Monday, September 30, 2013

A New Government

I have decided to start a brand new country. Until it is firmly established, I will serve as its Benevolent Dictator. Once it is operating smoothly, I will step down in favor of a duly elected president. Trust me. 

My new country will feature a federal government that will be a vital part of the country. It will be designed to be a great unifier, to help citizens work together to build a great nation for their benefit. 

This federal government will also have a role in actually establishing justice for all citizens. It will establish a judicial system that prevents the federal government from prosecuting an accused it cannot prove committed a crime. It will hold that a person is innocent of any crime the guilt of which cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

Another role of my new federal government will be to keep the peace. It will be prohibited from imposing any rules and/or regulations that would lead to unrest. It will also be charged with the responsibility of actively doing those things that would lead to peaceful lives for its citizens. 

The federal government of my new country will be required to defend the nation from all outside aggression or attack. It will maintain a military that is unequaled in the world, but it will be prohibited from being involved in any conflicts around the world that cannot be definitively shown to be a threat to the nation. 

My new country will encourage people to be self-sufficient. It will do what it can to help those who cannot help themselves, but everyone else will be expected to carry his/her own weight. The government will strive to promote, but not to provide, the welfare of its citizens through the effective communication. 

The cornerstone of this new land will be liberty. The federal government will actively seek to promote freedom at every level. Wherever freedom is challenged or attacked, it will step in to ensure that its citizens enjoy the highest possible level of liberty. Except as specifically required by the constitution, the less the government does, the better. 

My new government shall have the power to impose an income tax on its citizens the amount of which is not to exceed 9% of every earned dollar over the poverty level, whether the entity being taxed is an individual or a company. It may also charge an additional tax not exceeding 3% of the net income earned on any business that buys or sells products or services in any state other than the one in which it is primarily licensed. It may tax each state in an amount not to exceed 1% of the state’s total general tax income. No other federal taxes may be levied on the citizens of the new country. 

The IRS shall have two employees, one on the computer to calculate taxes, the other to check the first one’s work. Taxes shall be filed on the computer at home or at the local library. One-half page is all it will take to complete a tax return. It will show the amount one earned minus the poverty level times the tax rate. The government may not spend more than it takes in and may own no charge cards. This government will not have the power or authority to tax property, real or personal. 

The federal government will not be allowed to run any business of any kind at any time.  The regulation of business will be restricted to those businesses that engage in buying or selling products or services in a state or states other than the one in which it they are primarily licensed. Those regulations must be agreed to by the states involved. 

The country will be divided into three branches, each with equal power to the others. There will be an executive branch whose job it will be to implement the directions provided by the second branch, congress. That congress will consist of two “houses.” One of the houses will represent the citizens directly; the other will represent the states’ governments. Representatives in each house are expected to spend enough time with the people of their districts or states to know of their concerns and how they want to be represented. Representatives in each house may serve no more than 3 years consecutively. 

All laws made by the two houses shall relate to one of the following: theft of government property, threatening or murdering a federal agent or employee, lying to a federal officer, kidnapping across state lines, cheating in a business that buys or sells products or services in any state other than the one in which it is primarily licensed and the willful destruction of federal property. All other crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the states. 

Finally, there will be a judicial branch charged with the task of evaluating the decisions being made by the other two branches. It will ensure that the decisions made conform to the new country’s constitution. It will ensure that no laws would be passed that would infringe on the liberty of the citizens. This arm of the government may not make laws by any means whatsoever. If the constitution does not speak to an issue, the judicial branch may not speak to it, nor can they speak to a matter implied; only to those matters specifically delineated in the constitution. Members of the judicial branch may not serve more than 5 consecutive years.

Oh, yes! There will be a constitution designed to prevent my new nation’s government from violating any of its intended purposes. It will be a constitution that severely limits what the government can do. In fact, it will contain specific instructions about what the government cannot do. Each branch of the government will be required not only to follow the constitution but will also be required to “ride herd” on the other branches to ensure that they, too, comply. 

The federal government of my new country will have no right to place any form of restrictions or make any laws that have anything to do with religion, speech, what people write or say, how they can meet together for whatever purpose they desire or keeping them from complaining to or petitioning the government with their concerns. The states, social groups, churches, and other entities may restrict those rights if their citizens allow them to, but the federal government will not be allowed to violate this rule. The old adage, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’” in a crowded theater will not apply to federal laws in my new land. 

The right of the citizens of this country to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted by my new government for whatever reason. States, social groups, churches, and other entities may do as they please, but the federal government is prohibited from placing restrictions on people’s right to arm themselves.

No military, police, or any other federal entity may force a citizen to allow him/her/them to stay or reside in the citizen’s home, owned or rented, for any reason at any time.

No entity of the federal government may enter the property of any citizen without the voluntary permission of that citizen unless he has a federal warrant duly generated by, and authorized by all three branches of the federal government. The federal government may not search a citizen’s property, personal or real, or seize any item belonging to the citizen without a federal warrant duly generated by and authorized by all three branches of the federal government. It may not spy on the citizens. 

The federal government may not accuse a citizen of any crime or misdemeanor without first establishing through a grand jury that there is demonstrable probable cause to do so. The federal government may not try a person twice for the same crime. It may not require a person to testify against himself and must afford every citizen “due process” in every circumstance.

Every citizen will have the absolute right to a jury trial when accused of wrongdoing, and will have the right to face his accuser in a court of law. Every citizen will have the right to an attorney when charged by the federal government, whether or not he has the resources to pay for one himself.

The federal government of this new land will not be allowed to require excessive bail or fines, to inflict cruel or unusual punishment or to deny a citizen a right to a fair trial by an impartial jury of his peers.

The federal government may not sue its citizens. Citizens may sue the federal government only for violation of the rights named herein.

No employee of the federal government may receive a gift of any kind from any person not directly related to him or her. Anyone caught lobbying any government personnel will be tried, convicted and shot at sunrise.

The constitution of my new country will apply specifically and exclusively to the federal government. There shall be an expectation that states will develop their own constitutions that complement and follow the guidelines of the new country’s constitution, making adjustments as their citizenry sees fit.

It shall be a requirement that the federal government of this new land shall be kept as small as possible as long as it is enabled to do the tasks, and only the tasks, assigned specifically to it by its constitution. 

The major job of the president, the congress and the judiciary will be to sit around eating, talking and maybe bowling. The president may occasionally delve into international affairs, but may not commit the country to any treaty, war or police action without the expressed written consent of the congress, the judiciary, the states and the people unless the new country is attacked on its own soil, in which case the offending country’s government shall be obliterated from the face of the earth.

The preamble to the constitution of the new country I’m forming will read as follows:

We the people of the (New Country’s name), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the (New Country’s name).

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Saturday, September 28, 2013


Today's Challenge: Count the things he said that are not factually true.
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I discuss the situation in Congress, let me say a few things about two important opportunities in our foreign policy.
Just now, I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two of us discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program. I reiterated to President Rouhani what I said in New York -- while there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward, and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution.
I’ve directed Secretary Kerry to continue pursuing this diplomatic effort with the Iranian government. We had constructive discussions yesterday in New York with our partners -- the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China -- together with the Iranian Foreign Minister. Going forward, President Rouhani and I have directed our teams to continue working expeditiously, in cooperation with the P5-plus-1, to pursue an agreement. And throughout this process, we’ll stay in close touch with our friends and allies in the region, including Israel.
We’re mindful of all the challenges ahead. The very fact that this was the first communication between an American and Iranian President since 1979 underscores the deep mistrust between our countries, but it also indicates the prospect of moving beyond that difficult history.
I do believe that there is a basis for a resolution. Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. President Rouhani has indicated that Iran will never develop nuclear weapons. I have made clear that we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy in the context of Iran meeting its obligations. So the test will be meaningful, transparent, and verifiable actions, which can also bring relief from the comprehensive international sanctions that are currently in place.
Resolving this issue, obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran -- one based on mutual interests and mutual respect. It would also help facilitate a better relationship between Iran and the international community, as well as others in the region -- one that would help the Iranian people fulfill their extraordinary potential, but also help us to address other concerns that could bring greater peace and stability to the Middle East.
A path to a meaningful agreement will be difficult, and at this point, both sides have significant concerns that will have to be overcome. But I believe we’ve got a responsibility to pursue diplomacy, and that we have a unique opportunity to make progress with the new leadership in Tehran. I also communicated to President Rouhani my deep respect for the Iranian people.
As I said before, this comes on the same day that we can accomplish a major diplomatic breakthrough on Syria, as the United Nations Security Council will vote on a resolution that would require the Assad regime to put its chemical weapons under international control so they can ultimately be destroyed. This binding resolution will ensure that the Assad regime must keep its commitments, or face consequences. We’ll have to be vigilant about following through, but this could be a significant victory for the international community, and demonstrate how strong diplomacy can allow us to secure our country and pursue a better world.
Now, America’s security and leadership don't just depend on our military strength, or our alliances, or our diplomacy. First and foremost, America’s strength depends on a strong economy where our middle class is growing and everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead. So let me say a few words about the situation that’s developed over the past few weeks on Capitol Hill.
Here at home, the United States Congress has two pressing responsibilities: pass a budget on time, and pay our bills on time.
If Congress chooses not to pass a budget by Monday -- the end of the fiscal year -- they will shut down the government, along with many vital services that the American people depend on. 
The good news is, within the past couple of hours, the United States Senate -- Democrats and Republicans -- acted responsibly by voting to keep our government open and delivering the services the American people expect. Now it’s up to Republicans in the House of Representatives to do the same. I say that because obviously Democrats have a great interest in making sure that these vital services continue to help the American people.
So far, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have refused to move forward. And here’s the thing -- unlike the last time they threatened this course of action, this debate isn’t really about deficits. In fact, our deficits are falling at the fastest pace that they have in 60 years. By the end of this year, we will have cut our deficits by more than half since I took office. 
So that’s not what this is about. And in fact, if you’ve been following the discussion, the Republicans in the House don't even make a pretense that that’s what this is about.
Instead, the House Republicans are so concerned with appeasing the tea party that they’ve threatened a government shutdown or worse unless I gut or repeal the Affordable Care Act.
I said this yesterday; let me repeat it: That's not going to happen. More than 100 million Americans currently, already have new benefits and protections under the law. On Tuesday, about 40 million more Americans will be able to finally buy quality, affordable health care, just like anybody else. Those marketplaces will be open for business on Tuesday no matter what -- even if there’s a government shutdown. That’s a done deal.
As I’ve said before, if Republicans have specific ideas on how to genuinely improve the law, rather than gut it, rather than delay it, rather than repeal it, I’m happy to work with them on that through the normal democratic processes. But that will not happen under the threat of a shutdown.
So over the next three days, House Republicans will have to decide whether to join the Senate and keep the government open, or shut it down just because they can’t get their way on an issue that has nothing to do with the deficit.
I realize that a lot of what’s taking place right now is political grandstanding. But this grandstanding has real effects on real people. If the government shuts down on Tuesday, military personnel -- including those risking their lives overseas for us right now -- will not get paid on time. Federal loans for rural communities, small business owners, families buying a home will be frozen. I’m already starting to get letters from people worried that this will have an impact on them directly. Critical research into life-saving discoveries will be immediately halted.
The federal government has a large role across the country and touches the lives of millions of people, and those people will be harmed. And even the threat of a shutdown already is probably having a dampening effect on our economy; we saw that the last time these kinds of shenanigans were happening up on Capitol Hill.
So to any Republican in Congress who is currently watching, I’d encourage you to think about who you’re hurting. There are probably young people in your office right now who came here to work for you, without much pay, because they believed that public service was noble. You’re preparing to send them home without a paycheck. You’ve got families with kids back in your districts who serve their country in the federal government, and now they might have to plan how they’re going to get by if you shut the government down.
Past shutdowns have disrupted the economy, and this shutdown would as well. It would throw a wrench into the gears of our economy at a time when those gears have gained some traction. And that’s why many Republican senators and many Republican governors have urged Republicans to knock it off, pass a budget, and move on. Let’s get this done.
This brings me to Congress’s second responsibility. Once they vote to keep the government open, they also have to vote within the next couple of weeks to allow the Treasury to pay the bills for the money that Congress has already spent. I want to repeat: Raising the debt ceiling is simply authorizing the Treasury to pay for what Congress has already authorized.
Failure to meet this responsibility would be far more dangerous than a government shutdown. It would effectively be an economic shutdown, with impacts not just here, but around the world. 
We don’t fully understand what might happen, the dangers involved, because no Congress has ever actually threatened default. But we know it would have a profound destabilizing effect on the entire economy -- on the world economy, because America is the bedrock of world investment. The dollar is the reserve currency. The debt that is issued by the Treasury is the foundation for our capital markets. That’s why you don’t fool with it.
Now, some Republicans have suggested that unless I agree to an even longer list of demands -- not just gutting the health care law, but cutting taxes for millionaires, or rolling back rules on big banks and polluters, or other pet projects that they’d like to see and they’ve been trying to get passed over the last couple of years -- that they would push the button, throw America into default for the first time in history and risk throwing us back into a recession.
Now, I am willing to work with anybody who wants to have a serious conversation about our fiscal future. I’ve demonstrated that by putting forward serious reforms to tax and entitlement programs that would bring down our long-term deficits. I have said in the past, and I will continue to say, that I’m willing to make a whole bunch of tough decisions -- ones that may not be entirely welcomed by my own party.
But we’re not going to do this under the threat of blowing up the entire economy. I will not negotiate over Congress’s responsibility to pay the bills that have already been racked up. Voting for the Treasury to pay America’s bills is not a concession to me. That’s not doing me a favor. That’s simply carrying out the solemn responsibilities that come with holding office up there. I don’t know how I can be more clear about this. Nobody gets to threaten the full faith and credit of the United States just to extract political concessions. No one gets to hurt our economy and millions of innocent people just because there are a couple of laws that you do not like.
It has not been done in the past; we’re not going to start doing it now. I’m not going to start setting a precedent not just for me, but for future Presidents where one chamber in Congress can basically say each time there needs to be a vote to make sure Treasury pays its bills, we’re not going to sign it unless our particular hobbyhorse gets advanced.
Imagine if you had a Republican President and a Democratic Speaker, and the Democratic Speaker said, well, we’re not going to pass a debt ceiling unless we raise corporate taxes by 40 percent; or unless we pass background checks on guns; or whatever other list of agenda items Democrats were interested in. Does anybody actually think that we would be hearing from Republicans that that was acceptable behavior?
That's not how our constitutional system is designed. We are not going to do it. The American people have worked too hard to recover from a bunch of crises -- several of them now over the last couple of years inflicted by some of the same folks in Congress that we’re talking about now -- to see extremists in Congress cause another crisis.
And keep in mind, by the way, this whole thing has to do with keeping the government open for a few months. The continuing resolution -- the bill that's designed to avert a government shutdown -- basically just funds the government for another couple months so we could be doing this all over again. I’m sure the American people are thrilled about that.
And that's why we’ve got to break this cycle. My message to Congress is this: Do not shut down the government. Do not shut down the economy. Pass a budget on time. Pay our bills on time. Refocus on the everyday concerns of the American people.
There will be differences between Democrats and Republicans. We can have all kinds of conversations about how to resolve those differences. There will be areas where we can work together. There will be areas where we disagree. But do not threaten to burn the house down simply because you haven’t gotten 100 percent of your way. That's not how our democracy is supposed to work.
Every day that this goes on is another day that we’re not focused on doing what we need to be focused on, which is rebuilding this great country of ours so that our middle class is growing and everybody has got opportunity if they're willing to work hard. That's what I’m focused on. 
That's what Congress should be focused on as well.
Thank you very much, everybody.

Monday, September 23, 2013


According to Ben Bernanke, the Fed will continue to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and $45 billion in U.S. Treasury securities per month.

Since the beginning of September 2008... the Fed's ownership of Treasury securities and MBS has increased seven fold.

As of the close of business Thursday, the Fed said, it owned approximately $2,052,055,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities and approximately $1,339,771,000,000 in mortgage-backed securities—for a combined total of about $3,391,826,000,000 in Treasury securities and MBS.

Thus the Federal Reserve now owns more debt in the form of U.S. Treasury securities and MBS than the publicly held debt the U.S. government accumulated from George Washington’s administration into November 2001, during President George W. Bush’s first term.

So, is there any limit? Any at all?

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Friday, September 20, 2013


President BO (the amateur president): I've drawn a red line. Oh, wait! I didn't draw a red line. So...which is it? Did we all miss something? Has there actually been justice served on those who killed 4 Americans? Why on earth do you liberals still trust this piece of pond scum? Do you feel more at ease when people continually lie to you? How many lies does it take to be counted as a liar?

Wednesday, September 18, 2013


Detroit's highest class neighborhood
The story of Detroit’s decline has been told and retold so many times now that you’d be forgiven for assuming there’s nothing more to say. But the Detroit Free Press has put together a new, comprehensive financial history of the city from 1950 to the present, gleaned from tens of thousands of pages of archival data on the city’s finances. It provides a much clearer picture of the city’s collapse than anything we’d seen before.

It appears that the city took all of the hallmarks of blue governance to extremes. For years, it tried to address its revenue shortfall by raising taxes, which drove residents out of the city and shrunk the tax base in the process.

Detroit lost 61 percent of its residents between 1950 and 2010, and the total value of its property fell from a peak of $45 billion to $9.6 billion in 2012. Meanwhile, even as the city’s revenue base was imploding, public employee benefits remained generous and in some cases even expanded.

The Free Press notes that there were a few periods of hope during thee postwar period when the city’s finances were relatively strong, but each time the city squandered these opportunities and used its good standing to borrow more rather than address the core problems that got it in the mess in the first place. . . . The city has paid a heavy price.

Today, Detroit has more pensioners than employees, and a debt that is more than twice what it had in 1960. It spends considerably more on police and fire retirees than active workers. And despite the fact that the city has the highest income and property taxes in Michigan—by a wide margin—the state’s inflation-adjusted revenue is lower than it was in 1960.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013


Picture used without the
permission of anybody
Washington DC has some of the toughest gun control laws in the universe. 

Let's ask the victims of Aaron Alexis' sick rampage if they feel safer because of those laws.

Oh, wait! He didn't use a banned weapon, he used a shot gun and maybe a pistol which he got hold of after he was inside the gates!

Piers Morgan wrongfully claimed Alexis used an AR-15 he had bought in Virginia.

Well, at least we can blame Christians for this one.

Oh, wait! Aaron Alexis' was a Buddhist!

Probably became a Buddhist because of Christianity, though.

No wonder liberals are always dizzy. They spin so many lies.

Monday, September 16, 2013


Have you ever used this picture? Have you ever seen it used?

 I have. I have used it.

But you had better not use it any more,  you could be sued.

Sarah Palin is being sued for using this common 911 picture.

How stupid is that?

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

ONLY IN AMERICA-A Canadian Perspective

10) Only in America ... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

9) Only in America ... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black!  40% of all federal entitlements go to black Americans – 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!

8) Only in America ... could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

7) Only in America ... can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

6) Only in America ... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.

5) Only in America ... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

4) Only in America ... could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

3) Only in America ... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes ( Nike ).

2) Only in America ... could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

1) Only in America ... could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

God bless America!

Tuesday, September 10, 2013


Monday, September 9, 2013

Obama Has No Red Line for Beheading, Raping Girls and Killing Christians

A great article written by Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker at the Modern Tokyo Times which hammers President Obama for ignoring overwhelming evidence of the brutality of the rebels, including the FSA, and only making the case for acting against Assad (h/t: AINA):

President Obama, John Kerry, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are all peddling the anti-Syrian government line and now they have a beloved “red line,” whereby they can assist the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and various al-Qaeda terrorist groups. Of course, when Carla del Ponte stated earlier this year that the United Nations believed that terrorist forces had used chemical weapons; then, of course, this was conveniently ignored by America, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Similarly, it appears that Obama, Kerry, McCain and Graham don’t believe in a red line when it applies to al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other terrorist forces.

This reality means that unlike the doubts which remain over the chemical issue — the stark reality of vast numbers of videos showing barbaric massacres by al-Qaeda affiliates and the FSA are realities. In other words, for Obama, Kerry, McCain and Graham, and many others who are assisting sectarian and terrorist forces; they don’t have any red lines for cleansing Christians, killing Alawites, children being killed for blasphemy, raping women, slaughtering the Shia, beheading civilians, killing Syrian women who refuse to marry jihadists and so forth. Indeed, the so-called opposition can even kidnap Christian bishops and kill Christian priests because nothing stops America, France and the United Kingdom from providing propaganda for the FSA and various al-Qaeda forces.

Images of the FSA and al-Qaeda affiliates teaching children to behead Syrian soldiers and partaking in murdering pro-government civilians aren’t deemed to be red lines. Cleansing Alawites, the Shia and Christians also isn’t deemed to be a red line. Likewise, car bombings, beheading anyone deemed pro-government and killing children on video also appears to be acceptable. Indeed, even when the UN pointed the finger at anti-Syrian government forces for using chemical weapons this also wasn’t deemed to be a red line.

Carla del Ponte, UN human rights investigator, pointed the finger at terrorist forces when another false flag was raised. She stated several months ago that “We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas.”

In other words, any barbarity committed by various al-Qaeda affiliates, the FSA and other terrorist groups in Syria is either welcomed, swept under the carpet or it means the same forces will obtain more funding and training from the enemies of this country. All in all, so-called opposition forces can gang rape Christian girls, use chemicals, behead people, cut open Syrian soldiers, murder Alawites, kill pro-Sunni Muslim clerics, kidnap Christian bishops and other brutal realities. After all, the red line only applies to the side which is protecting minorities therefore Gulf petrodollars can openly support barbarity — while NATO Turkey is a conduit for military arms and international jihadists.

Only compliant media groups could peddle the spin emanating from the Obama administration and which is being endorsed by France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

This is only a portion of the article. Click here to read the entire article.

Friday, September 6, 2013


If I were Despot in Chief, the world would be watching me to see what I would decide about Syria using chemical weapons against its own citizens.

I  would decide to do nothing.

Sure, I know the world decided that countries are supposed to be prevented from using chemical weapons. But did you notice that although international law forbids their use, Syria used them anyway? That's the way it is with criminals. If guns are against the law, criminals get them anyway. If  the use of chemical weapons is against the law, countries use them anyway.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria killed a lot of innocent men, women and children. If we retaliate, a lot of innocent men, women and children will become collateral damage. As much as we would like to pretend that we could control our missiles, some innocent men, women and children would be killed.

Dead people are dead, regardless of what killed them. Heart attacks kill people, cancer kills people and bombs, both conventional and chemical, kill people.

If we "retaliate" (someone might want to look up the meaning of that word...but they probably won't and don't care, anyway), we are going to be accused of killing innocent men, women and children. And we will be guilty.

If Syria continues to use chemical weapons, they will be accused of killing innocent men, women and children, And they will be guilty.

So, is it better for a government to kill its own people, or for those people to be killed by "outsiders?"

Of course, neither is desirable. But outlaws are outlaws and terrorists are terrorists, whether acting as small groups or as a government.

If I were the Despot in Chief, I would do nothing to Syria UNLESS they use chemical weapons on countries other than their own. In that case I would use the resources of the American military to wipe Syria off the map.

"But Joe," I hear you whining. "How can you be so heartless as to kill all of those "innocent" Syrians?"

In the first place, the exceptionalism or America is its commitment to the freedom of its people and their control of their government. That freedom did not come by accident. It was won by the people. If other countries' people do not take steps to control their government and their government commits atrocities, the people bear part of the blame, since they did nothing to cause their government to be controlled by them. They are not as innocent as it might seem.

So, yes, I would make mince meat out of Syria, IF they went international with their use of chemical weapons. As long as they did not go outside their own borders, I would do red lines, not huffing and puffing, no intervention of any kind.

That's what I would do. You might disagree. That's OK. This is America. You have the right to be wrong.

Thursday, September 5, 2013


“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation … We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.”

"First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."


“My credibility is not on the line..."

Of course not! Just because you said it is no reason for anyone to have believed it when you said it.

" The international community’s credibility is on the line.  And America’s and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”

Yes! Yes! They're the ones to blame. Not me! Surely not me!


Tuesday, September 3, 2013


FOX NEWS – The National Park Service began enforcing a policy recently that required churches to obtain special use permits in order to baptize in public waters. As part of the same permit process, the NPS also mandated that churches give the Park Service 48 hours advance notice of pending baptisms.

But as any Baptist or Pentecostal in good standing knows – that’s a problem.

“If the Holy Spirit is working on Sunday morning, you’re going to baptize Sunday afternoon,” Dennis Purcell told The Salem News. “You may not know ahead of time.”

Many Christians believe that the Bible commands new followers of Christ to be baptized immediately after their conversion. It’s a public expression and celebration of their new-found faith in Christ.

The National Park Service told local churches the permits were needed to “maintain park natural/cultural resources and quality visitor experiences, specific terms and conditions have been established.”

(Of course those maintenance measure have not been needed for centuries.)

The feds also closed vehicle access to a sandbar along a popular creek in the Ozark Mountains, meaning churches could no longer drive their elderly members to the outdoor baptisms. And to make sure the Baptists behaved, they placed large boulders in the area to block car traffic.

(Of course, they do the same for other visitors to the parks, right?)

“Like the Baptists and Pentecostals are going to harm natural resources and adversely affect quality visitor experiences by occasionally baptizing new converts?” asked local resident Lewis Leonard. “I can think of a whole lot more activities along the river ways that are not conducive to maintain the natural resources.”

Rep. Jason Smith fired off a letter to the feds on Aug. 21 demanding answers.

“I am very troubled by any federal rule that requires churches to apply for a permit for the purpose of baptism, especially when these traditional activities have been done in the rivers and streams of this nation since its founding,” the congressman wrote.

He pointed out the National Park Service does not require a 48-hour notification from fisherman or swimmers – so why churches?

(Because churches are made of people and fishermen and swimmers are not people?)

“One would hope that the answer is not ‘because the National Park Service wants to limit the number of baptisms performed on the river.”

(Oh, of course not!)

The Park Service responded within 24 hours. They said the reason they needed two days notice is to “give the park staff adequate time to prepare the permit.”

(Why they needed to require a permit in the first place is the real issue.)

Funny how helpful the government is to its citizens, isn't it?

Monday, September 2, 2013


Labor Day is an annual celebration of welfare recipients and their lack of achievements. It originated during one of American labor history’s most dismal chapters. In the late 1800s, at the height of the Industrial Revolution in the United States, the average American worked 12-hour days and seven-day weeks in order to eke out a basic living. People wanting to be on welfare hated the 12 hour days because they didn't like working at all. So they sent their children as young as 5 or 6 to toil in mills, factories and mines across the country, earning a fraction of their adult counterparts’ wages.

On May 11, 1894, employees of the Pullman Palace Car Company in Chicago went on strike to protest wage cuts and the firing of union representatives. On June 26, the American Railroad Union, led by Eugene V. Debs, called for a boycott of all Pullman railway cars, crippling railroad traffic nationwide. To break the strike, the federal government dispatched troops to Chicago, unleashing a wave of riots that resulted in the deaths of more than a dozen workers. In the wake of this massive unrest and in an attempt to repair ties with American sluff-offers, Congress passed an act making Labor Day a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.

More than a century later, the true founder of Labor Day has yet to be identified. Many credit Peter J. McGuire, cofounder of the American Federation of Goof-Offs, while others have suggested that Matthew Maguire, a secretary of the Central Slackers’ Union, first proposed the holiday.

Labor Day is still celebrated in cities and towns across the United States with parades, picnics, barbecues, fireworks displays and other public gatherings. For many Americans, particularly children and young adults, it represents the end of the summer and the start of the back-to-school season. It is a time to get out of work for no particular reason, unless you work in a restaurant.

I will be working a 12 hour day today. I should stage a revolution, which would be a revolting development.

Sunday, September 1, 2013