Taper

The Federal Reserve--the central economic planning committee--announced that it will begin tapering its QE program, which has been in place since the financial crisis, by 10 billion per month. The Fed will do this by reducing its purchases of treasuries by 5 billion per month to 40 billion per month and reducing its purchases of mortgage backed securities by 5 billion per month to 35 billion per month. The Fed also announced that it would keep the federal funds rate, interest rates, at or near zero for longer than they had originally planned. This offsets some of the effect of the 10 per month reduction in asset purchases. Chairman Bernanke was careful to characterize this reduction in asset purchases as not tightening monetary policy and noting that it was still highly accommodative. He said that further reductions or increases in QE was possible: “asset purchases are not on a preset course, and the Committee's decisions about their pace will remain contingent on the Committee's outlook for the labor market and inflation as well as its assessment of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases”. 

The markets did not have the same reaction to the Fed's tapering decision that it had to the Fed's hint earlier this year that tapering might happen: the stock market was up on the news and gold and silver prices were down. The general consensus among the majority of the market participants is that tapering is a positive development. They believe that the Fed's move signals an improving economy and that a return to normal monetary policy is just around the corner: in the words of Bernanke, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 According to Marc Faber:

'The Fed will never end QE for good,... They will continue because these programs, once they're introduced, usually keep on going.'
'The economic recovery, or so-called recovery, by June of next year, will be in the fifth year of the recovery,' Faber said. 'So at some stage the economy will weaken again, and at that point, the Fed will argue, 'Well, we haven't done enough, we have to do more.''
'The Federal Reserve—all of them—could be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, and then pouring gasoline on top of it, and then light a cigar with matches, throw the match into the gasoline, and then not notice that there is any danger,' Faber said. 'That is the state of mind of the professors at the Fed, who never worked a single [day] in business.'
And while Faber actually believes that a reduction in QE could happen, he wouldn't view it as a true tapering, as he says it will be a largely meaningless, one-time move that will eventually be reversed as the economy worsens.
'They may do some cosmetic adjustments, but in my view, within a few years, the asset purchases will be substantially higher than they are today,' Faber said.

According to Jim Rogers:

At the moment they are buying a trillion dollars a year – that’s a trillion with a “T” – of assets. Eventually we will see that they stop that if they do or slow it down.

What will probably happen is that they will slow it down at first to see what happens, and if things aren’t too bad at first – and they probably won’t be too bad at first – well what is likely to happen is they will slow it down, things will drop, and then they will rally and the Federal Reserve will say “Hey, this is not so bad, we can do it.” And they’ll cut some more. Things will drop again and then rally, because it will take a while for people to really believe how bad it can get, or will get. And so eventually they will try to cut [QE], it will finally cause the collapse...

Peter Schiff said in September:

We also must understand that even if the Fed were to deliver a small reduction in bond purchases, such a move would change nothing. The Fed would still be continuously adding to its enormous balance sheet while presenting no credible plans to actually withdraw the liquidity. As I have pointed out many times, it simply can't do so without pushing the economy back into recession. Although this would be the right thing to do, you can rest assured that it won't happen.

We should also recall where this all began. When QE1 was first launched Bernanke talked about an exit strategy. At the time I maintained the Fed had no exit strategy. But now questions about an exit strategy have been replaced by much more delicate taper talk. But easing up on the accelerator without ever hitting the brakes will not stop the car or turn it around.

Following this playbook, the Fed will likely maintain the pretense that tapering is a near term possibility and that it has a credible plan on the shelf to bring an end to QE.

The mainstream view that the economy is improving is most certainly incorrect. Much of the economic data such as the unemployment numbers, inflation, and GDP are determined by questionable and subjective methodologies and in the case of the unemployment numbers, manipulated. The inflation number that is used to adjust the GDP number is most likely lower than the real inflation leading to an overestimation of economic growth. Additionally, politicians are incapable of slowing the rate of growth of the national debt. This lack of ability to make any meaningful reforms is evident by looking at the latest budget deal where the republicans caved on the budget and actually eliminated parts of the sequester that cut spending with the hopes of future, insignificant cuts that won't materialize, as evident by examining the history of such deals.

The markets now believe that the economy is improving and are expecting the Fed to continue to reduce QE. When the Fed is forced to increase QE the market participants will possibly realize that the Fed can not exit its QE program. Overall, the Fed's decision to start tapering has moved the date up that the economic crisis will happen.

When You Want To Send a Message...

Send a Buff!

Yes, RTP&GG should be all over the ObamaCare debacle; it is a lot of fun to watch; but I'm too lazy to work up a story right now.  Instead, I'll do a quick one I was tickled about: the US sending two B-52s over the Senkaku Islands, to let China know that we don't respect their Air Defense zone and to show them we're not to be trifled with.  Countries aren't intimidated by boats and tiny planes.  It takes a noisy, smoke belching, huge Buff to truly intimidate.  So, we are standing strong with one imperialist Asian power against another (a stance I completely agree with):  From USA Today:

"We will take steps against any attempt to change the status quo by use of force as we are determined to defend the country's sea and airspace," Abe said.
For the United States' part, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Chinese action represents a "destabilizing attempt to alter the status quo" and "will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region."
To that end, the U.S. Navy arrived in force Tuesday off the coast of Japan for a complex exercise in which Japanese naval ships and U.S. fighter jets, warships and submarines will practice scenarios for a possible attack on Japan.

Lots of papers covered this, but USA Today had a cool picture of a B-52, so I used it.

I hope that there were lots of advanced radar receivers on the planes to see what kind of threat radars the Chinese would paint them with, so that this was an intel run as well as a show of defiance.

OK, for those who actually want to get the context of this, here's a map:

As you can see, our Jarheads in Okinawa are close to the crisis.  Click on the map to get labels for the overlapping Chinese and Japanese Air Defense and Exclusive Economic zones.

The IMF Talks About The Big C

Recent events have made it very clear that America is incapable of making the necessary reforms to avoid its looming debt/currency crisis. Avoiding making the tough reforms now will only make the reforms  more severe when they are forced upon the nation and the world in the not-too-distant future. These severe reforms will involve a lot of pain to the vast majority of Americans and citizens throughout the world who will be forced to partake in them because they are unaware of what is going on and as a result have not prepared for what is coming. Wealth confiscation will be one of the required reforms or tools to deal with this crisis.

The ground is being prepared by various governments and the IMF--the epitome of free markets supporters, said sarcastically -- for wealth confiscation in America and in the rest of the world. In America, wealth was confiscated during the Great Depression and recently there has been talk and preparation for confiscating retirement accounts and laying the foundation for bail-ins; and in the rest of the world you have plenty of recent examples of wealth confiscation in Argentina, Cyprus, and Poland. Additionally, you have a plethora of examples in history where bankrupt governments have confiscated the wealth of their citizens.


The IMF is aware of the economic situation the world finds itself in and the inevitable need for wealth confiscation and massive tax increases. As Forbes magazine points out, the IMF recently:

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets. 

The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)

You can read the report here. At pg. 40 the IMF laments the fact that wealth is mobile and then it talks about the need to tax wealth differently according to how mobile it is: 

The modern history of recurrent wealth taxes, however, is not encouraging. Relief and exemptions—for land, for instance, and family-owned businesses—creep in, creating avoidance opportunities, as do ferociously complex aspects of the legalities (in dealing with trusts, for instance). Financial wealth is mobile, and so, ultimately, are people—generating tax competition that largely explains the erosion of these taxes. There may be a case for taxing different forms of wealth differently according to their mobility—meaning a higher rate on nonfinancial wealth (largely real estate) than financial. In fact, it appears that both forms of wealth are quite large (Figure 23) and, perhaps surprisingly, that nonfinancial assets are very important for the very wealthy (Table 13). Substantial progress likely requires enhanced international cooperation to make it harder for the very well-off to evade taxation by placing funds elsewhere and simply failing to report as their own tax authorities in principle require"  pg. 40

The report is revealing and provides a glimpse of what to expect in the not-too-distant future. What does this mean for you? If you don't educate yourself and plan accordingly, you can expect to loose a significant portion of your savings, retirement, and other assets through direct confiscation and/or indirect confiscation through currency debasement and inflation. History provides a detailed map of what to expect regarding wealth confiscation. The writing in on the wall. 

Hollywood's Myopic Focus

If it seems like all of Hollywood's movies are exactly the same, it's because they are. 

Leftists' second favorite economic theorist's theories are the prime focus of many Hollywood blockbusters or wannabee blockbusters as this article in The Federalist points out:

In Elysium, one of the more notable box office failures in a disastrous summer for Hollywood, Matt Damon plays a down-on-his-luck ex-con in a dystopian future in which overpopulation, natural resource depletion, and environmental degradation have led to a worldwide economic collapse. In response, the world elite have decamped to a life of luxury on an orbital space station.

If this all sounds a bit familiar, it might be because the same basic setting is behind the plot of the 2008 Pixar film Wall-E, which is also set in a future in which environmental degradation has led the earth’s population to abandon earth for a luxury-liner style spaceship. In that film, a lovable animated robot teaches us that overconsumption is damaging to our basic humanity.

This ties completely in with the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) cultists as the culprit for both is/are humans overwhelming/abusing their environment in pursuit of material wealth.  Read the whole thing to see how Hollywood has been on this bandwagon since the '70's.

No matter that Malthus' theory as well as AGW have been debunked by reality.

No Exit

Ben Bernanke surprised the markets and most economist at its September meeting by deciding not to taper back its 85 billion a month bond/mortgage backed security buying program. It was believed by most economist that the Fed would began tapering because at its June meeting Bernanke had hinted that the Fed would begin tapering later this year. This belief had caused stocks to go slightly down, gold and silver prices to drop dramatically, and bond yields to spike. While most economist were fooled into believing the Fed narrative that the economy was getting better and that it was time for the Fed to start ending its QE ( monetizing the debt), Peter Schiff was saying at the time that the Fed could not taper or if it did that it would have to reverse course and expand its QE program. From what I have read it is impossible for the Fed to voluntarily exit its bond/MBS purchases as the markets are addicted to Fed stimulus, and this stimulus is the only thing keeping the economy from collapsing. Eventually the markets will realize that the Fed is trapped and that it is impossible for it slowly end its QE program: “The Fed has checked into a monetary Roach Motel. Getting out will be infinitely harder than getting in. In fact it will be likely impossible to get out without tipping the country back into recession”. When the markets realize this, the real economic crisis will happen. This will be a currency/debt crisis where you will be lucky to have half of your savings left.

Obama just told the world that America is unable to pay its bills unless it is able to borrow more money. He also told the world that America won't even try to pay its creditors by cutting spending or raising taxes: “President Barack Obama challenged the U.S. Congress on Friday to approve an increase in the U.S. debt ceiling or else the United States will be unable to pay its bills and then, 'We're deadbeats.'”. This sends a profound message to the world.

America has had a massive trick played on it as it fails to realize that our free-market economic system has been switched out with centrally-planned economic system. Watch this four minute card trick starting at 4:48 to see this illustrated. The Fed is the card trick that distracts us from the fact that our economic system has been changed.

ObamaWar to visit Syria

An American President is seeking a coalition of the willing to take down a Ba'athist dictator over WMDs.  Hmmm...I've got a strange sense of Deja Vu...But wait, in the first case the American President was the Bushitler.  In this case, the American President is a Nobel Peace Prize winning LightWorker, so therefore the casus belli must be..............Totally Unrelated to US Interests.

So, what do we see in Syria at the moment?  It's almost a reversal of Iraq, with the only common denominator the Ba'athist political affiliation of the dictator. 

• In Iraq, the Ba'athist leader was a Sunni in a majority Shiite nation.  In Syria, the leader is an Alawite (sub-sect of Shia) in a majority Sunni nation. 
• In Iraq, the Iranians supported the majority, in Syria, they support the minority. 
• In Iraq, oil was a big issue, in Syria, not. 
• In both cases, there is documented evidence of the dictator using poison gas against his opponents.
• In Iraq, the dictator had already brutally suppressed armed opposition to his regime, in Syria, there is an ongoing civil war, and the dictator's chance of victory is not as certain.
• In Iraq, the dictator had a long history of provocations against the United States, some minor, some major, and the United States was already militarily involved in Iraq, having maintained a no-fly zone there for over a decade before the invasion and having already fought one war against Iraq to expel Iraq from Kuwait; in Syria, I can think of no provocation aimed at the United States ever in its history, and we have had no military involvement there previously.  Syria has supported the Shiite terrorist group Hizballah, but that is aimed at their arch-enemy Israel, not the United States.

And who is the United States aiming to help by punishing the Assad regime?  The opposition at this point is largely made up of Sunni Islamic extremists.  Punishing the Assad regime will help Islamic extremists.  Winning?  But, as with the Clinton Administration's meddling in Bosnia in the '90's, Democrat/Liberals' favorite wars are wars in which there is no US interest.  In Bosnia, an ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Serbs turned, with our heavy assistance, into an ethnic cleansing carried out by the Kosovo Muslims.  Neither group had ever done anything to the United States.  This pissed off the Serbs' traditional Slav ally Russia, and didn't help us a whit with international Islam.  A conclusion that anyone with a brain foresaw.  There are many Democrats/Liberals who do have brains, so the only conclusion one can come to regarding justification for this action is that it made Clinton look good somehow.  This brings us to some more back-history which helps explains the looming Obamawar, and that is that the Clinton administration took heavy criticism in the early 90's from liberals (one Samantha Power being foremost in the criticism) for not intervening in the tragic genocide that was taking place in Rwanda.  It was a great tragedy, but this happened in the middle of Africa, no where near any of our bases or interests.  In fact, in France and Belgium's realm of colonial rule, so really something we ought to have stayed out of unless we were to play the role of universal global policeman.  Now, guess who is pressing the case hard for our intervention in Syria?  None other than our new UN Representative, Samantha Power.  Hence, the desire for the Obama administration to at least look like it is making some effort in this crisis.

But, let's not get too worked up about this, because what is Obamawar?  Nothing more than lobbing a few cruise missiles at Assad, that won't do anything except piss everyone off:  the Assad regime, because now we really have made ourselves their enemies, and the Sunni rebels that will rightly say that we didn't do anything that amounted to anything.  This technique is copied from the Clinton (after the African embassy bombings killed hundreds), and depressingly, Reagan (after Khaddafi's agents committed the Lockerbie airline bombing, killing at least 100 Americans),  method of responding to Muslim terrorism:  lob some cruise missiles, or drop some bombs and call it good.

There are no good guys or good answers for Syria.  To me, the best option is to stay out of something that is none of our business.  Islamic fundamentalists will never be on our side, and at least Assad is not working actively against us, murderous tyrant though he is.  Maybe Obama will deign to ask Congress their opinion, but doubtful.  He doesn't need to.  The imperial president, with the press in his pocket, can do whatever he wants and not worry about being called on it.

Slightly off topic, but it's interesting that even the Egyptians believe Obama is a Muslim Brotherhood supporter .  And are not happy about it!

Law And Morality

The left and libertarians are mostly in agreement when it comes to the government's role in social issues. They both take the stance that “I don't care what you do and that it would be wrong for me to impose my values on people” or that “you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else” or that “the government should not get involved in social issues”. This view is illustrated in the same-sex marriage,SSM, debate. A common argument against people that don't want the government to reconginze SSM and who want to uphold the definition of marriage that has been in place for thousands of years --or any other issue that involves “morality”-- is that they want to legislate “morality” and impose their views on society. The left and libertarians believe that it is not the the proper role of government to impose morality on society. But this view fails to reconginze the nature of the law which prevents them from being able to see that they are guilty of “imposing morality” because any law—even the ones they support-- by its very nature is “imposing morality”. The issue is not whether morality should be imposed on society but what morality should be imposed on society and to what extent. The left and libertarians also fail to realize that civilization is itself a system that imposes morality or societal norms and practices on people. 

 Selwyn Duke points the problem with the libertarian view on the law and morality:

In a piece I recently wrote about the dangers inherent in libertarianism, I pointed out that libertarians, by applying their live-and-let-live philosophy to the moral sphere as well as the governmental, do nothing to maintain the societal moral framework that enables people to govern themselves from within and that ensures Big Brother won’t have to do so from without (I recommend you read the piece).[...] 

A law is by definition the imposition of a value (and a valid law is the imposition of a moral principle). This is because a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good? [...]

So here is how you fall into the philosophical trap that has ensnared virtually all libertarians (and many others):
Step 1 — Believe in a mythical separation of morality and state.
Step 2 — Accept the laws you agree with and believe necessary, not realizing they’re an imposition of morality.
Step 3 — Turn around and oppose laws you disagree with, not on the basis that the values they reflect are wrong or are not the government’s domain, but simply because they’re an “imposition of morality.”
In truth, something doesn’t have to be proclaimed by a thunderous voice from the heavens, a bishop or Charlton Heston in a Cecil B. DeMille film to be christened “morality,” nor does something cease being so (or at least a conception thereof) because it has become the stuff of academia or wins a popular vote.  A moral does not cease to be a moral because it becomes a meme.[...]

The story of man is one of spiritual, cultural, political and physical warfare, and each chapter has victory and vanquishment.  Zoroastrianism was extinguished by Islam, the Ainus have largely been subsumed by the Japanese, and the Maldives’ native Giraavaru culture is now only a memory.  Just like animals, countless languages, cultures, beliefs and peoples have become extinct, often the victims of invasive entities that, through superior morality or might, won that inevitable battle. 
And that is the battle for civilization.  It may sound very noble to say, “. . . believe what you want to believe — I'm ok with that.  After all, I am a Libertarian,” but when enough people believe the wrong things, you will not be OK with it.  You will be living under a regime that enshrines those things in law — you’ll be living in tyranny.
Like it or not, imposing values is what arranging civilization is all about.  And like it or not, you’re part of this process.  The only difference among any of us is in what and how much we impose — and in that some of us actually understand this is precisely what we’re doing.
So we can avoid talk about morality if we want, but it will do nothing to ensure that morality won’t be imposed on us.  It only guarantees a descent into error that, ultimately, ensures that immorality will be.

In the same-sex marriage debate, people that want to uphold marriage as defined for thousands of years are attacked on the grounds that they are imposing their morality on society as if those that are pushing for the government to recognize SSM are not imposing their morality on society. Any law by its very nature is imposing morality on society. So whether you are for or against SSM you are imposing values on society. The question is whether you are imposing values that lead to the destruction of that society or whether you are imposing values that have built and sustained that society. The argument that it is wrong to support “traditional” marriage because it would be imposing values is a cleaver way to get those that support “traditional” marriage to become defensive and to become blind to the fact that supporters of SSM are imposing their values on society: it is a way on the part of SSM supporters to disarm and distract their opponents. SSM proponents are not only imposing their morality on society they are attacking and forcing those that disagree with them to accept their morality: here , here, here, here , here, here, here, here , here and other places. “Evil preaches tolerance until it is in power. Then it tries to silence good.” This is no where more evident than in the issues of homosexuality and SSM: they preach tolerance and that society must accept their “lifestyle” and then they attack and silence those that oppose them as evident from the links given above. Saying that the government should not support traditional values is to surrender our civilization to the forces that will destroy it.

The libertarian view on morality and social issues is one of surrender:

Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.  This is because, in libertarians’ failure to fight for hearts and minds in the cultural realm, they cede it to leftists, who aren’t shy about advancing their “values.”  And proof of this is in the social pudding.  You see, if talk of establishing social codes and traditions sounds stifling, know that we haven’t dispensed with such things — that is impossible.  Rather, the left has succeeded in replacing our traditional variety with something called “political correctness,” which describes a set of codes powerful enough to control the jokes we make and words we use, get people hired or fired, and catapult a man to the presidency based partially on the color of his skin.
As for elections, political battles need to be fought, but they are the small picture.  For if the culture is lost, of what good is politics?  People will vote in accordance with their world view no matter what you do.  Thus, he who shapes hearts and minds today wins political power tomorrow.  
The libertarian chant, “I don’t care what you do, just lemme alone” sounds very reasonable, indeed.  But as hate-speech laws, forcing people to buy health insurance and a thousand other nanny-state intrusions prove, when people become morally corrupt enough, they don’t leave you alone.  They tyrannize you.  A prerequisite for anything resembling libertarian government is cast-iron morality in the people.  And we should remember that, to echo Thomas Paine, “Virtue is not hereditary.”
For this reason, neither is liberty.  Scream “Live and let live!” loudly enough in the moral sphere, and in the hearts of men the Devil will live — and the republic will die.

James Madison stated:"Religion is the basis and Foundation of government." Whether this religion is Christianity or the new secular religion of the state, government and laws can not refrain from imposing religion or morality on people. This does not mean that the government should become a theocracy but it does mean that the state has an important role to play in defending the norms and practices of an ordered and free society as F. A. Hayek states in “Law, Legislation and Liberty” as opposed to defending norms and practices that will destroy that society. At the very heart of the decline of our nation are “moral” issues. If you want to make a stand for freedom and to perserve our way of life you have to support and defend the norms, practice, and institutions that has enabled our society to become the most prosperous society in history : you don't have the option of retreating to the realm of moral relativism where everything and anything is okay and staying netural in this battle over the future of our civilization. If you do stay netural, the other side will make their stand by imposing their secular values on society and they will force and corece you to support their morality and persecute you if you don't all while making you belive that to impose your morality is wrong and to accept theirs is just.

and Something for the Modern Military

00139x's Punishment for Dissing Monty Python

Right.  00139x's punishment for dissing Monty Python is a mandatory clip view per week, until he sees the light.

Fascinating 1968 BBC Interview with JRR Tolkien

 

A Far Out but fascinating BBC interview with JRR Tolkien from 1968, when the Lord of the Rings craze was peaking.  What Tolkien has to say is most interesting,  Lots of interviews with ditzy 60's British college kids too, straight out of the Monty Python series.

 



Another Poster that Sums it up in a Nutshell

Enemies Of The Human Race

Society and the law are rapidly accepting homosexuality and same-sex marriage. As can be shown by recent events, there appears to be an inverse relationship (as one goes up the other goes down and vice versa) developing between society and the law's acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and between religious freedoms and the rights of groups or individuals to express disapproval of these two ideas. This relationship is being driven in part by the fact that the latter group is essentially being labeled as “enemies of the human race”--dissenting justice Scalia's assessment of the majority's opinion-- by the activist Supreme Court who has taken it upon itself to attempt to impose same-sex marriage on a society that a significant portion has rejected when this issue has come up for a vote.

The motivating force behind the Defense of Marriage Act and supporters of it was the desire to “demean” and “degrade” homosexuals and to "humiliate" their children. This is according to the majority's opinion of the Supreme Court as stated by justice Kennedy (around pg. 23 of the opinion of of the SC section) in its recent ruling that struck down a provision of the DOMA. In his dissenting opinion justice Scalia sums up ( pg 21of the dissenting opinion section) Kennedy's argument:

[...]the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose”(ante,at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid. ; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to“humiliat[e]” their children,ibid. (emphasis added). I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual.

All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.[...] in the majority’s telling, this story is black and white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.

According to Charles Krauthammer and the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia, (see pg. 23 of the dissenting opinion), the recent ruling will eventually lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage being forced upon American society. Krauthammer: “In this opinion, is the absolutely inevitable seed of essentially nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws". The legalization of same-sex marriages could lead to persecution of those that hold religious beliefs that condemns homosexuality according to Krauthammer:

It gets really sticky,” Krauthammer said on “Inside Washington.” “If the court were to decide that to deny same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then you got Georgetown University – a Jesuit university [that has] married student housing. It’s a Catholic university. So it says it’s only going to allow heterosexuals, it will get sued. It will become an assault on religion. And the religions, which I think are sincere in their beliefs, are going to be under assault and under attack. 

This persecution is already taking place inside and outside the military. In the military those that express disapproval with homosexuals or gay marriage are being punished and outside of the military a private business in Oregon is being threatened with legal action for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. In the air force:

A 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard said he was reprimanded after he wrote a letter objecting to a gay wedding in the West Point chapel and was later told to prepare for retirement because his personal beliefs about homosexuality were not compatible with the military’s policies.[...]

“My issue is so much about homosexuals serving in the military, but rather that it is being forced upon as an acceptable lifestyle abandoning our traditional values,” he wrote.[...]

He said the military has created an atmosphere where those who do not approve of homosexual conduct “must remain disapprovingly silent or face reprisal to our careers.”

“It is evident those who refuse to affirm homosexuality and openly oppose it are being severely punished,” he wrote.[...] 

“They’re trying to make examples of people early on who have religious beliefs that homosexual conduct in the military is wrong,” he said. “When these people assert their First Amendment rights, they are getting slapped down and slapped down hard.”

An army band member was punished for expressing disapproval of the repeal of the DADT:

A member of the U.S. Army Band who said he was reprimanded […] [for] serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party was found guilty of three Article 15 charges.[...]

“My family likes Chick-fil-A and we like what they stand for,” he said. “I can make a statement and at least express a religious point of view at my promotion party – theoretically without any fear of reprisal.”

The soldier also tweeted about the party: “In honor of DADT repeal, and Obama/Holder’s refusal to enforce DOMA act, I’m serving Chick-fil-A at my MSG promo reception for Army today.”

The tweet came under fire from his superior officers, according to an official military document.

“As a Soldier you must be cognizant of the fact that your statements can be perceived by the general public and other service members to be of a nature bordering on disrespect to the President of the United States,” the document stated.

Attorney Wells believes Sommers is being discriminated against not only because of his Christian faith, but also because of his objections to homosexuality.

“There’s no question about it,” Wells told Fox News. “Because he is religious, because he feels that homosexual conduct is wrong for religious reasons, he is basically being persecuted.”

Here is what happens to business owners that decide to exercise and adhere to their religious freedoms and beliefs : “An Oregon man may have broken the law and is facing a state investigation after refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding, KATU reports."  What is clear from these few examples is that expressing support for or acting on one's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality is not being tolerated.

The Supreme Court has labeled supporters of traditional marriage and values-- and by extension Christianity--as enemies of the human race and has attributed ill will against homosexuals to the formers support for the values and traditions that have enabled America to become the greatest country human history has ever known. The logical extension of this analysis is for corrective action—punishment and marginalization-- by the law to be taken against those that hold traditional values. As was shown, this is already happening. According to justice Scalia, the court's ruling arms supporters of same-sex marriage and the courts with the ability to force same-sex marriage upon society. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion( starting around pg. 18 of the dissenting opinion section) is well worth reading regarding the court's ruling and the same-sex-marriage issue.

Independence Day

July the fourth is Independence Day. Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr's gave an address that describes the sacrifices made by the  fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Their sacrifice enable the greatest nation in human history to come into existence. Here are some excerpts:

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
"Most Glorious Service"
Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.
He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

Sadly the nation that those men sacrificed for is dead. Today most Americans repeatedly vote for dependency and have twice elected a president that stands for the exact opposite of what the signers of the Declaration of Independence stood for and who is in the process of systematically destroying/"fundamentally transforming" America. This should not be a surprise to anyone that knows history. The stages of a free nation are: bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage. Today America is in the dependence back into bondage stage. Freedom has always been carried down through the ages by a small minority. Those fifty-six men that signed the Declaration of Independence will stand as an example to all that will carry the torch of freedom.

The Entire Problem in a Nutshell

Regarding all the problems we have with our government's size and meddling, really, the entirety of the problem with government, the source can be seen clearly in one graph put together by NRO:

The percentage of lawyers in government supporting Obama is stunning if not surprising.  Read the entire article.  The problem is not necessarily that Obama supporters are any more evil than let's say Romney supporting lawyers, it's that they consist of the entire Executive branch of the Federal government.  If there were say a 50/50 mix between Obama supporters and non-Obama supporters the Obama supporters would not feel that they had absolute moral authority (derived from the fact that everyone around them thinks exactly as they do) to act as they did/do in the IRS scandal, nor would they feel they could get away with it as easily if they tried.  Checks and balances. 

The problem, as NRO says is

With certain limitations understood (we don’t know the affiliations of non-donors), the chart above looks more like the political affiliations of Ivy League women’s-studies departments than those of an allegedly impartial federal bureaucracy.

...

But what if the combination of increasingly activist government with strong bureacratic bias re-creates federal service as a kind of permanent spoils system for the Left? Isn’t it inevitable that this leftist bureaucracy will eventually view itself not as a servant for all citizens but as an instrument of its own righteous ideology?

Some of you will say, "if the numbers were reversed, it would be just as bad", and yes there would be problems IF the numbers were reversed.  But, conservatives, though maybe not all Republicans, are not the type of people that are drawn to a cozy safe gubmint job.  They are more the risk takers/entrepreneurial types.   I'm speaking in generalities of course.  And those of us conservatives who are not that type appreciate what those types of people add to society.  This is opposed to liberals who view entrepreneurial types with envy and hate, as evil, selfish people who must be controlled.  Liberals with this type of view are the type of people that dominate the civil service to an incredibly astonishing degree.  Saying that it would be bad if the numbers were reversed is an irrelevant observation.  The numbers WON'T be reversed.  It's the nature of the beast.

If the Civil Service is led by a Republican administration, then the 'servants' are constrained in what they think they can get away with.  But, when led by a far leftist wealth redistributor who says "punish your enemies" when speaking of other Americans, then there is no constraint.

And that brings us to the problem we have today (which probably has been a problem since FDR's days, but is shoved in our faces, impossible to ignore now):  in the past, the Federal government has been viewed, generally, as a necessary weight on the populace.  Doing a fair job of making things right for all Americans and protecting us from foreign enemies, if at a heavy cost.  But, when Americans view their government as a partisan tool rather than an unbiased burden, then the government's legitimacy is destroyed.  When half the people view the government (rightly so) as an enemy of THEMSELVES IN PARTICULAR, then as our Dear Leader says "We're going to have some problems".

You're damn right you arrogant f#$k.  We've got some problems.  I would say the biggest crisis in government since the Civil War.  For reals.

Trust Your Federal Government? A Trip down Memory Lane

Ron Brown and Plane Crash in Croatia

The American Thinker blog has an article taking us down memory lane, in light of the multiple disgusting Obama administration scandals currently dominating the headlines, about the events and coverup of the death of Clinton Administration Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.   It's a multi-part article detailing the electoral politics around a series of events beginning with the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh and a still-unidentified "foreign-looking man" in 1995 and including the crash of the Air Force transport plane carrying Secretary Brown in Croatia in 1996.  Though I was familiar with these events at the time, I had forgotten the controversies.  Very interesting reading, both for review and if these events of the mid-90's are new to you.

What these articles show is the extent that our government leaders will go to cover their own ass and do what is right for them politically, rather than what is right for the nation.  All these scandals show what a hypocritically disgusting thing our completely amoral president said at Ohio St University on May 5th

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," Obama told graduates. "Some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

The American Thinker article is a good primer on what was going on back in the mid 90's.  Interesting that it was also a Democratic administration, but I'm not trying to make the point that Democrats can't be trusted (though that is certainly true).  My point is that doubting our elected leaders is a very proper, right, healthy thing to do.  And doing things like, oh, Obamacare, that gives the Federal government even more control in our lives, even in the alternate universe where it would be economical, is the wrong thing to do.  Not news to RTP&GGers of course.

Voters need to make sure that the right thing for politicians is the right thing for America.  That is what the ballot box is for.  Unfortunately, I don't know that the majority of Americans care what is right for America anymore.

Print Your Own Gun

In the not-too-distant future this will be possible. The world's first 3-D printed gun,,, called the Liberator, has been successfully fired by Defense Distributed. This is in addition to an AR-15 and AK-47 magazines and an AR-15 lower receiver that has been successfully made and used with this new technology.

On May 1st, Wilson assembled the 3D-printed pieces of his Liberator for the first time, and agreed to let a Forbes photographer take pictures of the unproven device. A day later, that gun was tested on a remote private shooting range an hour’s drive from Austin, Texas, whose exact location Wilson asked me not to reveal.

The verdict: it worked. The Liberator fired a standard .380 handgun round without visible damage, though it also misfired on another occasion when the firing pin failed to hit the primer cap in the loaded cartridge due a misalignment in the hammer body, resulting in an anti-climactic thunk.[...] 

The group’s initial success in testing the Liberator may now silence some of its technical naysayers, too. Many skeptics (include commenters on this blog) have claimed that no plastic gun could ever handle the pressure and heat of detonating an ammunition cartridge without deforming or exploding. But Defense Distributed’s design has done just that.

The gun is composed of 16 parts. Only the firing pin was not made with the 3-D printer, a nail was used. The gun was made using a 9000 dollar 3-D printer. Defense Distributed is currently working to improve the gun so that it can be made with a less expensive 3-D printer. The current design is still fairly crude. The accuracy, reliability, and safety of the gun is questionable but this will be improved upon in time.

Almost immediately after the successful firing of the world's first 3-D gun the government is already working to regulate the technology. The gun's creator has faced many challenges and roadblocks along the way, and there is no doubt that this technology has many more to come. This technology in its early development, but it will continue to be improved upon. Eventually this technology has the ability to prevent the government from being able to completely ban guns. This is a "game changer".

Who Are You Going To Listen Too?

I think these videos are very instructive. Who are you going to listen to when it comes to figuring out what the economic environment is going to be like and planning for your future? The experts and the mainstream opinion or people with a proven track record of accurately forecasting economic events? The economic crisis in 2008 was completely predictable; but the mainstream analysts and experts did not see 2008 coming. Instead the experts laughed at the people that were telling them what was coming. Why does this matter to you? Today most of the experts are still telling us that the worst of the economic crisis is over and still deriding those that are "too negative" and are "doom and gloomers" who are forecasting that a much bigger global economic crisis is headed our way. What happened to those that were telling the truth?

Here is Peter Schiff getting laughed at while telling everybody that there was a big economic recession coming around 2008.

 Here is the current chairman of the Federal Reserve stating during 2005-2007 that the economy was doing well and that there was no recession headed our way. A prominent central banker fessed up when caught in an open lie by reporters said this: “When it becomes serious, you have to lie".

Here is Peter Schiff talking a much bigger economic crisis coming.

 Who are you going to listen to?

Happy Earth Day!

This was so good I had to steal it: The 13 Worst Predictions made on the 1st Earth Day, April 22, 1970:

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald


"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

Hmmm, anybody notice how wildly off these predictions were?  It seems that even learned Ivy League 'scientists' can't deal with anything more complicated than a straight line as far as trends are concerned.  Temperatures are getting colder, therefore temperatures will continue to get colder unless we do something drastic.  Temperatures are getting warmer, therefore temperatures will continue to get warmer...yadayada, populations are increasing, therefore...

In fairness, pollution levels have fallen greatly since I was a kid both in the air and in the water.  I remember flying around the Puget Sound in the '70's with my dad and always seeing a yellow fog over Seattle.  Going to LA and getting a headache from air pollution.  Catching deformed and diseased flounder in the Puget Sound.  I do think that government regulation is primarily responsible for solving these things. 

But, still notice that many of the same people are still making predictions that have no more foundation in facts than those were back in 1970, when eco-consciousness was first really forced on America.

A Federal Europe By The Back Door

Here is clip in honor of the late Margaret Thatcher who warned against the Euro.

And here is a clip of Nigel Farage speaking the truth about the European Union and discussing the recent wealth confiscation of the people of Cyprus. (This is a portent of what will happen in the next economic crisis here and around the world.)

The current economic crisis in the EU was predicted by some of the finance ministers of the various European nations that signed up for the Euro. They had wanted to create a political and economic union that would have created a united states of Europe. They couldn't get the political union by consent of the European people, so they settled for an unsustainable economic union that would force the political union on the people of Europe through an economic crisis:

  "On 1 January 1999, with the introduction of the an important part of national sovereignty, to wit monetary sovereignty, was passed over to a European institution...The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic, but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act...political union must be our lodestar from now on: it is the logical follow-on from Economic and Monetary Union,” then German foreign minister Joschka Fischer told European Union lawmakers just days after the introduction of the euro in 1999.
Fischer was not alone, with many of the founding members of the euro zone making it clear that the single currency was significant as a stepping stone to political union.

"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community...it is a decision of an essentially political nature. We need this United Europe...we must never forget that the euro is an instrument for this project” said Felipe Gonzalez, then Spanish prime minister. Even those who opposed the idea and refused to join agreed that the euro had little to do with economics.

"A single currency is about the politics of Europe. It is about a Federal Europe by the back door,” John Major, the former U.K. prime minister, said two years before the euro was born and six months before being routed at the polls by Tony Blair.

Historian Niall Ferguson wrote in this weekend’s Sunday Times that the euro’s founding fathers were well aware that the introduction of the euro would lead us to a crisis very like this one. [Emphasis is mine.]

Vladimir Bukovsky states that the European union is the new Soviet Union:

The European Union is template for the coming world government that will be forced upon the people of the world in the coming economic crisis.

Sacrifice

Every facet of our government needs to sacrifice if we are going to survive the debt crisis. This does not mean that our government has to be less effective. It just means they need to start operating like a normal business. I like what our new  Secretary of Defense had to say about defense cuts:

The greatest fiscal threat to the military is not declining budgets, Hagel warned, but rather “the growing imbalance in where that money is being spent internally.” In other words, money dedicated to health care or benefits is money that’s not spent on preparing troops for battle or pilots for missions. (militarytimes.com)

It is good to see that a person at such a high level is finally saying the things that need to be said.  Legacy costs are killing our budgets. If a respected and honorable community, like veterans, can take a hit on benefits, then there should be no argument for any entitlement to be spared. Certainly veterans deserve these things more than most others.

The Science is Settled!

Even the super hyper Climate Warming partisans at The Economist finally note what people with brains have noticed for many years now: Climate is not warming.  In fact, every single climate model that has been used to prove Global Warming, and justify massive governmental intrusion and taxation in our lives (mostly through the Green Power initiatives) has been proven grossly wrong.  And, as you may expect with people putting an agenda before the science - they all err in exactly the same way - overestimating climate warming.  Looking at the graph, and understanding a limited amount of statistics, you can see how horribly bad the predictions are.  Even though we have continued to fill our atmosphere with more and more killer Carbon Dioxide, the temperatures refuse to budge.  The studies were mostly made in the late 90's and the data, when not skewed by the scamsters, refuses to track the predictions.

The point isn't that global climate doesn't change.  Of course it does and always has.  The point is that the big hype of pushing man's increasing production of carbon dioxide as the true environmental killer has been shown to be completely without foundation in fact.  Which means all our money-wasting initiatives to create less carbon dioxide have been done without an ounce of real-world justification:  all the shutting down of coal plants, development of expensive 'renewable' electrical generation plants, hybrid and electric cars, and every other effort to reduce our material wealth via the global warming boogeyman is money and life-alteration is just money sucked out of our pockets and into the pockets of scamsters

It's very ironic that in the late '90's, when all the studies were published showing global temperatures going through the roof, Gaia decided to play a joke on the scammers and flatline the temperatures. 

I'm sure another scam will come along soon to replace Global Warming.  Global Climate Change!  It will be too easy to mock them if they turn back to the Global Cooling of the '70's.   Too many of us remember when they tried that the first time.

But just remember, our God-King Obama, Al Gore, and all our betters, who of course have degrees from Ivy League schools, know better than we do.  So, be sure to listen to them when they try this again.  And of course this current scam is still -practically speaking- going full-speed ahead, as carbon caps are still in effect for the power industry, and you still are paying higher and higher power bills etc, etc. 

Google Shuns Jesus

We enjoy the free services of Google by using this blog. However, given Google's subliminal leftist agenda (or not so subliminal), I am going to start using Bing for all my web searches. I suggest you do the same.

I have noticed that Google likes to illustrate fun little pictures on its home search page. I remember Sesame Street on its anniversary and MLK on his day etc. Yesterday, arguably the most important day on the calendar for Christians, a picture of Cesar Chavez was shown.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04/01/google-creates-controversy-with-cesar-chavez-doodle/

I am going to try to boycott as many Google services as I can. I will start using Bing for my random searches.

Happy Easter!

Awards

Evidently some Air Force Chaplain received a Bronze Star for creating a power point on how to sympathize with Muslims. If this is true, and I'm not clear on the facts, its a horrible disgrace of an honorable medal.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/13/air-force-chaplain-awarded-prestigious-bronze-star-for-powerpoint-teaching-about-proper-disposal-handling-of-islamic-texts/

I think that medals are given out like candy these days. I think they are almost used as a recruiting tool in some way. Its like we want to give people golden stars when they wipe their ass. I know of a few instances where Marines were given recognition when it was not earned. I consider this, as with allowing homosexuals in the military, another means of watering down the military.

The VFW has been doing their part in trying to make military medals as legitimate as possible. Their is a new medal called "The Distinguished Warfare Medal". It has something to do with cyber war and drone warfare. The VFW, along with other veterans organizations, has expressed their grievances with the government that the medal should not be placed above certain heroic combat medals (which it currently is).

http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2013-Articles/VFW-Leads-Effort-with-Other-VSO/MSOs,-Asks-President-Obama-to-Lower-Drone-Medal-Ranking/

I don't deserve many medals. I certainly deserve something, but I would feel like a bag of ass if I was given a
Purple Heart for a tummy ache.

Sticking to Principle

After watching various speeches at CPAC, I have been pleasantly surprised that conservatives are sticking to principle. Most speeches are about restricting federal government, the constitution, and Christianity. I don't know how well this will be for the Republican party but it makes me happy that we are not adjusting to the left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO4DHaQGASc

Good speech by Rand Paul. Go to minute 16 where he generalizes how the GOP needs to go if we want to win the right way. Until someone proves me wrong, I think Rand Paul is the best leader for this country.