Saturday, September 21, 2013
She was trusted to provide safe passage, but turned out to be a thug.
I
post this because we have to bring back SHAME to those who do wrong.
People know this woman. Know what she did. NOW she must be shamed.
Even if the cops don't throw the book at her, its time for those around
her to call her what she is... a thief. IF we all did this with the
miscreants among us there would be fewer miscreants.
Back away from the crack pipe... back away
A man obviously drunk or stoned speaking on the debt ceiling issue:
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
He went on to suggest that “the average person” mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:
“It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the — taking the vote.”
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
He went on to suggest that “the average person” mistakenly thinks that raising the debt ceiling means the U.S. is racking up more debt:
“It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the — taking the vote.”
Friday, September 20, 2013
Why did Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis create a website called “Mohammed Salem”?
Are we allowed to ask why this mass-murderer would’ve created a site called “Mohammed Salem”? Was he a fan of Emirati soccer player Mohammed Salem Saleh Al Saadi? Did he appreciate the work of Palestinian photojournalist Mohammed Salem, or the Dubai news anchor with the same name? Or perhaps one of the other Mohammed Salems out there in the world?
That must be it. It couldn’t have anything to do with Alexis’ own religious beliefs, because by now everybody knows he was a Buddhist. So it’s safe to assume that this whole “shooting” was a false flag operation by teabaggers who hate Obama because he’s black. They framed yet another innocent African-American and killed him for no reason. (sarcasm)
Why did Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis create a website called “Mohammed Salem”?
That must be it. It couldn’t have anything to do with Alexis’ own religious beliefs, because by now everybody knows he was a Buddhist. So it’s safe to assume that this whole “shooting” was a false flag operation by teabaggers who hate Obama because he’s black. They framed yet another innocent African-American and killed him for no reason. (sarcasm)
Why did Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis create a website called “Mohammed Salem”?
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Sunday, September 15, 2013
I believe that starting your own business (if you have the temperament for it) is the best way out of poverty.
The JOBS mentality is a four letter
word. There are ways to make it without looking to someone else to
pimp your skills and ability for a profit. NOT EVERYONE can do this,
but more can than currently do and the world is clamoring for people who
can do it on their own. IF you have a WSJ
subscription this is worth reading for the comments alone. I don't
know if Mr Aulet has ever started or run a business. I have formed
several corporations, made profit, sold them, some failed, some did just
OK but on balance has provided a good living. Most people don't know
how important FAILURE is. You must be prepared to flop and then get
back up again or you will never make it. Fear of Failure is the biggest
obstacle to success. This much I know for sure, those who have never
even run a lemonade stand can never succeed in business. From the
comment section, I agree with this:
Teaching entrepreneurship is like teaching fishing. You can read up on it, but the only way you're going to learn it is to DO it.
There are three things necessary to catch fish:
1. This fish gotta be there
2. They gotta be hungry
3. You gotta have your pole in the water
#3 is the most essential. You don't catch fish under any circumstances unless you're fishing.
That's pretty much the way business operates: the customers have to be there, they have to want the product or service, and you have to be there dangling the bait in front of their eyes and waiting for them to bite.
FROM TODAY'S WSJ
Teaching Entrepreneurship Is in the Start-up Phase
Students are clamoring for instruction, but it's hard. There are no algorithms for success.
By BILL AULET
Forget medical school or law school. These days, record numbers of high-school and college students say they aspire to be entrepreneurs. At Yale University, for example, over 20% of the undergraduates indicate that they are interested in pursuing entrepreneurship as a career. Compare that with 1980, the year I graduated from Harvard. I didn't know what the word "entrepreneur" meant—and neither did any of my friends.
There is good reason for this trend. Traditional career paths no longer offer the security they once seemed to guarantee, and startups promise young people independence, control and the possibility of making good money.
As head of the Martin Trust Center for MIT MITD +1.92% Entrepreneurship, I welcome this enthusiasm. But my excitement is tempered by the reality that meeting the expanding demand with quality educational offerings will be a significant challenge.
Teaching entrepreneurship well is really hard. I know this because when I first started teaching, I did a terrible job. As a former professional basketball player and an experienced entrepreneur, I fell back on convenient sports analogies: Work hard, be smart, stay up later, get up earlier. Be prepared. I chose success, and you should too! My lectures got high ratings from students, so I assumed they were effective.
I was wrong. Teaching entrepreneurship is difficult because the subject itself is idiosyncratic, contextual and experiential. Unlike chemistry, math or computer programming, there are no definite answers in the startup world. By definition, entrepreneurs are doing the unknown and the untried, so there are no algorithms for success.
Making matters worse, there is a limited amount of scholarship and data that exists on what makes startups succeed or fail. As a result, the intellectual and scholarly vacuum is often filled by anecdotes. We've all listened to a version of "it all started in the garage with $20." Entrepreneurs are prone to mythologizing the early days of their businesses, yet these stories mislead those who aspire to follow in their footsteps.
Yes, entrepreneurs need the can-do spirit that makes them believe they can build a successful company out of a proverbial garage. But to succeed, they also need excellent execution skills.
These skills can be taught. I've witnessed this at MIT. Companies such as Hubspot, a marketing software company that employs hundreds and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars was born in our classrooms.
While entrepreneurship will never be fully like law, medicine or accounting, colleges need to start thinking of entrepreneurship as a discipline that demands similar academic rigor. At MIT, we admit students with a passion for building companies; often they have a particular idea they want to pursue. We bring in real entrepreneurs who talk about how to meet a payroll, for instance, and academics who make sure lessons are statistically valid.
The combination is the key. By the time our students graduate, they should know to build a successful team and bring breakthrough products to market.
As the Kauffman Foundation has documented, the majority of jobs that are created these days come from startups. These companies are the country's economic lifeblood and often address problems in critical areas like the environment, health care and education. The entrepreneurs who devote their working lives to creating these companies deserve more than what they seem to get from paying $50,000—and often much more—for a degree.
So here is one pep talk I stand by: Schools like MIT must do a better job of teaching entrepreneurship. While we professors should encourage the spirit of a pirate in our students, we need also to focus on teaching the execution skills of a Navy SEAL. Our approach must be scalable to meet the surging demand.
If we don't, and students go out into the world lacking the entrepreneurial skills they need, at some point there will be a backlash against entrepreneurship as an educational discipline and even as a pursuit in life. Such a setback is one that the U.S. economy can ill afford.
Mr. Aulet's book, "Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup," was just published by Wiley.
Teaching entrepreneurship is like teaching fishing. You can read up on it, but the only way you're going to learn it is to DO it.
There are three things necessary to catch fish:
1. This fish gotta be there
2. They gotta be hungry
3. You gotta have your pole in the water
#3 is the most essential. You don't catch fish under any circumstances unless you're fishing.
That's pretty much the way business operates: the customers have to be there, they have to want the product or service, and you have to be there dangling the bait in front of their eyes and waiting for them to bite.
FROM TODAY'S WSJ
Teaching Entrepreneurship Is in the Start-up Phase
Students are clamoring for instruction, but it's hard. There are no algorithms for success.
By BILL AULET
Forget medical school or law school. These days, record numbers of high-school and college students say they aspire to be entrepreneurs. At Yale University, for example, over 20% of the undergraduates indicate that they are interested in pursuing entrepreneurship as a career. Compare that with 1980, the year I graduated from Harvard. I didn't know what the word "entrepreneur" meant—and neither did any of my friends.
There is good reason for this trend. Traditional career paths no longer offer the security they once seemed to guarantee, and startups promise young people independence, control and the possibility of making good money.
As head of the Martin Trust Center for MIT MITD +1.92% Entrepreneurship, I welcome this enthusiasm. But my excitement is tempered by the reality that meeting the expanding demand with quality educational offerings will be a significant challenge.
Teaching entrepreneurship well is really hard. I know this because when I first started teaching, I did a terrible job. As a former professional basketball player and an experienced entrepreneur, I fell back on convenient sports analogies: Work hard, be smart, stay up later, get up earlier. Be prepared. I chose success, and you should too! My lectures got high ratings from students, so I assumed they were effective.
I was wrong. Teaching entrepreneurship is difficult because the subject itself is idiosyncratic, contextual and experiential. Unlike chemistry, math or computer programming, there are no definite answers in the startup world. By definition, entrepreneurs are doing the unknown and the untried, so there are no algorithms for success.
Making matters worse, there is a limited amount of scholarship and data that exists on what makes startups succeed or fail. As a result, the intellectual and scholarly vacuum is often filled by anecdotes. We've all listened to a version of "it all started in the garage with $20." Entrepreneurs are prone to mythologizing the early days of their businesses, yet these stories mislead those who aspire to follow in their footsteps.
Yes, entrepreneurs need the can-do spirit that makes them believe they can build a successful company out of a proverbial garage. But to succeed, they also need excellent execution skills.
These skills can be taught. I've witnessed this at MIT. Companies such as Hubspot, a marketing software company that employs hundreds and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars was born in our classrooms.
While entrepreneurship will never be fully like law, medicine or accounting, colleges need to start thinking of entrepreneurship as a discipline that demands similar academic rigor. At MIT, we admit students with a passion for building companies; often they have a particular idea they want to pursue. We bring in real entrepreneurs who talk about how to meet a payroll, for instance, and academics who make sure lessons are statistically valid.
The combination is the key. By the time our students graduate, they should know to build a successful team and bring breakthrough products to market.
As the Kauffman Foundation has documented, the majority of jobs that are created these days come from startups. These companies are the country's economic lifeblood and often address problems in critical areas like the environment, health care and education. The entrepreneurs who devote their working lives to creating these companies deserve more than what they seem to get from paying $50,000—and often much more—for a degree.
So here is one pep talk I stand by: Schools like MIT must do a better job of teaching entrepreneurship. While we professors should encourage the spirit of a pirate in our students, we need also to focus on teaching the execution skills of a Navy SEAL. Our approach must be scalable to meet the surging demand.
If we don't, and students go out into the world lacking the entrepreneurial skills they need, at some point there will be a backlash against entrepreneurship as an educational discipline and even as a pursuit in life. Such a setback is one that the U.S. economy can ill afford.
Mr. Aulet's book, "Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup," was just published by Wiley.
Crooks in Sheeps Clothing
Eric
E. Whitaker, Obama's close friend and Jeri L. Wright, daughter of
President Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright have been embezzling
money from what was supposed to be Charities and Grants to help poor
people. I know when big shot Wall
Street executives do it, it's just as evil, but when you stand up and
say, "Its for the Children or this is to help the poor" and you steal
the money to live large (see Jesse Jackson Jr) that seems particularly
egregious. At least when Wall Street Steals, they do it honestly... no
pretense of helping anyone. SMH
This interactive map shows how the money in the USA has moved because of bad politics, bad tax burden, poor economic strategy and just plain safety.
It has fled states like CA, IL, MI, OH, NY, NJ. Two TRILLION dollars
in the last ten years. When a tax base
gets too small, taxes go up and the money flight goes faster. This is
NOT good news for states like MI and IL. When Money flows OUT Jobs dry
up. How you vote tells your leaders how to govern. Voting is WRONG
today. Fiscal and social conservatism attracts money, liberalism drives
it away. Class dismissed
Explore the Data
www.howmoneywalks.com
How
Money Walks maps this great migration of American income and raises
important questions about American tax policy and how it profoundly
affects growth and development in our country. Why did so
Answering machine message,
"I am not available right now,
but thank you for caring enough to call.
I am making some changes in my life.
Please leave a message after the beep.
If I do not return your call,
you are one of the changes."
I didn't write this, but I wish I had. This is about the war on Christianity being waged in our government and military. Corruptions starts at the head:
In 1954, the American Legion sponsored a series of network television broadcasts called "Back to God." On one of those national telecasts, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appeared from the White House. He thanked the American Legion for urging Americans to acknowledge God in their daily lives.
Then the President said, "As a former soldier, I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they (the veterans) learned a great truth, that there are no atheists in the foxholes."
Can you imagine this happening today?
The President humbly referred to himself as "a former soldier." In truth, he was one of only five Americans to earn the rank of five-star general. He was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe in World War II. He and General George Washington are undeniably the most widely admired soldiers in American history.
Fast forward to 2013. An Air Force chaplain at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska, wrote a column for the base website. Keep in mind that Lt. Col. Reyes is a chaplain. He titled his column: "No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II."
His look back at the contributions and sacrifices of chaplains on the battlefields of World War II quoted one of America's most beloved soldiers and Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower. Now, that sounds like pretty safe territory for a military chaplain to tread, doesn't it? An officer whose job is to provide spiritual comfort and guidance to his troops remembering the sacrifices of other officers who provided spiritual comfort and guidance to their troops on the battlefield? And basing it on a quote from one of America's greatest soldiers and Presidents?
Wrong.
Folks, this ain't 1954 and that ain't your Daddy's Oldsmobile!
Chaplain Reyes was reprimanded for the column and his base commander publicly apologized for not stopping him from discussing religious subjects on the base website. What was the chaplain expected to discuss? Automotive repair tips?
So what has changed since 1954? Lots of things, obviously, but two stand out: 1. These are the last days. 2. Mikey Weinstein.
You probably remember Mr. Weinstein from previous programs. He heads the benignly and misleadingly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation or MRFF. (A more appropriate name would be the Military Freedom FROM Religion Foundation.)
The MRFF protested the chaplain's column and within five hours it had been removed from Elmendorf's website.
Apparently no place or venue is safe from Mr. Weinstein's near-omnipresent gaze. He's the guy who publicly called a Christian service member sharing his or her faith "spiritual rape." He has labeled Christians "monsters," "terrorists," and "enemies of the Constitution."
Who cares, you say? He sounds like a nut! Well, I agree, but President Obama doesn't. In fact, Weinstein has become the Administration's go-to guy on topics of "religious tolerance" in the U.S. military. Which sounds about par for the course these days -- pick someone who has NO religious tolerance to advise the brass on religious tolerance.
Just a few short decades ago, our national leaders actually promoted faith in God and the inclusion of God in the life and fabric of the nation. You see, they faced the specter of an opposing world superpower who sought to eliminate God and vest His authority in the State.
They understood that America's strength lay in her citizens' belief in and obeisance to an authority higher than man-made government: the Divine Creator. That freed us from the doubt and indecision and fear that pervades when the conduct of our lives is determined solely by whoever is in power at the moment.
It's a short and undeniable principle: Man changes. God doesn't. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to figure which of the two will provide a more stable national environment.
On August 21, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sat together, with hundreds of sailors and marines, at a church service aboard the HMS Prince of Wales in a harbor on the coast of Newfoundland. They sang the hymns of the church and drank in the strength provided by a mutual spiritual heritage and faith in a common God.
Later, Roosevelt told his son that the service "cemented us" for the dark days of World War II that lay ahead. Churchill wept during "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and later remarked that, "Every word seemed to stir the heart. It was a great hour to live."
It brings tears to my eyes just writing these words. My friends, that is a world that is long past.
In Britain today, fewer than 10% attend religious services, and a majority of those are Muslim. Now, the number one choice for a baby's name in the UK is "Mohammed."
In Luke 18:8, Jesus Himself asked this question: "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" Some studies show that atheism will replace "religion" as the dominant spiritual practice by 2041.
I personally don't worry too much about atheism because every man and woman has an innate awareness of God. But I do worry about the church. Will we become so desperate to attract people to our pews that we'll modify and water down the message of the Gospel? Perfect examples of this are the liberal denominations that have become like empty sepulchers. And now it's happening in many evangelical mega-churches.
At the rate we're going, and if the President and his party get their way, I'm not certain Jesus will find faith in the military when He returns. Likewise, I doubt He'll find faith in the ranks of academia or even in the lower echelons of our educational system. It appears that faith is in achingly short supply in the entertainment business already. Government, at least on the federal level, has already declared its independence from faith and conscience. Many believe that business, especially Big Business, turned its back on God long ago and worships only at the altar of the dollar.
So where will Jesus look for faith when He returns? In your heart and mine. That's why, no matter what happens in the world around us (and it's happening fast and furiously), stand confidently on the firm foundation of God's immutable promises to us. "Then after the battle you will still be standing firm." (Ephesians 6:13, NLT)
How to get a job in a jobless economy:
There has been a major shift that has taken place. Much of it having to do with government interference and of late, Obamacare. For an employer it has become almost impossible to make sense out of hiring anyone full time for any job (other than at the very top). There is nearly a third added overhead in employing someone full time. To pay someone $10 per hour now costs $15 and getting more expensive.
Hence, except at very large corporations (McDonalds and WalMart), the job that pays a decent wage at the low end of the scale is gone.
There is however a strategy that works. One I became aware of 2 years ago. One I now use. As an employer I can hire people to work as contractors for me. The independent contractor thing worked pretty well up till a few years ago... then once more the heavy boot of government came down upon us all. That door closed. The result was that people lost their jobs. Whatever government touches, it destroys.
The new strategy is this: Figure out what you know how to do, skill wise. Something that someone would pay you to do. Something that has value. Something that is worthwhile for someone to pay you for. Form a small corporation with what you do as a name. IE Cleanwindow llc. You become the only stockholder, the only participant. You present yourself to people willing to pay you for the service you provide. NOW you can work as many hours as they want to pay you for. You bill them as a corporation. You indemnify them from all otherwise claims. They have no risk in hiring you. It is purely arms length. You become the ultimate independent contractor. Government would be hard pressed to challenge you or your (employer) client on this arrangement.
I know several people who have created exactly this arrangement and who have created a very effective firewall against the IRS and all the government interference. It is becoming a standard practice in many fields. Sales, Software Development, Skilled Contracting, Project Management, Technical Services and other things that can be presented as part of the array of talent needed to run a company.
Informally you are an employee. Formally you are a corporation supplying another corporation services (without the overhead).
I know this seems like a lot of fiddling around, but the barriers erected by government to hiring have become so high we no longer can operate in this economy. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing. This is the insatiable voracious appetite of an out of control congress, senate and executive branch to suck the money out needed to keep the machine going.
What you would be doing is guerrilla warfare... but it's essential.
Survival is all you have.
Hence, except at very large corporations (McDonalds and WalMart), the job that pays a decent wage at the low end of the scale is gone.
There is however a strategy that works. One I became aware of 2 years ago. One I now use. As an employer I can hire people to work as contractors for me. The independent contractor thing worked pretty well up till a few years ago... then once more the heavy boot of government came down upon us all. That door closed. The result was that people lost their jobs. Whatever government touches, it destroys.
The new strategy is this: Figure out what you know how to do, skill wise. Something that someone would pay you to do. Something that has value. Something that is worthwhile for someone to pay you for. Form a small corporation with what you do as a name. IE Cleanwindow llc. You become the only stockholder, the only participant. You present yourself to people willing to pay you for the service you provide. NOW you can work as many hours as they want to pay you for. You bill them as a corporation. You indemnify them from all otherwise claims. They have no risk in hiring you. It is purely arms length. You become the ultimate independent contractor. Government would be hard pressed to challenge you or your (employer) client on this arrangement.
I know several people who have created exactly this arrangement and who have created a very effective firewall against the IRS and all the government interference. It is becoming a standard practice in many fields. Sales, Software Development, Skilled Contracting, Project Management, Technical Services and other things that can be presented as part of the array of talent needed to run a company.
Informally you are an employee. Formally you are a corporation supplying another corporation services (without the overhead).
I know this seems like a lot of fiddling around, but the barriers erected by government to hiring have become so high we no longer can operate in this economy. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing. This is the insatiable voracious appetite of an out of control congress, senate and executive branch to suck the money out needed to keep the machine going.
What you would be doing is guerrilla warfare... but it's essential.
Survival is all you have.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
The next socialist push
In
case anyone wonders what the next great round of socialism will be, I
have a prediction, prophecy or political observation: We have come to
the point where the financial markets, the auto industry and eventually
the health care industry will function under the aegis of the federal
government. It's clear from Obama's campaign rhetoric what will come
next -- America's public education system.
Candidate Obama's language about reforming public education was more emphatic and detailed than his discussion of health care. And, making a case for nationalizing public education will attract broader support than the three previous venues (banking, autos, and health care).
President Obama will proclaim public education K-12 as too crucial to the future of the nation to be left in the hands of volunteer citizen committees, also known as School Boards and Independent School Districts. And, the distribution of school financing is, Obama will say, too dependent on the varying affluence levels among the states, and within their divergent communities. All of America's youth are entitled to an equal opportunity to receive a world class education. Anything less is unfair. Equal opportunity demands equal funding.
IF you wonder why public education is failing, it's by design so the socialists can get control of it and indoctrinate YOUR CHILDREN. The only cure is to fight hard to abolish public education, all of it, and replace it with a private driven by voucher system. We spend more on education than anyone on the planet per child and get much less for it. This must stop. At $12,000 average across the board for all education, private funded by vouchers solves all the problems. Not some socialist liberal madrassa that teaches kids proper condom use and ecology over English. Look at Common Core. It's uncommonly corrupting.
Candidate Obama's language about reforming public education was more emphatic and detailed than his discussion of health care. And, making a case for nationalizing public education will attract broader support than the three previous venues (banking, autos, and health care).
President Obama will proclaim public education K-12 as too crucial to the future of the nation to be left in the hands of volunteer citizen committees, also known as School Boards and Independent School Districts. And, the distribution of school financing is, Obama will say, too dependent on the varying affluence levels among the states, and within their divergent communities. All of America's youth are entitled to an equal opportunity to receive a world class education. Anything less is unfair. Equal opportunity demands equal funding.
IF you wonder why public education is failing, it's by design so the socialists can get control of it and indoctrinate YOUR CHILDREN. The only cure is to fight hard to abolish public education, all of it, and replace it with a private driven by voucher system. We spend more on education than anyone on the planet per child and get much less for it. This must stop. At $12,000 average across the board for all education, private funded by vouchers solves all the problems. Not some socialist liberal madrassa that teaches kids proper condom use and ecology over English. Look at Common Core. It's uncommonly corrupting.
I heard this on classical radio.
Yes, I do enjoy the Genre. In any case
not all Muslims and not all of those from Palestine are barbarians.
This is the Palestine Strings. It's pretty wonderful stuff. A bit
long, but you can scroll into any of it and enjoy. OR just let it run.
Vivaldi. How can you go wrong?
IF we could just get the government off it's back, the economy could recover.
Our political leadership from the President on down has no
understanding of macroeconomics at all. Product of of bad education.
So we drift into further decline with no
one at the helm. Kinda like our foreign policy. Bank bailouts and car
company bailouts and fake bankruptcies and union bolstering has almost
killed us. Our economy is now as bad as the 1930s in many ways. I
can't take any more hopy-changy.
Rand Paul On The War Path
Once dismissed by the GOP establishment as a gadfly, Paul is starting to look a lot like the leader of his party — and his enemies are panicking.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul was in the middle of one of his trademark takedowns of the “right-wing hawks” in his party who “have never met a war they didn’t want to get involved in,” when he suddenly paused and began grinning.
“There was a funny article the other day in Mother Jones — did you see it? About one of my colleagues?” he asked.
He was trying to do the polite, senatorial thing by not mentioning his “colleague” by name. But when his vague prompt was met with a blank look during an interview with BuzzFeed, he scrapped the pretense of diplomacy and charged forward.
“It ranked the different countries on how eager Sen. [John] McCain wanted to be involved [militarily],” he explained, not even attempting to contain his amusement. “So, like, for getting involved in Syria, there’s five Angry McCains. For getting involved in the Sudan, there’s two Angry McCains. And there’s a little picture of him. You know, he was for getting involved to support [former Libyan president Muammar] Gaddafi before he was for overthrowing Gaddafi. He was for supporting [former Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak before he was for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood before he was for supporting the generals.”
Not long ago, the Washington grown-ups who run the Republican Party would have dismissed the junior senator from Kentucky making cracks about an establishment pillar like McCain as little more than the goading of a gadfly. But over the past two weeks, it has become clear that Paul’s brand of Republicanism has spread deeply within his party. He successfully rallied a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers against a military intervention in Syria; thoroughly embarrassed Republican leaders who supported the air strikes; and temporarily elevated himself to the role of de facto foreign policy spokesman for the GOP. When President Obama took his case for war to the American people in a primetime address this week, it was Paul who delivered the unofficial Republican counterargument in a series of interviews and a widely covered speech.
Paul, in short, is winning. The Syria debate marked the first time since House Republicans tried to keep America out of the Kosovo conflict in 1999 that a libertarian approach to foreign policy seriously challenged the GOP’s old-guard caucus of hawks. And this time, the libertarians came out on top. In this context, his McCain mocking didn’t come off as mischievously trolling for a couple headlines — it seemed a little like punching down.
Don’t expect Paul to stop swinging. The plainly ambitious libertarian and prospective 2016 presidential candidate has big plans for his party and his country — plans that will require winning a lot of arguments, defeating a lot of opponents, and effectively conquering a GOP establishment that often treats him like a tumor that needs to be surgically removed. He is always on offense: Over the course of his 20-minute interview with BuzzFeed, he took swipes — with varying degrees of force — at Bill Kristol, Samantha Power, Chris Christie, President Obama, President Bush, Cory Booker, humanitarian interventionists, and pro-war Christians (to name a few).
One of his favorite targets — and the one that most delights the political press — is the Bush-era army of neoconservative Republicans who championed the Patriot Act and led the U.S. into war with Iraq. (Paul believes the U.S. should only use military force when the country’s national security is directly at risk.)
“So many of the neocons in our party, they think they’re the great defenders of the military. They think, Oh, the soldiers must love me because I want to be involved in war,” Paul said, before criticizing the assumption that members of the military are eager to fight. “They will, they volunteered, and they’re the most patriotic of our young people. But they’re not excited about war. They want to go to war if it’s the thing they have to do to defend our country.”
When asked about the misguided prediction Kristol made earlier this month that only five Senate Republicans would side with Paul in opposing the Syria strikes, the senator interjected to ask, “You saw my response to him?” (Paul had challenged his neoconservative nemesis to visit a military base and talk to GIs before assuming popular opinion was on his side.) Satisfied that his jab had properly penetrated the media sphere, he proceeded to lay out where he believed the votes stood in the Senate. His estimate that 20 or 25 Republicans would vote no was probably modest: The latest unofficial count suggests the number could top 30.
It would be easy to mistake Paul’s successes this year — from his campaign against the Syria intervention to his attention-grabbing filibuster against U.S. drone use to the public backlash against the types of domestic surveillance programs he’d been warning about for years — as some sort of permanent sea change in American politics.
Paul knows better. He acknowledges that his ideas have benefited from “a degree of partisanship” on the right. Republicans, after all, might not be quite so skeptical of executive power, or outspoken against the ever-expanding surveillance state, once one of their own is in the Oval Office. What’s more, he spent enough time watching the GOP ignore, then laugh at, then co-opt, then abandon his father’s libertarian platform to recognize the fickleness that can define political parties.
But he is also adamant that his agenda’s growing popularity is a product of the times: “There’s a big transition in the Republican Party, but also in the public. People are right about the public being war-weary. They’re right.”
Meanwhile, his recognition that the fight is nowhere near won seems to fuel his apparently endless appetite for political combat.
Paul often aims at the president, using his nonstandard political philosophy to find fresh critiques of the administration. He laid into the “Samantha Powers of the world” who foolishly want to “send troops to feed people” in remote countries all over the world. And he called out Obama himself, whose rationale for putting armed forces at risk in Syria he finds indefensible.
“The other day, when [the president] came to lunch, [he said] that we’re not facing very many direct threats in this world to the United States… and so you’re going to have to be involved in much more ambiguous situations,” Paul recalled. “I’m guessing he wouldn’t use that term in public but that’s the term he used with us.”
Paul also finds plenty to dislike in his own party’s approach to beating the war drum — particularly the theological overtones of the Bush years. In a strikingly candid speech last year at the Value Voters Summit, Paul, a Presbyterian, cited his religious beliefs while declaring, “I’m not a pacifist. But I do think it unacceptable not to hate war.”
He elaborated to BuzzFeed: “I think some within the Christian community are such great defenders of the promised land and the chosen people that they think war is always the answer, maybe even preemptive war. And I think it’s hard to square the idea of a preemptive war and, to me, that over-eagerness [to go to] war, with Christianity.”
In the world of politics, though, Paul seems preternaturally comfortable at war. One particularly instructive example is his feud with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Earlier this summer, Christie accused the libertarian of prioritizing “esoteric, intellectual debates” over national security — a harsh attack that seemed to come out of nowhere. Though Paul didn’t instigate the spat, he happily stretched it out over several days, answering every interviewer’s question about his aggressor, and memorably referring to the governor at one point as “the king of bacon.” The fight fizzled when Paul invited Christie for a beer (he declined), but he has never quite let it go.
When BuzzFeed asked him this week whether he was surprised Christie didn’t engage the Syria debate more directly by staking out a position, Paul paused for a beat before offering a cutting response.
“I guess I didn’t really notice or think about it that much,” he said.
Once dismissed by the GOP establishment as a gadfly, Paul is starting to look a lot like the leader of his party — and his enemies are panicking.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul was in the middle of one of his trademark takedowns of the “right-wing hawks” in his party who “have never met a war they didn’t want to get involved in,” when he suddenly paused and began grinning.
“There was a funny article the other day in Mother Jones — did you see it? About one of my colleagues?” he asked.
He was trying to do the polite, senatorial thing by not mentioning his “colleague” by name. But when his vague prompt was met with a blank look during an interview with BuzzFeed, he scrapped the pretense of diplomacy and charged forward.
“It ranked the different countries on how eager Sen. [John] McCain wanted to be involved [militarily],” he explained, not even attempting to contain his amusement. “So, like, for getting involved in Syria, there’s five Angry McCains. For getting involved in the Sudan, there’s two Angry McCains. And there’s a little picture of him. You know, he was for getting involved to support [former Libyan president Muammar] Gaddafi before he was for overthrowing Gaddafi. He was for supporting [former Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak before he was for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood before he was for supporting the generals.”
Not long ago, the Washington grown-ups who run the Republican Party would have dismissed the junior senator from Kentucky making cracks about an establishment pillar like McCain as little more than the goading of a gadfly. But over the past two weeks, it has become clear that Paul’s brand of Republicanism has spread deeply within his party. He successfully rallied a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers against a military intervention in Syria; thoroughly embarrassed Republican leaders who supported the air strikes; and temporarily elevated himself to the role of de facto foreign policy spokesman for the GOP. When President Obama took his case for war to the American people in a primetime address this week, it was Paul who delivered the unofficial Republican counterargument in a series of interviews and a widely covered speech.
Paul, in short, is winning. The Syria debate marked the first time since House Republicans tried to keep America out of the Kosovo conflict in 1999 that a libertarian approach to foreign policy seriously challenged the GOP’s old-guard caucus of hawks. And this time, the libertarians came out on top. In this context, his McCain mocking didn’t come off as mischievously trolling for a couple headlines — it seemed a little like punching down.
Don’t expect Paul to stop swinging. The plainly ambitious libertarian and prospective 2016 presidential candidate has big plans for his party and his country — plans that will require winning a lot of arguments, defeating a lot of opponents, and effectively conquering a GOP establishment that often treats him like a tumor that needs to be surgically removed. He is always on offense: Over the course of his 20-minute interview with BuzzFeed, he took swipes — with varying degrees of force — at Bill Kristol, Samantha Power, Chris Christie, President Obama, President Bush, Cory Booker, humanitarian interventionists, and pro-war Christians (to name a few).
One of his favorite targets — and the one that most delights the political press — is the Bush-era army of neoconservative Republicans who championed the Patriot Act and led the U.S. into war with Iraq. (Paul believes the U.S. should only use military force when the country’s national security is directly at risk.)
“So many of the neocons in our party, they think they’re the great defenders of the military. They think, Oh, the soldiers must love me because I want to be involved in war,” Paul said, before criticizing the assumption that members of the military are eager to fight. “They will, they volunteered, and they’re the most patriotic of our young people. But they’re not excited about war. They want to go to war if it’s the thing they have to do to defend our country.”
When asked about the misguided prediction Kristol made earlier this month that only five Senate Republicans would side with Paul in opposing the Syria strikes, the senator interjected to ask, “You saw my response to him?” (Paul had challenged his neoconservative nemesis to visit a military base and talk to GIs before assuming popular opinion was on his side.) Satisfied that his jab had properly penetrated the media sphere, he proceeded to lay out where he believed the votes stood in the Senate. His estimate that 20 or 25 Republicans would vote no was probably modest: The latest unofficial count suggests the number could top 30.
It would be easy to mistake Paul’s successes this year — from his campaign against the Syria intervention to his attention-grabbing filibuster against U.S. drone use to the public backlash against the types of domestic surveillance programs he’d been warning about for years — as some sort of permanent sea change in American politics.
Paul knows better. He acknowledges that his ideas have benefited from “a degree of partisanship” on the right. Republicans, after all, might not be quite so skeptical of executive power, or outspoken against the ever-expanding surveillance state, once one of their own is in the Oval Office. What’s more, he spent enough time watching the GOP ignore, then laugh at, then co-opt, then abandon his father’s libertarian platform to recognize the fickleness that can define political parties.
But he is also adamant that his agenda’s growing popularity is a product of the times: “There’s a big transition in the Republican Party, but also in the public. People are right about the public being war-weary. They’re right.”
Meanwhile, his recognition that the fight is nowhere near won seems to fuel his apparently endless appetite for political combat.
Paul often aims at the president, using his nonstandard political philosophy to find fresh critiques of the administration. He laid into the “Samantha Powers of the world” who foolishly want to “send troops to feed people” in remote countries all over the world. And he called out Obama himself, whose rationale for putting armed forces at risk in Syria he finds indefensible.
“The other day, when [the president] came to lunch, [he said] that we’re not facing very many direct threats in this world to the United States… and so you’re going to have to be involved in much more ambiguous situations,” Paul recalled. “I’m guessing he wouldn’t use that term in public but that’s the term he used with us.”
Paul also finds plenty to dislike in his own party’s approach to beating the war drum — particularly the theological overtones of the Bush years. In a strikingly candid speech last year at the Value Voters Summit, Paul, a Presbyterian, cited his religious beliefs while declaring, “I’m not a pacifist. But I do think it unacceptable not to hate war.”
He elaborated to BuzzFeed: “I think some within the Christian community are such great defenders of the promised land and the chosen people that they think war is always the answer, maybe even preemptive war. And I think it’s hard to square the idea of a preemptive war and, to me, that over-eagerness [to go to] war, with Christianity.”
In the world of politics, though, Paul seems preternaturally comfortable at war. One particularly instructive example is his feud with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Earlier this summer, Christie accused the libertarian of prioritizing “esoteric, intellectual debates” over national security — a harsh attack that seemed to come out of nowhere. Though Paul didn’t instigate the spat, he happily stretched it out over several days, answering every interviewer’s question about his aggressor, and memorably referring to the governor at one point as “the king of bacon.” The fight fizzled when Paul invited Christie for a beer (he declined), but he has never quite let it go.
When BuzzFeed asked him this week whether he was surprised Christie didn’t engage the Syria debate more directly by staking out a position, Paul paused for a beat before offering a cutting response.
“I guess I didn’t really notice or think about it that much,” he said.
![Photo: Rand Paul On The War Path
Once dismissed by the GOP establishment as a gadfly, Paul is starting to look a lot like the leader of his party — and his enemies are panicking.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul was in the middle of one of his trademark takedowns of the “right-wing hawks” in his party who “have never met a war they didn’t want to get involved in,” when he suddenly paused and began grinning.
“There was a funny article the other day in Mother Jones — did you see it? About one of my colleagues?” he asked.
He was trying to do the polite, senatorial thing by not mentioning his “colleague” by name. But when his vague prompt was met with a blank look during an interview with BuzzFeed, he scrapped the pretense of diplomacy and charged forward.
“It ranked the different countries on how eager Sen. [John] McCain wanted to be involved [militarily],” he explained, not even attempting to contain his amusement. “So, like, for getting involved in Syria, there’s five Angry McCains. For getting involved in the Sudan, there’s two Angry McCains. And there’s a little picture of him. You know, he was for getting involved to support [former Libyan president Muammar] Gaddafi before he was for overthrowing Gaddafi. He was for supporting [former Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak before he was for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood before he was for supporting the generals.”
Not long ago, the Washington grown-ups who run the Republican Party would have dismissed the junior senator from Kentucky making cracks about an establishment pillar like McCain as little more than the goading of a gadfly. But over the past two weeks, it has become clear that Paul’s brand of Republicanism has spread deeply within his party. He successfully rallied a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers against a military intervention in Syria; thoroughly embarrassed Republican leaders who supported the air strikes; and temporarily elevated himself to the role of de facto foreign policy spokesman for the GOP. When President Obama took his case for war to the American people in a primetime address this week, it was Paul who delivered the unofficial Republican counterargument in a series of interviews and a widely covered speech.
Paul, in short, is winning. The Syria debate marked the first time since House Republicans tried to keep America out of the Kosovo conflict in 1999 that a libertarian approach to foreign policy seriously challenged the GOP’s old-guard caucus of hawks. And this time, the libertarians came out on top. In this context, his McCain mocking didn’t come off as mischievously trolling for a couple headlines — it seemed a little like punching down.
Don’t expect Paul to stop swinging. The plainly ambitious libertarian and prospective 2016 presidential candidate has big plans for his party and his country — plans that will require winning a lot of arguments, defeating a lot of opponents, and effectively conquering a GOP establishment that often treats him like a tumor that needs to be surgically removed. He is always on offense: Over the course of his 20-minute interview with BuzzFeed, he took swipes — with varying degrees of force — at Bill Kristol, Samantha Power, Chris Christie, President Obama, President Bush, Cory Booker, humanitarian interventionists, and pro-war Christians (to name a few).
One of his favorite targets — and the one that most delights the political press — is the Bush-era army of neoconservative Republicans who championed the Patriot Act and led the U.S. into war with Iraq. (Paul believes the U.S. should only use military force when the country’s national security is directly at risk.)
“So many of the neocons in our party, they think they’re the great defenders of the military. They think, Oh, the soldiers must love me because I want to be involved in war,” Paul said, before criticizing the assumption that members of the military are eager to fight. “They will, they volunteered, and they’re the most patriotic of our young people. But they’re not excited about war. They want to go to war if it’s the thing they have to do to defend our country.”
When asked about the misguided prediction Kristol made earlier this month that only five Senate Republicans would side with Paul in opposing the Syria strikes, the senator interjected to ask, “You saw my response to him?” (Paul had challenged his neoconservative nemesis to visit a military base and talk to GIs before assuming popular opinion was on his side.) Satisfied that his jab had properly penetrated the media sphere, he proceeded to lay out where he believed the votes stood in the Senate. His estimate that 20 or 25 Republicans would vote no was probably modest: The latest unofficial count suggests the number could top 30.
It would be easy to mistake Paul’s successes this year — from his campaign against the Syria intervention to his attention-grabbing filibuster against U.S. drone use to the public backlash against the types of domestic surveillance programs he’d been warning about for years — as some sort of permanent sea change in American politics.
Paul knows better. He acknowledges that his ideas have benefited from “a degree of partisanship” on the right. Republicans, after all, might not be quite so skeptical of executive power, or outspoken against the ever-expanding surveillance state, once one of their own is in the Oval Office. What’s more, he spent enough time watching the GOP ignore, then laugh at, then co-opt, then abandon his father’s libertarian platform to recognize the fickleness that can define political parties.
But he is also adamant that his agenda’s growing popularity is a product of the times: “There’s a big transition in the Republican Party, but also in the public. People are right about the public being war-weary. They’re right.”
Meanwhile, his recognition that the fight is nowhere near won seems to fuel his apparently endless appetite for political combat.
Paul often aims at the president, using his nonstandard political philosophy to find fresh critiques of the administration. He laid into the “Samantha Powers of the world” who foolishly want to “send troops to feed people” in remote countries all over the world. And he called out Obama himself, whose rationale for putting armed forces at risk in Syria he finds indefensible.
“The other day, when [the president] came to lunch, [he said] that we’re not facing very many direct threats in this world to the United States… and so you’re going to have to be involved in much more ambiguous situations,” Paul recalled. “I’m guessing he wouldn’t use that term in public but that’s the term he used with us.”
Paul also finds plenty to dislike in his own party’s approach to beating the war drum — particularly the theological overtones of the Bush years. In a strikingly candid speech last year at the Value Voters Summit, Paul, a Presbyterian, cited his religious beliefs while declaring, “I’m not a pacifist. But I do think it unacceptable not to hate war.”
He elaborated to BuzzFeed: “I think some within the Christian community are such great defenders of the promised land and the chosen people that they think war is always the answer, maybe even preemptive war. And I think it’s hard to square the idea of a preemptive war and, to me, that over-eagerness [to go to] war, with Christianity.”
In the world of politics, though, Paul seems preternaturally comfortable at war. One particularly instructive example is his feud with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Earlier this summer, Christie accused the libertarian of prioritizing “esoteric, intellectual debates” over national security — a harsh attack that seemed to come out of nowhere. Though Paul didn’t instigate the spat, he happily stretched it out over several days, answering every interviewer’s question about his aggressor, and memorably referring to the governor at one point as “the king of bacon.” The fight fizzled when Paul invited Christie for a beer (he declined), but he has never quite let it go.
When BuzzFeed asked him this week whether he was surprised Christie didn’t engage the Syria debate more directly by staking out a position, Paul paused for a beat before offering a cutting response.
“I guess I didn’t really notice or think about it that much,” he said.](https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/p480x480/1235184_10202045247241395_102207387_n.jpg)
Good on Conceal Carry
One
guy is dead, one guy with a bullet in him (see photo of him in comment
section below). In Texas if you are a thug, you have a shorter life
expectancy than you do in Illinois as a thug..and that's not long.
Concealed carry will save your life. The average thug that leaves prison
lasts about 32 months before he is either back in jail or dead if he
persists in thuggery.
Black American citizens file “Articles of Impeachment” against Obama
NBRA Chairman Frances Rice, Esquire
We, black American citizens, in order
to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do
herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the
removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office
for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism
that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.
On July 4, 1776, the founders of our
nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and
reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill
of Rights in 1791. Asserting their right to break free from the
tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our
birthright, the founders declared:
“When a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future security.” - Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Here's a 182 page Study to tell you this, Companies pay more to people who know how to do stuff
I think its time for Heck's Angels to Arise.
I
think the administration should send out their Americorp army to arrest
the Bikers. There will only be 2 million of them. What could possibly
go wrong? CNN, MSNBC
will avoid all mention of this. BUT the Muslim March on Washington will
get lots of coverage... This will be interesting. Time to stand
against an encroaching evil.
Bikers undeterred after denied permit for 9/11 rally, Muslims approved
creepingsharia.wordpress.com
Will
the media ignore this event? via Bikers denied no-stop permit for 9/11
rally, apologize to residents - BizPac Review. The countdown to Sept. 11
Regarding Syria...
how did we decline from Shock and Awe ten years ago to Shuck
and Jive today? We are a leaderless paper tiger. The world is really
laughing at us now. We may be more vulnerable to attack then ever
before. So sad.
And we wonder which side we should support??
Jesus spoke Aramaic. There are a few villages where the language is still spoken. I have spoken with people from these villages, they drive cabs in Chicago. The Syrian Rebels are on a rampage to kill these people. And we wonder which side we should support??
I watched the whole interview last night, VERY CAREFULLY.
I watched for
glitches, tells, anything. Assad is a brutal man, but he is so far
above Barack Obama in skill and articulation under pressure it's scary.
He never flinched, he never stumbled,
he sat under the most withering of verbal fire from Charlie Rose and
held his ground. It made me wish we had a leader with his competence
(not brutality). We haven't had one for quite some time... Clinton
might have been our last and Reagan before him, then all the way back to
JFK. We have had a pretty weak stable of horses, and this one is the
weakest. We must start electing better Presidents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)