounts that, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not confined solely to Marxist regimes, but is eminently thriving in the land of the former brave and bold.
The Madisonian framework model of federalism and separation of powers is long dead. Even the appearance of Liberty in public institutions is scorned upon as an affront to the supremacy of state authority. Individual autonomy and specific actions is the principle purpose of the genuine patriot, while the last refuge of the scoundrel is the pledge of allegiance to the admiralty flag.
Since the decline of the original Republic, the chronicle into totalitarianism is nearly complete. Now the gatekeepers of the oligarchy look and act like Dr. Zaius. When he admits that he has always known that human civilization existed long before apes ruled the planet, he really is saying that the nation was once lead by representatives of sovereign individuals and is now ruled by egomaniac tyrants that like to whip their knuckle dragging serfs.
The reason the country is doomed lies squarely upon the shoulders of the docile. With the criminalization of society, the faint-hearted demand harsher penalties for anyone, who defies the slave state. Do not just blame the elites sitting on high for all the ills of our national plight. The little people, gaming the system, bear the scarlet letter of shame for their lust of government adoration. As long as the rebellion of courage remains in a stage of limbo, the cowardly primates of Amerika will obey their orders.
SARTRE – May 5, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26652013-05-04T14:44:04Z2013-05-04T14:44:04Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2664<![CDATA[Headline Potpourri #34]]>
It is heralded in celebration that requiring Virginia abortion clinics to abide by hospital hygiene standards will protect the lives of WOMENNNNN. The morality rates for infants entering such facilities will no doubt remain abysmal.
I think I may need some of the drugs candidates for the town council are on. From the enthusiasm expressed in each of their profiles in the local newspaper, it doesn’t even sound like the same city. Most gush how they deliberately picked this municipality. If I had not literally been conceived in this town and lived here my entire life, there is no way in Ghenna I’d pick it to live in.
That is certainly a money-making scam where "digitally remastered" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation are being shown in movie theaters. Some are duped into thinking these are entirely new productions. My brother turned to me and asked if I was going to go see it. I told him no, even though it was "The Best Of Both Worlds", usually considered the best of the series. I saw it nearly 25 years ago (and so many times since then I can probably quote of reasonable approximation of the dialogue when watching it). I remember back when, from a worldview standpoint if the conflict depicted actually took place in real life, most would route for the victory of the Enterprise before these Transhumanists rose to prominence literally aspiring to become members of the Borg collective.
Why tip toe around verbally acknowledging that the limbs of innocents were blown off and mutilated in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack? Is that done to protect the victims or to prevent the facade of multiculturalism from collapsing?
Obama says those responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing will feel the full weight of the United States. I guess those fighter jets being given to the Egyptians are quite heavy.
In the future, liberals will no doubt equate those complaining about Tax Day with the human scumbags that attacked Boston.
So I guess the Boston Marathon bombing is the result of what happens when pacifist quiltmaking grandmothers form an alliance with cloistered Bingo playing nuns.
Following Pearl Harbor, wonder if journalists sat around trying to hypothesize scenarios for the attackers being anything other than the Japanese?
The cover of the April 22, 2013 issue of New York Magazine asserts that "Andrew Cuomo may be the shrewdest American politician since LBJ." Should that be taken as a warning to presidential candidates that they shouldn't consider the New York governor as a running mate if they hope to make it through their term of office alive?
It is claimed that a greater number of vets are coming back mentally scarred from the Wars on Terror than from previous conflicts such as World War II. Or is it rather society didn't care as much about psychology and emotions back then with the shattered deemed at fault if they could not move beyond such trauma?
Barney Frank insists that we should thank liberals for the government spending that allowed for a prompt response to the Boston Marathon Bombing. So does that balance out with the lax immigration standards that have allowed violent undesirables to flood across the borders or the establishment of an educational system reluctant to label as wrong a considerable number of behavioral deviancies?
Following the Boston Marathon Bombing, liberals were quick to take to the airwaves counseling as to the necessity of a strong government in times of such public emergency. However, most of the programs, policies, and agencies these statists are eager to finance have little to do with preventing or responding to a terrorist attack.
How do we know the existence of other bombs wasn't denied simply to prevent widespread panic? How long until government operatives start threatening those insisting they saw additional devices the way those were threatened insisting there was a third Oklahoma City Bomber?
ABC News has labeled the search for the Boston Marathon Bomber as a "21st century investigation". They've got that right. Do you think in decades past that the intellectual elites would have postulated elaborate scenarios to finger anyone but the likely foreign perpetrators or devise justification as to why we should thank these destructive subversives for attempting to destroy the American way of life?
So what if the ban on public movement is never lifted in Boston? And what legal protections are in place to prevent an at will employer from using your failure to show up to work during such a crisis as an excuse to terminate your position?
As police go from house to house searching for the Boston Marathon Bombing suspect, will they also be gathering intelligence regarding infractions and violations on the part of the homeowners. It's a valid question. For if you call the police regarding a complaint with a neighbor or to report suspicious activity, you also get your name filtered through the system for potential warrants and the like. So you better really stop to consider whether complying with “See Something, Say Something” is worth the effort.
Bet acolytes of the New World Order are watching with rapt attention this ban on public movement in Boston, studying it intensely just how long they can spook the masses into compliance of staying indoors.
A candidate running for the DC city council claims pot should be decriminalized since possess it can prevent offenders from ever finding a decent job. There are plenty that have never used marijuana that can’t find decent jobs these days either.
In the coming years, will the victims of the Boston terrorist attack have their access to medical treatment curtailed by Obama like every other American?
If New York City raises the legal smoking age to 21, why should those younger than that in that jurisdiction be required to comply with jury duty?
Under Obamacare, the scumbag terrorist will probably get better medical treatment than the victims.
It is claimed that the Boston Marathon bombers were not particularly devout as Muslims. Does that mean their victims are somehow less dead or that, instead of an entire leg being blown off, they only end up losing a toe or two?
Doctors are warning against the so-called "Cinnamon Challenge". This dare occurs when a child or a teen attempts to swallow a spoonful of sugar without water in under a minute. This foolhardy act can result in a medical emergency such as choking, vomiting, or even collapsing a lung. How long until consumers, as in the case of common decongestants, are required to show a photo ID in order to purchase this product and have their named added to yet an additional government database?
The 2001 edition of an academic literary journal has finally been published in 2013. And I get mocked for how far behind I get in posting some of my columns. The subject of the long-awaited edition is “Food Theory”. That certainly sounds like some pretentious leftwing swill.
Journalist Bob Woodward insists that the Boston Marathon bombing wasn't that big of an event. Yet when the Obama administration insinuated Woodward would regret criticizing the President, one would have thought journalists were going to be loaded up on boxcars and sent to reeducation camps.
Just think how many other residents of foreign origins on welfare and leeching off of the American system would be willing to blow you to smithereens and are probably actively conspiring to do so.
A discussion on 4/24/13 edition of WMAL's morning show considered whether or not it is proper for parents to pay children from good grades. Fundamentally, shouldn't this be for each family to work out for themselves without the opinion of outsiders carrying much weight one way or the other? What's so wrong for education to be incentivized quantifiably? Those opposed to this economic exchange with the context of one of life’s closest relationships are often at their heart the most avowed adversaries of capitalism and the free market. Often, those opposed to parents providing some kind of tangible motivation encouraging academic achievement insist knowledge ought to be its own reward. But even if knowledge does nothing more than position you to see what frauds most people are and to be able to sneer down your nose at the duped condescendingly, what’s the point of acquiring knowledge if not for some kind of advantage?
Instructive. In the name of “market fairness”, traditional retailers want sales taxes applied to online transactions rather than having taxes on the offline transactions reduced.
A fuss is being made that Tamerlan Tsarnaev listened to Alex Jones. Would as much fuss be raised if terrorists had regularly listened to CNN or especially MSNBC? More importantly, should concerns be raised to what extent Al Jazeera has infiltrated the Democratic Party through the purchase of Al Gore’s Current TV?
In an article titled “What If We Never Run Out Of Oil” published in the May 2013 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, science writer Charles C. Mann longs for a world where America is dependent upon authoritarian Third World regimes for its energy needs and where all but the elite (like himself, I suppose) endure lives of deprivation.
A Chicago Area elementary school teacher was suspended for showing his students an assortment of home and garden tools such as a wrench, pliers, and a screwdriver. The educator of endangering his students and charged with possessing, carrying, storing, or using a weapon. But one has to wonder if the teacher is being punished for encouraging young minds towards useful occupations and careers that will liberate these pupils from lives of government dependence.
Unless the organization is in league with the effort on the part of Vatican elites to undermine America, wouldn't the Knights of Columbus' resources be better spent sending books written in English to libraries rather than in Spanish?
Apparently terrorist is one of those jobs Americans won't take that we need to let immigrants into the country for.
Congress is considering a flu tax to be assessed on vaccinations for the infamous respiratory infection. Is this about raising revenue or about down the road castigating and possibly even punishing as tax cheats those refusing to submit to the inoculation?
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson claims that conservatives don't love freedom. Though said primarily in regards to the uprising in Egypt, conservatives aren't the ones seeking to control what Americans can eat or what kinds of light bulbs we can use. Robinson concludes, "These conservatives are arguing that the world's 1.2 billion Muslims cannot be trusted to govern themselves." Where have they proven that they can without the situation degenerating into violence? Don't come crying to conservatives when these revolutionary regimes start to murder gays and deny women basic opportunities.
Obama has warned his daughters that, if they get a tattoo, he and Michelle will get the same tattoo wherever the daughters do and publicize the event on Youtube. The President is to be commended for such an effort at parenting that would prompt his children to carefully contemplate such a life altering decision. But why is it that their bodies aren't their's to do with as they please when it comes to tattoos but apparently are when it comes to abortion?
If gay men are aroused by naked men and a gay athlete is allowed to shower with other male players, why can't heterosexual athletes shower with the female cheerleaders?
Technically, isn't it in our national interest to just let both scumbag sides go at each other in Syria?
What proof is there that NBA player Jason Collins is really gay? How do we not know that this isn't a publicity stunt so that an aging has-been of declining aptitude can make a transition to the lucrative speaking circuit rather than to late-night gas station attendant?
Obama says no one should go bankrupt if they get sick. However, with insurance premiums predicted to rise between 50 to 100%, he apparently has few qualms about bankrupting the healthy.
Redheads aren't especially valued by society. In Britian, it was nearly categorized as one of the conditions over which one could justifiably terminate a pregnancy. So if an NBA player admitted to an overwhelming attraction to redheads, would the media and even the governmental establishment come out applauding the individual for publicly admitting to this quirky affinity?
A marketing email distributed by WorldNetDaily was titled with the following subject line: “Don’t be the only house without a flag this Memorial Day.” So should mass conformity and the herd mentality be the primary motivations Americans hoist these ensigns on patriotic occasions? I enjoy the season between Memorial Day and Independence Day as the time of year that I wear my flag tie collection. However, those choosing not to display the colors, so long as they are not conspicuously going out of their way to draw attention to how anti-American they are, should not be default have the eye of suspicion and interrogation turned upon them.
In response to an inquiry, Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney remarked that the events surrounding Benghazi were a long time ago. Yet we are constantly reminded of the deprivations of slavery and Jim Crow like they were last week.
An associate learned that someone on public assistance got an &36;1800 per month apartment for &36;180. The mother of this state dependent then informed my associate that welfare isn't what it's cracked up to be, lamenting that somehow her progeny actually deserved more than the rent and other assorted assistance she was receiving for no other reason than failing to curb the reproductive impulse. Neither is having nearly one third of your own salary to in part finance lives of such indolence all that it's cracked up to be either.
by Frederick Meekins]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26642013-05-04T14:38:57Z2013-05-04T14:38:57Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2663<![CDATA[Warren Targets Firearms In Wake Of Son's Suicide]]>
However, in searching for someone to blame for the tragedy, will any of the incrimination be placed on the shoulders of himself and his wife?
Perhaps they should have spent more time with their emotionally disturbed son rather than on Africans and AIDS patients.
But then again, taking care of one’s own family doesn’t usually win one many accolades and applause in the corridors of celebrity of religion.
Warren has made an issue that the gun his son used to take his own life was illegally acquired through the Internet.
So are we to assume that everyone is at fault other than the one that actually pulled the trigger?
Had Warren’s son decided to end his life as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning, would the auto manufacturer be at fault?
If a diabetic decides to off themselves as a result of over-consuming sugar, should Willy Wonka be the one brought in for questioning?
Especially in Asia, a number of people have died from severe video game addiction where they play themselves into a terminal exhaustion.
Is that the fault of XBox executives?
By Frederick Meekins]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26632013-04-30T16:57:07Z2013-04-30T16:57:07Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2662<![CDATA[Internet and Sale Taxes Dialectic]]>http://www.batr.org/negotium/050113.html
Before you panic that your online purchases will be tagged with the added cost of state sales tax, rely on the complexity of reporting sales to all the jurisdictions as your prime safeguard from forking over a percentage on every purchase. The Senate bill, Summary: S.336 provides a succinct description of the requirements. For a comprehensive resource on all you want to know about Marketplace Fairness Act Information, check out the details. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte in the article, Online sales tax bill may be dead on arrival in House, identifies concern that the practical difficulties remain with implementation. "I do not believe legislation like the Marketplace Equity Act is sufficiently simplified yet. While it attempts to make tax collection simpler, it still has a long way to go."
An illustration of this worry is evident in the maze of collection for Internet Sales Tax: A 50-State Guide to State Laws.
"If you are selling goods or products online, you need to be aware of Internet sales tax rules. The issue of whether to require online retailers to collect sales tax in states where they have no physical presence has been a matter of significant debate in many states and at the federal level. Some states have enacted legislation that will require large online sellers to collect sales tax. These laws, sometimes referred to as "Amazon laws," have been enacted in a number of states and are being considered in many others."
Up to now, the penalty for circumventing the collection and reporting process seems to be so burdensome that effective enforcement was impractical. The article, Internet Sales Tax: Here Come the Auditors, describes the intended abidance measures in the proposed Marketplace Fairness Act.
"There are more than 9,600 state and local taxing jurisdictions in the U.S., and small businesses would be required to send the appropriate number of tax dollars-state and local-to every one where they sell.
And if the business owner makes a mistake? Or if the state thinks that the business owner makes a mistake? The bill provides for "a single audit of a remote seller for all State and local taxing jurisdictions within that State."
This provision is intended to streamline the process, but it still means every business could face 46 separate audits (from the 45 states that collect sales taxes plus the District of Columbia)."
Now if you are one of those tax objectors that go to great length to evade paying state sales tax, you may applaud the latest effort in Congressional conflict to nix compliance with existing statutes. Hitherto, not everyone shares this disdain. The argument for equity and fairness is made in the essay; Online sales tax bill could crash in House.
"Groups like the National Governors Association have said that states could badly use the roughly &36;23 billion in lost revenue they're currently missing out on, and the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association say the proposal would simply roll back the unfair advantage that online shopping outlets have on brick-and-mortar stores.
The bill, supporters stress, would have no affect on federal revenues, and would simply allow for the collection of sales taxes that consumers already owe but rarely pay."
This reliance on playing the fairness card to extract more revenue by closing the collection and accounting loophole assumes that the consumer is duty bound to just keep paying the burden for ever-expanded government budgets. Completely absent from the debate is whether the existing sale tax rates are excessive to begin with. This dialectic trap has government tax collectors avoiding any reevaluations of the formula for revenue enhancements.
The logical alternative for implementing an internet sale state tax is to reduce the existing individual state sales taxes, on brick-and-mortar businesses, to maintain a revenue neutral offset. States have the ability to impose their own sale tax rates. However, the notion that internet sales receipts need to be taxed to increase the coffers of state treasuries, does nothing to reduce the rate of increases in public budgets, much less reducing expenditures in real dollars.
The potential for such a reasonable approach to fiscal sanity is entirely out of whack, with the nature of political parasites. Tax collection has little fiscal relationship with raising funds to run government. Taxation is primarily about behavior control.
Internet savvy consumers seek competitive products and services online. Their method of unconventional payment presents another issue for the sponsors of this proposed legislation. One example is described in the analysis, What an Internet Sales Tax Could Mean for Your Bitcoin Stash.
"This means that under the Marketplace Fairness Act, some online transactions could conceivably escape the Internet sales tax if bitcoins are the medium of exchange. Here's how. Retailers like Amazon charge sales tax for certain jurisdictions already, based on your shipping address. Bitcoins, however, aren't associated with any address at all-that's the whole point. If you pay for a book in bitcoins but have it shipped to your house, calculating the tax would be easy. But we regularly buy all sorts of digital goods now that don't get shipped anywhere-music and software, to name two examples.
None of this is to suggest that bitcoin-based transactions are or should be exempt from online sales taxes-just that collecting them presents a new challenge. On the one hand, this could play out badly for Bitcoin if the ambiguity discourages retailers from adopting the tender. On the other hand, it also creates the possibility of a loophole. "Oops," the businesses will tell the states. "We can't collect this tax for you because the customer paid in bitcoins and we don't know where he or she lives."
If public consumers and taxpayers accept sale tax as a legitimate structure of payment to their respected state governments, the inclusion of internet sales seems to be a reasonable inclusion. All the same, the federal government has limited jurisdiction into the collection practices of individual states. Allowing careerist politicians and bureaucrats, free reign to add layers of complexity and punitive penalties that tracks personal purchasing patterns is another nail in the coffin of personal privacy. Overall, S.336 is a bad bill.
James Hall – May 1, 2013]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=26622013-04-30T03:35:20Z2013-04-30T03:35:20Zhttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2661<![CDATA[Reflections Regarding The 2013 State Of The Union Address]]>
In regards to climate change, President Obama said, "We choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy...and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence? Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science." Weren't some of history's greatest abridgments of human liberty committed by those wielding government power determining what did and did not constitute legitimate science?
In regards to climate change, President Obama threatened, "Now, the good news is we can make meaningful progress pm this issue while driving strong economic growth....But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions...to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."
In other words, if duly elected representatives of the American people do not present him with what he deems to be acceptable environmental legislation, the President is going to implement what amounts to an environmental dictatorship. That's what you call such wide sweeping action that is not authorized by congressional approval.
Just how far is the President threatening to take this if there is to be no check placed upon his power? For example, what if he decides that the measure necessary to reduce pollution and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy consists of forbidding you to own or operate a motor vehicle that is powered by an internal combustion engine that runs on fossil fuels?
Even more frightening is the phrase in that statement, "prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change." Since America's system of Checks and Balances (and thus the very principles of the Constitution) mean next to nothing to the President in this regard, what if he decides that means forcibly relocating populations living in environmentally strategic or critical areas to designated relocation camps where those overseeing such FEMA detention centers attempt to curtail the contact of the inmates with the outside world. Don't accuse me of having lost it. This actually happened when a relocation center administrator attempted to prevent residents from talking to journalists following Hurricane Katrina.
According to President Obama, China is really "going all in on clean energy" and thus, "so we must." Or, is the People's Republic merely positioning itself in such a way as to dupe us into following suit, instead pursuing an energy policy that meets its needs irrespective of applause and accolades on the world stage?
In pursuit of his call for an environmentalist dictatorship in the 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for the establishment of an Energy Security Trust. The purpose of this is to "drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good."
The observant will note that there is nothing in that statement about improving the mileage of electric vehicles so that you will be able to go beyond a radius of about 50 miles if you want to return home on a single charge in a single day. Neither is much said about the average person being able to afford one of these electrified vehicles.
Social planners of the Obama-supporting variety in fact view the automobile as one of the greatest threats undermining their utopian collectivist vision. For instead of going where you want, these elites prefer you confine yourself to your COMMUNITY where the only commodities available to you will be those deemed "local" to a particular area and your access to them will not be at your convenience but rather according to a centralized time table as epitomized by the public transportation system that will increasingly displace reliance upon the private automobile.
According to Obama, you as an individual are unfit to run your own life and instead you must rely on the government to oversee the priorities of your personal economy. Obama declared, “I’m also issuing a new goal for America. Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next 20 years.”
Once again, the discerning must go back and examine what the President said rather than what we would like to hear.
For starters, just because “he” set a goal, why ought we to care and even more importantly comply. Just because his voice shouts, “ACHTUNG!” does that mean me are required to click our heels and march in unison?
Some will reply, “But what’s so wrong with cutting back so we can save on our energy bills.” Nothing, but that is not what the President said.
Nowhere did the President say that the goals of these efforts are to reduce costs for the average consumer. During his initial campaigns for national elected office, Barack Obama openly and admittedly warned that, under his energy plans, rates would necessarily skyrocket.
And even when Americans prudently decide to conserve energy for whatever their individual motivation, do not assume that the money that they did save will remain in their wallets for very long. For as soon as they surrender to the admonitions on the part of their rulers, these leaders are warning as to the next crisis originating as a result of the masses doing as they are instructed like lemmings over the side of a cliff.
For example, when fuel costs began to rise along with a confluence of other technological developments, a number of motorists switched to more fuel efficient vehicles. However, policy technocrats were not content with this level of conditioning because decreased amounts of fuel consumed resulted in fewer gallons of gas purchased and thus resulting in fewer gas tax dollars collected.
To punish motorists for moving towards more fuel efficient vehicles, statists now intend to impose on top of the tax for each gallon of gas purchased an additional tax upon each mile driven. Such a proposal is actually a greater intrusion into your privacy.
Under a gas tax regimen, motorists are penalized for each gallon of gas that they decide to purchase. However, beyond that, the assessment and the collection of the tax does not care how and when you decide to make use of the gasoline as a motor vehicle propellant.
A mileage tax involves a greater degree of government intrusion. For to asses the tax, it is proposed that a computerized sensor would be attached to your motor vehicle cataloging how many miles that you have driven the vehicle. Given the sophistication of such tracking technology, there is no reason its parameters could not be modified to financially penalize motorists driving into particular areas or at peak hours in a manner similar to the way subway passengers are charged higher rates for utilizing public transportation during rush hour even though that is what they are admonished to do by assorted forms of government propaganda.
It is said that totalitarian regimes are characterized by a cradle to grave mentality where it is argued that government interference at every stage of existence is necessary to forestall the encroaching societal collapse that the government has itself played a considerable role in stoking and fomenting.
In regards to his lavish entitlement programs for the otherwise able-bodied, Obama continued in his oration, "These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, housing --- all these things will help entrepreneurs and small business expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill these jobs.”
However, by that, he does not mean the establishment of an education system that focuses on academic basics such as reading comprehension, scientific skills, and a grounding in America’s constitutional history while cutting down on frivolity such as psychological conditioning and pandering to multiculturalism. Obama clarified, “And that has to start at the earliest possible age. Study after study shows that sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road.”
The President went on to lament how only around a third of four year olds are enrolled in a “high quality” preschool. To correct this situation, Obama proposed making high quality preschool available to every single child in America.
But what if every parent does not want that for their children, instead preferring that the earliest years of their children’s live (and perhaps even beyond that for the families that decide to pursue alternative forms of education) to be shaped by the philosophers and values of the parents rather than by educratic community organizers? What guarantees are there that making preschool available for every child will not translate from Obamaese as compulsory for every child?
Just how early does the government claim to your child begin? For the sake of the COMMUNITY, should a social worker be on hand to whisk children away to be raised in a government facility as soon as infants pop out of the birth canal?
Thanks in part to this President and his spokestramp Sandra Fluke, America is on its way to having not so much a chicken in every pot but rather a government-provided birth control pill in every medicine cabinet. How much longer until the culture is indistinguishable from that described in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" where children are no longer born into the families of loving married couples but rather in factory vats predetermined before birth as to what function they will fulfill in the broader society and where idiotized masses have their critical faculties further anaesthetized by unending rounds of increasingly hedonistic pleasure?
President Obama continued on in the 2013 State of the Union Address, "Let's also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on the path to a good job." He observed that, when a German student graduates, students there already possess the equivalent of an associate's degree. The President stated specifically, "They've been trained for the jobs that are there."
Perhaps Mr. Obama should address if, when they go to school, perhaps the Germans are being schooled in actual academic subjects and not in psychobabble programming the student to despise individual achievement, the free market system, and the fact that their country even exists as is taught in many of America's government schools. Secondly, why bother studying for these "jobs that are there" when there aren't really any jobs there thanks in part to stiffening regulations being imposed by this very President. Why bother committing the complexities of science to mind when the highest you are likely ever going to achieve is to repeat the mantras of "Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart" or "Would you like fries with that?" And this if you rank among the lucky few to even have a job.
However, if you are a run of the mill American, it is likely that the President is not as concerned about your advancement and prosperity as he is about the illegals invading America's shores. On this issue, the President declared, "Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of...immigrants. And right now, leaders from business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities --- they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
From the sound of it, actual Americans are not capable of accomplishing anything if granted the opportunity. If that is the case, and as Obama remarked years ago in a graduation oration that life is not about material success, wouldn't we be doing immigrants a favor for their own long term good if we deny them admission to the United States. After all, according to the President's own logic, won't each generation of these people that reproduce be diluting their "blood and soil" (to use the terminology of one particular brand of socialism) the longer they are in America?
And just because leaders from business, labor, law enforcement and faith communities want increased numbers of immigrants, has anyone stopped to ask what the run of the mill American wants. After all, it will be average Americans who will be forced to shell out additional welfare payments to the new arrivals and whose neighborhoods will decrease in terms of both property values and aesthetic appeal as migrants pile multiple families into single family homes while refusing to abide by traditional standards of cleanliness and upkeep in terms of maintaining their dwellings. However, each of the above special interests often harbor reasons for supporting increased levels of immigration that have nothing whatsoever to do with an altruistic concern for the betterment of the immigrant.
Business has an interest in increased numbers of immigrants in order to depress wages. Furthermore, in some of the proposed reforms, temporary workers will willingly put up with out of fear of being deported, any number of deprivations and abuses the average American up until recently would not have put up with.
Labor is interested in increased immigration hoping that these swarms of transients, barely literate in their native tongue with English comprehension almost nonexistent, will be so overwhelmed by their new surroundings that they will in a docile fashion fill the ranks of union membership while relenting to the decisions made by these thuggish fatcats. In turn, as the union coffers swell, these radical organizations will be able to increase their influence over elections, outrightly buy candidates, and even threaten social upheaval when governments and industry fail to meet an ever increasing list of demands.
It would be interesting to determine in regards to law enforcement if it is the rank and file beat cop or rather those craving higher-level administrative and appointed positions that favor increased levels of immigration and entitlements lavished upon illegals already here. For those seeking advancement will parrot whatever they are told to by their masters in the bureaucracy, elected office, civil rights establishment, and the nefarious shadowy forces manipulating these players in the policy process.
Likewise, it is more than likely high ranking members of the clergy rather than run of the mill mundane pew fillers that want America overrun with foreigners. Though few are willing to admit it, leftists in both the Catholic Church and certain wings of Protestantism (especially the mainline and Emergent Church movement) would like to see nothing better than the diminution of the United States as a global power and the dilution of Americans as a distinct world people.
Some of the most disturbing implications of President Obama's 2013 State Of The Union Address could be found towards the conclusion of his speech in terms of those he planted in the gallery to be applauded as ideal citizens.
Obama began, "We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, she wasn't thinking about how her home was fairing. Her mind was on the twenty precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe."
While her efforts are to be commended, the really interesting aspect of this statement is how it is couched in terms as an attack on private property. But while you aren't to give second thought as to the material components of existence, it seems as if the thoughts of the President and his consort dwell upon the creature comforts to the exclusion of nearly everything else.
On February 12, 2013, the President was lecturing is as to how we are suppose to be so COMMUNITY oriented that, during times of crises, we aren't even suppose to entertain the concern as to whether or not we will even have a place of our own once the flood water subside. However, this public official, who is pretty much assured that he will never have to sleep with one eye open in a FEMA compound or shelter such as the Louisiana Superdome, just two days later was taking his wife out to a &36;900 Valentine dinner.
What American these days can afford a &36;900 Valentine dinner? This is thanks in part to the economy that has continued to decline in large measure as a result of this President's very policies.
But apparently that week it was not enough to blow in one night of eating out on the town more than many of us bring home per pay check each week after taxes. His Highness then went to Florida where he enjoyed a &36;1000 golf lesson with Tiger Woods and his beloved battle ax frittered around the Midwest in large part telling the rest of us what we may and may not eat.
It is not enough that you should be willing to surrender your property without hesitation at the President's command. Apparently you are expected to lay down your life as well.
The President further admonished, "We should follow the example of police officer Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. He fought back...even as he lay bleeding from 12 bullet wounds."
But how does the high and mighty Barack expect us to accomplish this? Gun control proposals such as those favored by the President would contract who may be allowed to possess a firearm and into which venues one may be authorized to take such an implement of personal protection.
In the address, the President shared that this valiant police officer fought back despite twelve bullet wounds. But without his weapon and if he had emulated the tactics we are encouraged to employ when confronting homicidal assailants, do you honestly believe that this police officer would have sustained only twelve bullet wounds? In all likelihood, he would have instead been dead.
It seems that throughout the 2013 State of The Union, the President presented the American people a litany of individuals aspiring to the kinds of values that he upholds. The thing of it is, apparently one of the values is not a critical mind or providing the audience with all of the available facts.
For example, of Desiline Victor, the American people were told the following: "When Desiline arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as the time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. And hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line to support her --- because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read 'I voted'."
Firstly, the President failed to point out that Desline Victor barely speaks a lick of English, having come to America late in life not so much to contribute economically to the nation but rather in all likelihood to suck off the welfare system. Thus, how do we not know that this six hour delay was not in part her own fault probably demanding to be catered to in her own native jibberish?
Secondly, if Desiline Victor likes to draw attention to herself by demanding that the voting experience be conducted in a language other than English, why didn't she stir up a fuss that she was 102 years old? Maybe if she had, a number ahead of her would have graciously allowed her to vote before they did.
This senior citizen (if we must increase the age at which one qualifies for Social Security perhaps we ought to lower the cutoff age after which one no longer qualifies to become a citizen) is being recognized in the annals of Presidential rhetoric as a way to shame vast numbers of American people into complying with any number of bureaucratic policy directives. However, the only people that should be feeling any guilt are those that actually know this woman.
At 102 years of age, if it was known that Desiline Victor possessed enough of what passes as mind in Democratic circles wanted to vote, why didn't someone in her family assist her in obtaining an absentee ballot? After all, I am sure those around here have little problem in beseeching the government for assistance more financial or tangible in nature anyway.
Most of the time, many people are in awe upon hearing of someone that approaches and/or surpasses the centenarian threshold since the vast majority fail to hold on that long. However, perhaps she should not be viewed as so pitiable and thus suitable to be used as a tool by which to shame the rest of us into compliance with whatever tactics the political leadership is attempting to manipulate us.
The President conveys the impression that Desiline Victor had to wait uncomfortably for six hours away from the warmth and comforts of her own home or bed. However, it must be remembered that she was not brought in from an apartment complex or retirement community just down the street from the White House.
For its political purposes, the Obama Administration had this 102 year old woman shipped in from Florida. Such a journey --- irrespective of mode of transportation --- would be taxing on someone half her age or even someone half the age of someone half her age. So if Desiline Victor is able to travel from Florida to DC to be paraded about like some freak show curiosity, then perhaps she is deserving of no more pity than anybody else whose opportunity to vote was delayed by such a temporal interval.
The President uplifting Desiline Victor raises another interesting observation regarding some of the parameters believed to be lurking beneath the surface of the Obamacare program. Suppose for a moment that Desiline Victor was as frail as government propagandists have led the American people into believing. Had Desiline Victor fallen ill as a result of having either waited an exorbitant amount of time to vote or from traveling the hundreds of miles from Florida to the nation’s capital, would the medical bureaucracy put in place by the President and his legislative allies deem her life worth of sustaining or restoring?
If not, what the President is calling for in this example is nothing short of a willingness to die for the political objectives on the part of civilians in circumstances that in no legitimate way can be considered a national emergency. Mind you, this is an individual whose idea of personal sacrifice at this point in his life consists of helicoptering to Camp David for the weekend rather than &36;1000 golf lessons with Tiger Woods or having to eat a pizza other than one deliberately flown in from Chicago.
The purpose of a President's annual address before Congress is to update the federal legislative body and, by extension of broadcast media technology, those tuning in. From the assumptions from which many of Obama's policies are formulated, the United States is edging ever closer to the ledge of that cliff from which the nation will never recover should it go over and ultimately slide off.
by Frederick Meekins]]>falsehttp://forum.batr.net/showthread.php?tid=2661
![[Image: 0eec97254658.jpg]](http://s45.radikal.ru/i108/1305/63/0eec97254658.jpg)