Smart cities get their own operating system

From BBC.news.co.uk (Sept. 30):

Cities could soon be looking after their citizens all by themselves thanks to an operating system designed for the metropolis.

The Urban OS works just like a PC operating system but keeps buildings, traffic and services running smoothly.

The software takes in data from sensors dotted around the city to keep an eye on what is happening.

In the event of a fire the Urban OS might manage traffic lights so fire engines can reach the blaze swiftly.

The idea is for the Urban OS to gather data from sensors buried in buildings and many other places to keep an eye on what is happening in an urban area.

The sensors monitor everything from large scale events such as traffic flows across the entire city down to more local phenomena such as temperature sensors inside individual rooms.

The OS completely bypasses humans to manage communication between sensors and devices such as traffic lights, air conditioning or water pumps that influence the quality of city life.

A test bed for the Urban OS is currently being built in Portugal. For its work in developing smart cities, Living PlanIT was selected as one of the World Economic Forum's Technology Pioneers of 2012. [read more]

Nice idea, but I hope they have anti-virus software installed and firewalls to prevent hackers. If the system monitors air conditioning that’s a lot of power for city officials to have. So, if they think you are using to much air conditioning and increasing global warming, will the officials adjust your thermostat accordingly? Right now it looks like the OS is just monitoring everything and no-one is controlling the inputs of the sensors. Still it sounds like Big Computer is monitoring you.

If there are sensors on buildings will they alert the police if someone is breaking into your house? I hope the OS doesn’t have false alarms like home security systems have.

The article says that McLaren Electronic Systems is making the OS. They make computer sensors for Formula 1 and other various motorsports. I guess that is a good OS. I haven’t heard of any glitches with their OS in the news.

The Left, The Free-Market and Complexity

In their book Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness (1989) the authors John Briggs and F. David Peat talk about the main surprise-generating mechanism of Chaos Theory or Complexity Theory. I think why the Left (especially the elite) think man cannot rule himself is because of these mechanisms in the human mind. And since the elite cannot manage or control any of these mechanisms and that makes them nervous. These mechanisms are what show up not only in the mind but also in the free-market system—which a reflection of the mind in a way. What are the main surprise-mechanisms?

1. Paradoxes. A paradox is just a bunch of statements that lead to a contradiction. Or it could be just one like: “This statement is false.” If the statement is really true then it cannot be true because it says it is false. Paradoxes mean people can be irrational. The elite think everyone except for themselves are irrational. Like they are special or something. But they are deluding themselves. Here are some paradoxes in economics and other social systems: Abilene paradox (a form of groupthink), Inventor's paradox, Paradox of hedonism, and the Icarus paradox (this gov’t cannot do anything about).  Paradoxes make you think about situations in different unexpected ways.
2. Instability- large effects from small changes. This is also called The Butterfly Effect. If you raise taxes, or implement a regulatory law even no matter how small could lead to bigger changes down the road. The free-market system is a dynamic system. The Left doesn’t seem to get that. And there is no way to make the free-market system completely stable. It is perfectly normal for it to have instability once in a while. It will readjust itself eventually. If there isn’t stupid regulations blocking its normal “free” behavior it will readjust itself quicker.
3. Uncomputability- behavior transcends rules. This is maybe why the Left elites think man cannot rule himself. Human behavior cannot be completely predicted. If you cannot predict something you cannot control it. You cannot completely regulate it. Thus you can’t trust it. And that bugs the progressives to no-end. Here’s the thing though. Even if you did know most of the rules you still might not be able to predict or control the dynamic system. Case in point. The old Soviet Union (and most of the radical Left) believed the Soviet Union was a “utopia.” No violence and everyone living peacefully. Wrong! Come to find out they had a serial killer there. They couldn’t predict him and couldn’t stop him either. So, much for a perfect society. Computer scientists know this mechanism pretty well.
4. Connectivity- behavior cannot be decomposed into parts. If you cannot break something down, you cannot analyze it real well. If you cannot analyze it so much for trying to control it. Another bugaboo for The Left. Although that doesn’t stop them from trying to regulate life.
5. Emergence- self-organizing patterns. This is the essence of creativity and innovation. In this instance, the self-organizing patterns are inventions. Gov’t couldn’t predict Thomas Edison’s light bulb, or Ford’s model T, or the personal computer, or even the paper clip for that matter. Who knows what inventions will come up in the future. That’s why it is called “self”-organizing not gov’t organizing systems. Obama wants America to have green-technology. But the gov’t cannot force it to happen like magic. Any technology will happen in its own time when the conditions are right. The problem is no-one knows what the conditions are. That’s the nature of dynamic systems especially economic systems. Well, low taxes and less regulations would help but even that might not be enough.

In the brain there isn’t any neurons controlling or planning what the other neurons are doing. Just like the brain the free-market system should not be planned by some central authority. If the free-market system is centrally managed then you will not have a functional dynamic system that produces these “surprises.” You will have a flat-lined system that produces no surprises, no spontaneity, and no innovation. It’s that simple.

Mass. cat with 2 faces lives 12 years, sets record

From apnews.excite.com:

Worchester, Mass.   Frank and Louie the cat was born with two faces, two mouths, two noses, three eyes - and lots of doubts about his future.

Now, 12 years after Marty Stevens rescued him from being euthanized because of his condition, the exotic blue-eyed rag doll cat is not only thriving, but has also made it into the 2012 edition of Guinness World Records as the longest-surviving member of a group known as Janus cats, named for a Roman god with two faces. [read more]

That’s one freakin’ looking cat. Looks like some sort of Cubist painting that Pablo Picasso would have done. I didn’t even know there was record for that type of cat. I guess there’s almost a Guinness World record for just about everything.

In case you are wondering, Guinness World Records did not have any other “Janus” animals. Just that cat. I looked for Janus dogs on the web and did not find any photos of those.

How to Create a Mob

Or if you prefer how to create the “bottom-up” part of  the “top-down, bottom-up, inside-out” structure of a revolution. This is how radicals I believe would create a mob:

1. Find some angry, disillusioned, frustrated, confused, naive young people. If you can’t find any then encourage them to have these emotions through colleges. Even far-Left parents can do this. The recruits have to be naive (most young are) so they don’t know what is happening.
2. Tell them what they are feeling is caused by the System oppressing them. That’s is not their fault. The System can be the economic system, political system, etc. It doesn’t matter what the System is or even if it is oppressing them or not.
3. Tell the young recruits they are special. That they are the future of the world. Again the recruiter doesn’t have to believe this. As long as the recruits believes it.
4. Tell the recruits that since they are oppressed it is okay even justified to act violently against society because society has been oppressing you. It is okay to steal from the rich since they did not earn their wealth anyway and kept you from getting what you rightly deserve.  You make the recruits feel victimized.
5. If a recruit says he is not being oppressed, then you tell him that it is because he has not “seen the truth” or that he is being tricked or brainwashed by the system to believe everything is okay. Karl Marx called religion  “opiate of the masses” for example. Basically the same thing.

Of course, it could be possible that the radical elite can create an atmosphere (high unemployment, hyperinflation, etc.) to increase the emotions or even to try to create them in the potential mob.  This could be the “top-down” part. 

These probably are not all the steps but I think are the main ones.

Americans Win Most Deadly Warrior Matches

If you never watched “Deadly Warrior” on Spike TV, a team of experts simulate on a computer different hypothetical combat matches between two teams or two people. They take into account weapons, tactics, armor and even “X” factors. It’s a fascinating show.

According to that show Americans won all but one match as you can see from the chart below:  Winner

                                       Match                                                                   Total kills

Green Beret	Spetsnaz (Russian army special forces)	481	519
SWAT	GSG9 (German federal counter-terrorism force)	578	422
KGB	CIA	450	550
Navy SEAL	Israeli Commando	518	482
George Washington	Napoleon Bonaparte	50.6%	49.4%
U.S. Army Rangers	North Korean Special Operation Forces	50.08%	49.92%
Teddy Roosevelt	Lawrence of Arabia	51.64%	48.36%

 

You can see the statistics of the matches at the Wikipedia webpage.

It’s too bad the Green Berets lost, but the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers made up for it. Although the Army Ranger match was a close one. Glad to see that George Washington can kick Napoleon Bonaparte’s rear-end.

Negative Rights

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are what are called negative rights by people who study the Constitution. What this means is the government cannot take these rights away from you. They are God-given. But they are also don’t cost you anything—or shouldn’t anyway (one might, I’ll explain later). As philosopher Ayn Rand I believe said one time about rights if you ask “At what cost?” to a right and if the answer is nothing then it is probably a right.

For instance, freedom of speech, association, and religion doesn’t cost anyone (ie the government) anything. Well, it doesn’t cost the average citizen anything. If you tell the truth against the gov’t, or if join a religion that teaches to be skeptical of the gov’t then the gov’t might not like it---they they interpret that as a cost to them.

What about a right to work?  That’s a cost. And they are not God-given. The right to work was a right in the old Soviet Union. Since you had a right to work you were assigned a job the state calculated was the best fit for you. You did not have a choice which job you wanted. The state made that choice for you. It controlled your wages and benefits. Your working hours too. After all it had your best interests in mind. Isn’t that nice? Oh, yea you wouldn’t be allowed to be unemployed.

What about a right to a house? Again a cost. Labor, materials, and finding a place to build the house are all costs. And if it was a right, you would have no right to decide what the house would look like, what it would be made of, or how big it would be if the state had to build it. Also the state would put you in a house it deemed would fulfill your needs. Even though you might (probably would) disagree with them. Again the state is just looking out for you. You probably wouldn’t be allowed to be homeless either.

The same with healthcare. If it is a right, then the state basically owns your body. Think about that. It can tell you what to eat, drink, how much exercise to do, what drugs you can and cannot take, and any surgeries you would get. Also, it would decide if you should live or die if you have a incurable disease. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

I could go on but you get the point. Earlier I said there might be a right that could be a cost and that is the right to bear arms. The state could go and give you gun (like that would happen). Although, I heard about an American town that required it citizens to own a gun. Their crime rate was near zero.  Anyway, if the state was that generous the gun would be cheap and not work half the time. And they would probably have you buy the ammunition. That’s why in the US Constitution it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  In other words it is not going to give you a gun.

The UN’s Agenda 21

How’s that for a name? What is Agenda 21? This is what the UN says it is:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Does that clear it up? No? The Agenda basically revolves around climate change. If you really want to know what it is you have to read it’s principles.

For example Principle 2 says: States (that is countries that sign on to the Agenda) can exploit (that’s the word the UN uses—gotta like the Left—always predictable) their own environmental resources as long as the other member States says it okay. Well, it did not say that exactly but that is how I interpreted the principle.  The actually principle said: “… the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” How do you define “damage to the environment”? Environmental extremists think CO₂ is causing damage to the environment.

Principle 5 says:

All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of
eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and
better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Sounds like world wide wealth distribution to me. Eradicating poverty? Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” tried to do that. Guess what there is still poor people. How about if every country would allow a free market system. That would help.

Here are some of the other principles with my interpretation:

Principle 6: Developing countries especially those who are “environmentally vulnerable” (what the heck does that mean?) shall be given priority help.

Principle 8: The free-market system is bad. It should be reduced by the States.

Principle 10: A person in a State can sue (or be allowed to sue) if they think Mother Earth is being wronged.

Principle 12: A State has to get permission from other States to run their countries economically and environmentally.

Principle 13: A person can sue if has to breathe smog or other pollution.

Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under oppression,
domination and occupation shall be protected. That is an exact quote. So, who cares about the people being oppressed as long as the environment is protected? Is that the idea? The whole Agenda is oppressive, so I guess that would make it contradict itself.

Principle 24: You can fight wars as long as Mother Earth is not hurt. Again, who cares about the people who get killed or maimed in them.

Principle 25: Another exact quote: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible. Says it all don’t you think? Earth worshiping anyone?

According to the Patriot Update article where I got this info from, President Clinton, Obama, and George HW Bush signed on to Agenda 21 via executive orders.

A lot of countries have become members except for N. Korea and Iran. Actually, I did not see one middle eastern country sign on. One city in China signed on. And one city in Russia signed on.

Some states that have 10 or more cities supporting the Agenda in America are: Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas, California, Colorado.

I would check to see if the city you are living in supports the Agenda. And think about seriously moving if you can. You can sure tell which city is on the Left especially the far-Left by looking at the list.

Does The Left Have Groupthink?

According to the PsySR.org website this is the definition of groupthink:

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

Can’t comment of the “mental efficiency” of the Left but they seem to have deterioration of “reality testing” and sometimes even “moral judgment.”

Specifically these are the symptoms of groupthink with my comments in brackets:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. [Warnings about overspending getting America in more debt because they believe Keynesian economics. Warnings about over-regulation hurting the economy.]
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. [The Left believe that big gov’t can save society even though it does the exact opposite.]
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. [The Left’s “enemies” are: Christians, conservatives, big business that does not take money from the gov’t, the Tea Parties, non-unionized people (that’s Jim Hoffa Jr.’s SOBs he was talking about), women and minorities who don’t go along with the party line, global warming “deniers”, etc.]
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. [Actually, the Left tries to suppress any view from anyone they don’t like.  But within their own group how about Juan Williams? Or even Senator Joseph Lieberman who had to switch to Independent.]
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. [If the Left allows this to happen then that means their ideology might just be false or empty.]
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. [And if they are not, a member cannot be trusted.]
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. [This the responsibility of the lame stream media.]

All cults and totalitarian regimes have these eight symptoms. Actually, cults and totalitarian regimes love these symptoms. Because members are easier to control. 

So, does the Left have these symptoms? Except for maybe #1 I would say yes—although I would not call the Left a cult per se but they are close to one.

What about the Right you might ask. Sure, the Right can have these symptoms (as the webpage made a point about President Bush and the Iraq War) but the Left main foundation revolves around groups and classes. Remember it was Hillary Clinton that said “it takes a village.” Village is just code word for group.

The way you counter groupthink if you read the webpage is to have most of the members be individuals ie have individual opinions. Otherwise if everyone thinks the same way then you will definitely have groupthink.

The Left in a Nutshell

The political Left is focused (obsessed?) around groups. Specifically here’s the rules/concepts:

1. A group has more rights than individuals. The individual doesn’t count.
2. If you insult a group then you insult all members of that group.
3. Members of a group don’t have personal responsibility.
4. Members of a group should act similarly otherwise they cannot be trusted.
5. Individuals can’t rule themselves. They must be a member of a group and ruled by an Elite who can guide them. See my “The Progressive Manual for the Masses” blog entry for more details.
6. Only Elites can rule themselves. Cause they are enlightened.

That’s basically it.

Why Herman Cain Would Be a Good Pick

Here are my thoughts why Herman Cain would be a good pick to run against Obama:

1. Obama couldn’t play the race card. He would have to defend his record which he doesn’t want to do. He might still play the race card but it would look lame. Obama would have to pick another personal attack.
2. Herman Cain could, being black, go on the offensive without being called a racist. I am not so sure any of the other Republican candidates would go on the offensive as hard. John McCain sure didn’t.
3. Mr. Cain is highly intelligent. He has a masters in computer science. That should be enough. Ha! Also, having a computer science degree means you are a logical thinker and can solve problems. Don’t have enough that in gov’t.
4. A friend to businesses. So are the other candidates, but they did not save any business from bankruptcy. He saved Godfather’s Pizza. Obama and FDR by the way did not have any businessmen for advisors.
5. Not a politician. Yea, he was on the Federal Reserve Bank of KC. But I am talking about being a Congressmen.
6. Newsweek said he sabotaged Hillarycare. So, what do you think he will do to Obamacare?
7. He doesn’t have a bad singing voice. (Okay, I just threw that one in.)

Does he have a chance to get the nomination? Sure, why not. A lot of pundits think he doesn’t have a chance though. Mainly that’s because of name recognition. Interestingly enough, Dick Morris isn’t counting him out yet. 

Herman Cain supports the FairTax—that I am not so sure about. First, you have to repeal the current income tax. And that isn’t going to happen so soon.

So you know, I wasn’t paid or compensated in any way by Herman Cain or anyone associated with him for this blog entry. 

The “Do-Nothing” Congress

In 1946 President Harry Truman called the Republican Congress back then the “do-nothing” Congress. This is what they did and you can decide for yourself if they deserved the nickname or not.

• The 18th Congress passed the first balanced budget since the Great Crash. [Great! Too bad this Congress can’t do the same thing. Maybe voters can make the Senate a majority Republican too?]
• They chopped taxes by nearly $5 billion (while at the same time exempting millions of low-income working-class Americans from taxation). [Yes! Always like tax cuts.]
• The Congress quashed a socialist national health-care scheme. [Now, you are talking! It looks like the Left has to always bring up socialized medicine. Then again they tend to be composed of socialists or wannabe-socialists anyway.]
• Passed the Taft-Hartley freedom-to-work act over the president’s veto. [Truman hated this act—and I bet most unions did too.]
• The Office of Price Administration was demolished. [You can kind of guess what the agency did. Sounds like a gov’t agency Obama would like. Glad the Congress scrapped this FDR program.]

“Do-nothing” really? I think they did quite a lot. The authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States said the Congress did nothing that Truman liked. Probably so. But good for them. They did some other things like creating the CIA and the Dept. of Defense but these five I particularly liked.

Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

This snippet is from radio show host Glenn Beck’s website:
Thus, we the people do hereby declare not only our rights, but do now establish this bill of responsibilities.
1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.
2. Because I have the right to worship as I choose, I have the responsibility to honor the right of others to worship as they see fit.
3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.
4. Because I have the right to pursue happiness, I have the responsibility to show humility and express gratitude for all the blessings I enjoy and the rights I’ve been given.
5. Because I have the right to honest and good government I will seek out honest and just representatives when possible. If I cannot find one then I accept the responsibility to take that place.
6. Because I have the God given right to liberty, I have the personal responsibility to have the courage to defend others to be secure in their persons, lives and property.
7. Because I have the right to equal justice, I will stand for those who are wrongly accused or unjustly blamed.
8. Because I have the right to knowledge, I will be accountable for myself and my children’s education…to live our lives in such a way that insures the continuation of truth.
9. Because I have the right to pursue my dreams and keep the fruits of my labor, I have the responsibility to feed, protect and shelter my family, the less fortunate, the fatherless, the old and infirm.
10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will not stand idly by as others do.
Unconditionally, while maintaining my responsibility to compassionately yet fiercely stand against those things that decay the natural rights of all men. And for the support of this declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
There is more to the Declaration. You can read it at his website. Good stuff.

The Causes of the Great Crash of 1929

What caused the Great Crash of 1929?

1. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had important disruptive effects. (Tariffs in general are a bad idea.)
2. Few people knew exactly what form those disruptive effects would take. (Sounds like most bills Congress passes especially if they are real complex.)
3. Unknown to anyone at the time, the Federal Reserve made the harmful effects even worse though its policy of deflation. (Has the Fed done anything right, really?)
4. President Herbert Hoover tried to prop up farm prices, creating another new federal agency with the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929. (Yes, this Republican was a Progressive. He followed the Keynesian knee-jerk response of using big gov’t to try to solve problems.)
5. Hoover taxed [my emphasis] bank checks. (WTF?!) This accelerated the decline in the availability of money by penalizing people for writing checks.
6. The Hoover admin. created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). It provided $2 billion in funds for financial institutions that were teetering on the brink. Federal regulations required publications of the names of businesses and banks receiving RFC loans. This sent depositors scrambling to remove their money, weakening the banks even further.
7. Hoover then signed the largest peacetime tax increase in history. A sales tax at that. (That was basically the last nail in the coffin.)

Source: A Patriot's History of The United States.

Small Businesses and Employment

If politicians want the more people to be employed by the private-sector then they have to stop punishing (over-regulating and over-taxing) small businesses for wanting to grow bigger. It’s only natural for them to want to grow bigger (although if they don’t want to it’s not a sin.  A business owner has to know their capabilities and ambition to grow the business.). The bigger they get the more profit they will make. And if they grow naturally they will hire more people to help with the growing customer base. But once they stop becoming a small business and start becoming a medium or even big business then government pushes them for trying to be successful. I think that is twisted logic.

There is only two way to increase employment: One, let any small business grow so it can hire more employees or two, increase the number of small businesses. In other words say a politician wants a town to increase its employment to 1,000 more employees. The leaders can either let the existing businesses grow so they can hire 1,000 more people or find a way to increase the number of small businesses so they can hire 1,000 more people. Or the leaders could do both. Good luck with increasing the number of small businesses. I think it would be easier to make it so the existing businesses to grow. I am not talking about subsidizing them. To be fair you would have to subsidize every small business or you’ll be playing favorites. Also, giving them money may or may not help the business to grow anyway. It depends on the owner’s business sense and ambition and only the free market can determine that.

According to the SBA.gov website 51% of small businesses survived five or more years. The rest fail for various reasons. And government wants to make matters worse by over-regulating and taxing? Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner. It’s hard work and you have to know what you are doing.  I applaud anyone who has the drive and know-how to make a business succeed. So, increasing the number of small businesses is fine in theory but in reality I think it will be a lot harder. Besides if a politician has never ran a business how would he ever know how to increase the number of businesses? An economist doesn’t even really know. Who could predict a Thomas Edison or Graham Bell or even a Benjamin Franklin? Even if you increased the number of business courses in high school that may or may not produce a Thomas Edison if it is not within them. In the end government can only create an environment to let businesses grow and not discourage anyone from starting a business. Government can’t make a small business appear like magic like it can with gov’t agencies. You will hardly ever hear that from a politician.

One last thought. If a society wants prosperity then it has to keep the free-market alive and well.  You can do this by not denigrating businesses and the free-market to children and have them respect private property. Or else you could wind up with riots like in England. God help this country if that happens here.

Advice for Politicians

An older priest told a newer priest when living in a community to remember three things:

1. You’re not God.
2. This isn’t heaven.
3. Don’t be an ass.

Yea, that pretty much says it all. Even though this advice was meant for clergy I think it applies really well to any politician especially those who believes in big gov’t. I could not have said it better.

Source: The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life (2010) by James Martin, SJ

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 22

• It would be refreshing to hear one Congressman say (s)he would take a pay freeze until America is out of debt.  Actually I would love to hear all members of Congress say that. I can dream can’t  I?
• I don’t remember a Democrat in Congress (or anywhere else) complain about President George W. Bush’s over-spending when he was president. Now, they bring up Bush’s spending when people talk about Obama’s over-spending. That’s funny.
• In Star Trek they had a Prime Directive. But would have been so bad if Captain Kirk or anyone in his crew left the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights on a developing planet?
• Lotfi Zadehs Law of Incompatibility: As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning & meaningful statements lose precision. Yea, that pretty much describes God.
• If the executive branch and Congress are both progressive politically then the country is in trouble. Then you want some fiscally responsible politicians to counter them. But if the executive branch and Congress are all fiscally responsible then no harm can be done.
• Maybe we need a right-to-work country. Just thinking out loud. (Big Labor would absolutely go nuts if anyone actually proposed that.)
• Time waits for no man. But it waits any woman, especially if they are shopping or in the bathroom.
• The love of power is also the root of all evil. Probably more evil than the love of money. Because power involves relationships with people.
• What you might never see: Flash robs ransacking book stores.
• A religion that has no doubts about anything is in my mind a cult.

Top 10 Reasons to Support Rep. Connie Mack's Penny Plan

1. It Would Cut Federal Spending By One Percent for Six Consecutive Fiscal Years.

The Penny Plan would require Congress to cut just one penny out of each dollar it spends every year for six years. These gradual cuts over the next six years will balance the federal budget.

2. It Would Cap Overall Spending at 18 Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Starting in
Fiscal Year 2018.

Congressional spending consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

3. It is a Very Simple Plan.

The Penny Plan is simple and straight to the point. Cutting federal spending by one percent every year for six years is clear enough for everyone to understand. Unlike many Washington schemes, it's not a complicated proposal.

4. It Would Reduce Overall Federal Spending by $7.5 trillion over the Next Ten Years.

Federal spending has risen to unprecedented levels which threatens our economic freedom. The Penny Plan would significantly cut government spending overtime and set us on the path towards fiscal responsibility.

5. It Would Balance the Federal Budget by 2019.

The current U.S. budget deficit is an unprecedented $1.6 trillion. The Penny Plan would bring the federal budget into balance this decade. 

6. It is a Modest Plan.

The Penny Plan is far from radical. These gradual cuts are more likely to gain bipartisan support rather than a big dramatic cut. With our national debt at $14.4 trillion, everyone should agree that we can cut just one percent of federal spending over the next six years.

7. The Plan Contains No Gimmicks or Budget Tricks.

The Penny Plan would cut real spending. Many other proposals only ìcutî spending from a bloated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. The CBO baseline predicts what would happen over the  next decade given current projections of taxation and spending. These plans don't actually reduce spending since these “cuts” are just reduction in the amount they had hoped to increase spending. The Penny Plan would cut from current amounts being spent and not anticipated spending off a phony baseline.

8. It Gives Congress Some Discretion on What to Cut.

The one percent spending cuts will be achieved one of two ways. The first way is that Congress and the President could work together to cut federal spending by one percent each year. This will allow them to prioritize what cuts are the most important.

9. It Will Trigger Automatic, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts If No Deal Can Be Reached.

The second way that the Penny Plan reduces spending is through an automatic, across-the-board cut. If Congress and the President are unable to reach a compromise, the bill triggers automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to guarantee that the one percent reduction is met. This plan would then force lawmakers to cut any of their sacred cows.

10. It Will End Washington's Unprecedented Spending Spree.

The Penny Plan will ensure that Washington cuts spending and balances the federal budget. We cannot afford to continue Washington's reckless spending spree. It's a good step in the right direction to get our fiscal house in order.

All talking points are from FreedomWorks.com

Top 10 Reasons to Support Lee-Walsh’s Balanced Budget Amendment

1. It Would Require the Federal Government to Balance Its Budget Every Year.

The federal budget deficit is a record high $1.6 trillion---more than 10 percent of the nation’s entire output, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We face such an enormous deficit because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. The Lee-Walsh Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) would force Washington to live within its means.

2. It Would Prevent Tax Hikes.

The Lee-Walsh BBA would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to raise taxes, which would help prevent the prosperity-killing tax hikes that years of trillion dollar deficits, as proposed by President Obama’s budget would surely bring. The Lee-Walsh BBA would achieve a balanced budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes.

3. It Would Make it More Difficult to Raise the Debt Ceiling.

The Lee-Walsh BBA would require a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has been raised ten times in just the past decade. It’s clear that we need to make it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling. The Lee-Walsh BBA does this to ensure that Congress cannot raise the debt ceiling so carelessly.

4. It Would Limit Spending to 18 Percent of GDP.

Congressional spending currently consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

5. It Would Reduce the Size and Scope of Government.

If we want economic growth to return and be a permanent part of American life, it is imperative that we dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. The Lee-Walsh BBA would put real restraints on the amount of money Washington can spend.

6. It Has a Good Chance of Passing.

The Lee-Walsh BBA has a very good chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. In the Senate, the BBA has unanimous support from all 47 Republicans. It's likely to gain bipartisan support in both chambers.

7. The Lee-Walsh BBA Has Teeth.

Some proposed BBAs have numerous loopholes that make it easy for Congress to override the amendment. The Lee-Walsh BBA has real teeth that would require Washington to balance its budget each year.

8. Americans Overwhelmingly Support Balanced Budget Amendments.

Balanced Budget Amendments have always been popular with the American people. By 72-20 percent, most voters favor a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to a Fox News poll. 

9. It Would Prohibit Congress from Perpetual Deficit Spending.

Deficit spending is simply a hidden tax on future earnings. It is irresponsible for Washington to continue to borrow now and tax us more down the road. The Lee-Walsh BBA would help end our deficit spending and our debt culture.

10. It is a Good Start to Restoring Fiscal Sanity to Washington.

A Balanced Budget Amendment may not be a cure all. But it's a step in the right direction to rein in excessive spending. Enactment of this amendment will go a long way in ensuring Washington never gets so carried away with reckless spending again.

Who says Republicans don’t have any plans to balance the budget?  All in all a good plan especially reasons 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10. What I want to know when is the debt ceiling never raised? Or is it a meaningless term like so much phrases in politics.

These talking points are from FreedomWorks August Action Kit.

Picking Presidential Administration Appointments

When President Reagan first became president he and his staff spent a lot of time discussing appointments to key jobs in the administration. Here are his words about picking them:

As I had done in California, I told the staff I wanted them to look for the best people we could find who were willing to leave their homes and their secure positions to come to Washington and give the country a hand. When I’d approach somebody about taking a job, I’d often say, “We don’t want people who want a job in government, we want people of accomplishment who have to be persuaded to come to work here.”

Source: The Uncommon Wisdom of Ronald Reagan. A Portrait in His Words. (1996) by Bill Adler [editor]

In other words, President Reagan wanted someone who did not dream of working in government. It’s too bad we can’t get people running for Congress or even for president like this. Most want to have power not to serve. If you have a candidate that was reluctant of running but had experience and accomplishment in oh, I don’t know say the private sector (excluding trial lawyers—we have enough of those in Congress thank you) then you  would less likely end up with a career politician addicted to the power and money who think they are part of an elite ruling class.

Or you wouldn’t end up with a POTUS who has daydreams of being a dictator. In previous blogs I joked about calling him an emperor. I guess my jokes weren’t too far off the mark.

Thanks legislators, higher energy bills are on the way

From ConservativeActionAlerts.com (July 15):

Legislators in more than half the states have voted for mandatory renewable energy standards—usually called an RPS for Renewable Portfolio Standards. While the numbers vary state-by-state, an RPS generally requires that an increasing percentage of a state’s electricity come from renewable sources—primarily wind and solar—by set dates. Most of the mandates coincide with the year: 15% by 2015, 20% by 2020, etc. Most states voted in the RPS back when the economy was thriving and “green” energy sounded like a good idea—after all the wind and the sun are “free.” Voting against “renewables” was akin to not liking puppies. Elected officials from both parties have voted for their state’s RPS. But, renewable energy systems have not proven to be free, and most cannot survive without special mandates and subsidies paid for by your tax dollars.

Many different computer models were run to determine the least-cost way to meet the mandates. The results should not be surprising. The least-cost model was based on coal [my italics]—but it does not meet the mandates. The least-cost model that does meet the mandates requires the addition of wind, solar and gas-fueled power plants and shuts down some of the older, existing, fully functional, coal-fueled power plants. The model favored by advocates of “green” energy cuts out coal all together and requires the building of new gas-fueled plants for base load power and to back up the renewables. This third model is the most expensive and therefore is unlikely to be selected by the PRC. But even the mid-range plan will cost state residents more than a billion dollars—and this is just for required CO₂ penalties, not the actual power-plant capital costs. That increase will be felt in everything and disproportionately hurts the poor. Not to mention the increased costs to the cities within the state which are trying to balance their budgets while keeping the lights on. [read more]

This is exactly what happens when environmentalism turns into a religion.

I believe it was Obama that said that energy bills are going to go up in the future. Was he forecasting or was he creating the future? You judge.

You can go to the Dept. of Energy’s States with Renewable Portfolio Standards webpage to see if your state is affected by these stupid standards.

The Government-as-God Concept

If you want to understand the Left’s superiority complex--their arrogance then you have to understand how they view gov’t even themselves. First, let’s make well-known assumptions about God:

1. God is all-knowing (omniscience).
2. God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
3. God is everywhere (omnipresent).
4. God is immortal.
5. God is totally good.
6. God is perfect.
7. You should have faith and trust in God.

If you replace ‘God’ with ‘gov’t’ then you have the Left’s view of the world. Let’s flush this idea out some more.

All totalitarian regimes want to have the first three attributes—hence the word ‘total’ in the totalitarian. Socialists would like to have these attributes when they are doing central planning—like in Obamacare. If you could know or calculate the need/want of every person in a country (omniscience) you could give them (omnipotent) want they need/want.  Of course you would have to be everywhere (omnipresent) to do this. But mankind is none of the omnis so this dream of total control is just a dream.

If God is immortal and gov’t is like God then gov’t (or at least gov’t programs) should be or can be immortal. That’s what the Left believes. So, cutting gov’t programs or agencies that is not mandated in the Constitution is like harming God.  Well, just like people, gov’t is not immortal. The Roman Empire fell along with other gov’ts of the past. America could fall as well if we are not careful with our spending. The gov’t is immortal concept is why the Left justifies why the Federal Reserve can keep printing money without consequences.

The Left also believes that gov’t is totally good. Or can be made good and perfect through societal evolution or just the right kind of people (read: elites) running the country are chosen. Well, mankind will never be totally good and will never will be perfect. Ben Franklin as smart as he was tried to perfect himself. He failed. For every bad habit he got rid of two new ones appeared. So, if mankind is not totally good and perfect then neither can gov’t be either. Since man is not perfect he can be corrupted. And a man with power can increase his chances of being corrupted. The Left thinks that certain men (elites) can handle power without being corrupted. Maybe, a little power but once the power increases so does the corruption. And if the person is arrogant—triple the chances of him being corrupted. Because if he or she thinks they cannot be corrupted.

The Left wants people to have total faith and trust in gov’t. After all the gov’t knows better than you wants good for you. It is perfect, all-knowing, and good.  Just like God. Right? The Left would like people to believe that because they believe it. Most people on the far-Left thought Communism was a good idea but was implemented wrong—or wasn’t given enough time to get the quirks out. This is the same excuse given to all the gov’t programs that have failed. Just give them more money and more time. Well, money doesn’t just pop into existence and more time isn’t going to fix a system that doesn’t make any logical sense.

Taken to the final extreme if gov’t is God then all other religions can be outlawed. Because you cannot have two Gods. This happened in the Soviet Union and is still happening in China.

The Inspiration of the Declaration

Happy birthday America! Below are parts of a speech that President Calvin Coolidge gave July 5, 1926 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

as not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

The Left’s Version of The Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of course goes like this:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Left would like it to read:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under government, divided up among race, gender, and sexual preference with equality,  fraternity, and social/economic/environmental justice for all.

The New World Order Left like George Soros would like it to read:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Nations, all countries under one world order divided up among race, gender, and sexual preference with equality,  fraternity, and social/economic/environmental justice for all.

Actually, according to a Wikipedia article the The Pledge did not contain the words “under God.” So, NBC advertisement was just following the original Pledge (which was deliberate in my opinion) written by socialist Francis Bellamy. Go figure. He also originally wanted the “equality” and “fraternity” parts put in. Which is by the way from the French revolution—“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The only good part of that slogan is “liberty.” The rest led to a socialistic France.

Facts about Slavery in America

Here are some facts about slavery in America from The Patriot’s History of The United States. (2004) by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen:

1. Although slavery was profitable, profits and property rights alone did not explain its perpetuation.
2. The same of free market that allowed Africans to be bought and sold at the same time exerted powerful pressures to liberate them.
3. Southerners needed the force of government to maintain and expand slavery, and without it, a combination of the market and slave revolts would have ultimately ended the institution. [my emphasis]

History of the Federal Reserve

A powerful cartel of financiers held a meeting at Jekyll Island in Brunswick, Georgia in 1910 to protect themselves from banking losses by using tax revenue instead of their own money.

Here were their challenges:

1. How to stop the growing influence of small, rival banks and to insure that control over the nation’s financial resources would remain in the hands of those present;
2. How to make the money supply more elastic in order to reverse the trend of private capital formation and to recapture the industrial loan market;
3. How to pool the meager reserves of the nation’s banks into one large reserve so that all banks will be motivated to follow the same loan-to-deposit ratios. This would protect at least some of them from currency drains and bank runs;
4. Should this lead eventually to the collapse of the whole banking system, then how to shift the losses from the owners of the banks to the taxpayers. [my emphasis]
5. How to convince Congress that the scheme was a measure to protect the public.

The cartel would operate as a central bank.

Source: The Creature from Jekyll Island. A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. 4th Edition. (2002) by G. Edward Griffin.

Panetta Says North Korea a "Growing" Danger to U.S.

From NTI.org (June 9):

CIA head Leon Panetta said North Korea's military, including its ballistic missile and nuclear enrichment activities, represent a "growing and direct threat" to the United States, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.

The statement was included in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Panetta was addressing on Thursday as President Obama's pick to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Earlier this year, Gates said he foresaw North Korea in the next five years developing a ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States. The Stalinist state in 2010 also revealed a uranium enrichment program, which could give it another path to producing military-usable atomic material, though Pyongyang is not known to have yet built a nuclear weapon small enough to be attached to a missile. [read more]

And Obama is worried about Khadafi? Okay, I understand he is an oppressive brutal thug to his people but as far as I know he does not have missiles pointed at us. America does not even know who the rebels are and what they stand for. Not all revolutions are good (although if you are a radical like Obama that’s what they like). Remember the French revolution? That’s worked out well. The revolutionaries wanted equality and they got socialism!  And it looks like Egypt is getting sharia law if the Muslim brotherhood takes over.

More than 80% of mosques advocate or promote violence

From WND.com (June 8):

Dozens of mosques around the United States have been identified in a new study as incubators for jihad against America, with more than 80 percent of those surveyed advocating violence.

"Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51 percent had texts on-site rated as severely advocating violence; 30 percent had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19 percent had no violent texts at all," said the  survey compiled by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi and published by the Middle East Quarterly. [read more]

Wow! That’s a lot of mosques! Over 80%? So, much for Islam being the ‘religion of peace’.

Although, this does sort of ring true from what I’ve read of Brigitte Gabriel’s book Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. She says her friends attended mosques that preached hate and anti-American messages. She got reports from friends from different mosques around the country. She was surprised and unnerved by this knowledge.

History of Hatred Against the Jewish People

Hat tip to the Glenn Beck show for this chronology:

175-163 B.C.	Attempt to outlaw Judaism
164- 163 B.C.	Jerusalem captured
72 A.D.	Expelled from Palestine
1096	12,000 Jews killed in First Crusade
1099	Jerusalem captured, Jews killed
1215	Forced to wear yellow circle on clothes
1290	Expelled from England
1306	Expelled from France
1349 – 1360	Expelled from Hungary
1421	Expelled from Austria
1492	Expelled from Spain
1495	Expelled from Lithuania
1497	Expelled from Portugal
15th century – 1772	Banned in Russia
1543	“Concerning the Jews and Their Lies” released
1555	Forced into Italian ghettos
1648-49	10,000 killed in massacres in Ukraine
1925	“Mein Kampf” published
1933	Nazi Party comes to power in Germany
1935	Nuremburg Laws introduced
1938	7,500 businesses destroyed in Kristallnacht
1941	33,000 killed in Ukraine
1941-1945	67% European Jews are murdered

 

Man, I am not sure why the Jews are not bitter for what the world has done to them. Anyone else would have a chip on their shoulder. Add to that fact they have countries around them (like Iran and Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood gain power) who wants to exterminate them.

If America doesn’t stand with Israel and Israel is destroyed then America is next. After all according to the militant Islamists Israel is the little Satan, we are the big Satan.

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money

From the Washington Examiner.com (June 2):

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center.  The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself. [read more]

Wow, what arrogance! Then again that’s what the elite Left is known for.

Maybe the regime administration wants everyone to earn less income. Obama is already talking about raising taxes on the successful. 

Ford turning cars into medical monitors

From SF Gate.com (May 31):

For Ford Motor Co., medical monitoring is the next key to a burst of car sales. About 10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 every day and 26 million Americans have diabetes. Besides checking blood sugar, Ford has developed a car seat to check the driver's heart rate that could warn of an impending heart attack, and new features may track breathing patterns for asthmatics or pollen counts for allergy sufferers and recommend remedies.

A Bluetooth connection through the driver's mobile phone could transmit blood-sugar levels from a Medtronic body monitor to the dashboard, Ford said. [read more]

Interesting. Next, a car could check if you are drunk, buzzed, or even high and not let you start it.

Homeland Security’s Version of “Minority Report”

From The Blaze.com (May 30):

Straight out of Minority Report a new Homeland Security program would subject Americans to pre-crime interrogations and physiological scans to detect people who are intending to commit a terrorist act at sports stadiums, malls, airports and other public places has moved closer to being implemented after the FAST program passed its first round of testing at an undisclosed location in northeast US.

The system uses a computer program that studies physiological indicators of a person, such as heart rate and the steadiness of a person’s gaze, and then uses the data to make a judgment on whether that individual has “mal-intent”. [source]

Unnerving. FAST is an acronym for Future Attribute Screening Technology.  The question is when this technology detects Obama or one of this radical associates will it judge them as “mal-intent”?

The DHS website gives a little more info about the technology to clear things up:

The system will measure both physiological and behavioral signals to make probabilistic assessments of mal-intent based on sensor outputs and advanced fusion algorithms and measure indicators using culturally neutral and non-invasive sensors.

Did you understand all that? There will be a test on it later. Advanced fusion algorithms? Huh? Culturally neutral? (Read: it will not judge you if you are a Muslim.) Gotta love those gov’t technocrats.

On that same webpage the DHS also has an Insider Threat Detection Project. I wonder if it will detect Obama as an insider threat? Just wondering.

USDA fines Missouri family $90k for selling a few rabbits without a license

From News.Yahoo.com (May 24):

It started out as a hobby, a way for the Dollarhite family in Dixa, Mo., to teach a teenage son responsibility. Like a lemonade stand.

But now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government to the tune of a $90,643 fine. The fine was levied more than a year after authorities contacted family members, prompting them to immediately halt their part-time business and liquidate their equipment.

John and Judy Dollarhite began selling rabbit meat by the pound in 2006, and as pets to neighbors and friends in 2008.

Raised on the three-acre lot on which their home sits, the rabbits were heralded by local experts for their quality and kept in pristine condition.

When a local pet store asked them to supply their pet rabbits, the Dollarhites had no idea they would be running afoul of an obscure federal regulation that prohibits selling more than $500 worth of rabbits to a pet store without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the law, pet stores are exempt from regulation. [read more]

First the FDA goes after Amish farmers now the USDA is going after other private citizens trying to earn a living. The gov’t is just out of control. $90,000 for a few rabbits? It’s just plain ridiculous.

I’m starting to think every gov’t agency should be examined to see if it has a legitimate function or not. If it does not, then shut it down.

Feds cracks down on Amish farmers for selling raw milk

From the EU Times.net (April 30):

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area.

The product in question: unpasteurized milk.

It’s a battle that’s been going on behind the scenes for years, with natural foods advocates arguing that raw milk, as it’s also known, is healthier than the pasteurized product, while the Food and Drug Administration says raw milk can carry harmful bacteria such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria. [read more]

Doesn’t the FDA have anything better to do than going after farmers? I don’t care if the agency thinks adults shouldn’t be drinking unpasteurized milk. That’s none of their concern. Haven’t people been drinking unpasteurized milk  before it  pasteurizing became common? Has there been massive amounts of people getting violently sick from unpasteurized milk?

It almost seems like the FDA is treating these farmers like Al Capone selling moonshine or something. I seriously doubt the Amish would sell unpasteurized milk on the black market but other dairy farmers might. The FDA is turning the farmers into common criminals. What’s next speakeasies for people who want to drink unpasteurized milk?

What I Would Cut

I took the “What Would You Cut?” survey from The Heritage Foundation.
Below is a summary of the money I want Washington to save taxpayers in the upcoming 2012 fiscal budget:
Department of Education:                                         Cut $15 billion
Obamacare:                                                                             Cut $5 billion
2009 Federal Stimulus Program:                          Cut $60 billion
Welfare/Entitlement Waste and Fraud:            Cut $10 billion
Excessive Pay for Civilian Federal Workers: Cut $40 billion
TOTAL SAVINGS from these five areas alone:            $130 billion!
The Foundation says they will use my recommendations to guide their efforts to educate lawmakers about spending cuts. These cuts, by the way, are the maximum cuts you could choose on the survey.
America has to get serious about cutting the budget and the size of gov’t.  And if Congress raises the debt ceiling again they are crazy. Then it’s not a ceiling. It’s a hot air balloon.
Congress should read the book or pdf file Downsizing the Federal Government on what suggestions to cut. It’s a very detailed plan. The author goes over a lot of government agencies and programs.

Social Chaos and Human Needs

People have to save the basic needs met first. This includes hunger, thirst, sleep, and getting rid of bodily waste. 

Once the basic needs are met then secondary needs like safety and societal order come next.

After the secondary needs are met then the higher order needs or wants come into play. Love, belonging, etc.

During social chaos like a revolution the secondary needs and higher order needs tended to be not met because you are too worried for your safety. Revolutionaries know this. That is the inside-out part that Van Jones was talking about. People want the government (the top-down part) to restore safety and order. Then the radicals can remake society into their own vision.

Obama adviser: American freedom, equality are just 'myths'

From WND.com (May 4):

President Obama's faith adviser, Eboo Patel, blasted what he called the "myths" of America – describing them as beliefs that the country is "a land of freedom and equality and justice."

Patel explained how he used the "faith-based movement" to channel his rage at America "in a direction far more compassionate and far more merciful."

Patel, a Muslim activist from Chicago, further implied that had he grown up in the 1960s, he may have joined the Weather Underground terrorist group led by William Ayers.  [read more]

This guy is a faith advisor? Geez. Then again he is a radical like Obama so go figure. Having people like this around him like this it’s not helping to counter the belief that Obama is a true-believing radical. After all you are judged by the company you keep.

When a radical talks about “a direction far more compassionate” that’s code words for spreading-the-wealth-around. And “far more merciful” means social justice.

CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid

From MSNBC.com (May 3):

WASHINGTON — Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged. [read more]

And just think Obama put an end to waterboarding, a technique used during the Bush administration that helped track down bin Laden. Waterboarding to me isn’t torture. Yea, it will probably scare the devil out of you (just like any good horror movie) but it doesn’t cause a lot of physical pain or damage. That’s my definition of torture—lots of intentional physical pain or damage inflicted on a person. Play X genre of music to a person that doesn’t like X is not physical torture. Or keeping him standing all night isn’t either.

Did Panetta say in that interview that Obama wanted bin Laden killed and not captured at all? Or am I just reading into something that isn’t there. I really don’t care if that was originally the plan. No trial. That’ll save the taxpayers money and emotional pain.

If the Obama administration doesn’t want bin Laden death picture shown then how about showing a computer-generated picture? Heck, I’ll take a pencil drawing of his death. Show me something! I don’t think recreations would tick off the already crazed Jihadists. I would think killing bin Laden would have already done that.

The Dynamics of Islamic Violence

Pretty much sums it up. Notice what factors are not in this diagram: Education level, economic status, and US occupation. That’s because those factors aren’t important if they are important at all. The Islamists attacked the US Navy back in the 1800’s—way before the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation. Why do you think the marines got the nickname of “leathernecks”? Look it up (you can even look it up on my blog).

Source of diagram: The Roots of Jihad. A very revealing book.

As I write this (May 1) Osama Bin Laden (the goat fornicator) was killed by US special forces. Good for them! Good riddens to that murderer.

The navy dumped the dirtbag’s body in the ocean. Good idea. I hope the waters were shark infested. But why clean the murder’s body and wrap it in silk? That’s not going to make any Muslim happy if you are dumping the body in the water. Some kind of weird Muslim outreach program I guess. And the shark’s aren’t going to care if he is clean and wrapped in silk or not.

Advice to a Young Scientist

The following advice is from the late Turing award winner computer science professor E. W. Dijkstra. I believe the advice was given mainly to a computer scientist but it could apply to any scientist:

• Raise your standards as high as you can live with, avoid wasting your time on routine problems, and always try to work as closely as possible at the boundary of your abilities. Do this because it is the only way of discovering how that boundary should be moved forward.
• We all like our work to be socially relevant and scientifically sound. If we can find a topic satisfying both desires, we are lucky; if the two targets are in conflict with each other, let the requirement of scientific soundness prevail.
• Never tackle a problem of which you can be pretty sure that (now or in the near future) it will be tackled by others who are, in relation to that problem, at least as competent and well-equipped as you are.
• Write as if your work is going to be studied by a thousand people.
• Don't get enamored with the complexities you have learned to live with (be they of your own making or imported). The lurking suspicion that something could be simplified is the world's richest source of rewarding challenges.
• Before embarking on an ambitious project, try to kill it.
• Remember that research with a big R is rarely mission-oriented and plan in terms of decades, not years. Resist all pressure —be it financial or cultural— to do work that is of ephemeral significance at best.
• Don't strive for recognition (in whatever form): recognition should not be your goal, but a symptom that your work has been worthwhile.
• Avoid involvement in projects so vague that their failure could remain invisible: such involvement tends to corrupt one's scientific integrity.
• Striving for perfection is ultimately the only justification for the academic enterprise; if you don't feel comfortable with this goal —e.g. because you think it too presumptuous—, stay out!

If the Leftist scientists would follow this advice we would have better science. Global warming definitely does not follow the second to the last advice.

What Obama Should Disclose

First, I like to say that I believed Obama was born in this country even before he showed his certificate of live birth. Hillary Clinton during her primary run was the one who started questioning his birthplace. Don’t you think if she found out he wasn’t born in America that she would have blown him out of the water? We would have the first women president instead of the first black president. The way John McCain ran his campaign he probably would have lost against Hillary too.

Whatever your opinion of Donald Trump you have to admit he is not afraid of Obama. He will take it to Obama. If McCain was less afraid during his campaign he might be president. Politics is war. Democrats understand this. It is about time the Republicans understand this mindset too.

No, what Obama should disclose is everyone who donated money to his presidential campaign the first time. He should have disclosed this when he was running since he ran on a platform of transparency in gov’t. McCain disclosed everyone who contributed to him. Why not you Obama? Why are you hiding your campaign donators?

And who is advising you that is not on your staff? Possibly George Soros? Who was advising you for two years while you were not talking to your staff? Hmmm?

The Four Dimensions of Violence in a Muslim’s Life

These four dimensions are taken from the book The Roots of Jihad (2005) by Dr. Tawfik Hamis:

1. When a Muslim’s child reaches the age of 10, he/she should be beaten to force him/her to practice the five prayers. The prophet Mohammed had said: “Order your children to pray when they are seven years old and beat them to force them on the prayer when they are ten years old…”
2. If a Muslim wife disagrees with you or disobeys you then it is your responsibility to discipline her. Discipline such as admonishing her, avoid making sex with her, and beating her. From the Koran: “Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).
3. If your neighbor does not pray in the mosque then burn his house down.
4. Kill any infidel (non-believer). An infidel is someone who does not believe there is no God except Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. He doesn’t do the five prayers, and does not fast on Ramadan.

The author says most Muslims are afraid if they don’t follow these rules Allah will send them to burn in hell for eternity. Nice.

The Second Coming of Christ?

Are we in the end of days as prophesized by Jesus? Well, let’s see what Jesus said what the signs are. Here are his exact words in boldface:

And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. There is fighting over in Libya for starters. Although Obama is not calling it a war. And the leader of Iran wants to blow Israel off the face of the earth and start wars to bring back the 12th Imam.

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. The nation against nation hasn’t happened yet. Famines has happened either, but we are burning food (corn) for fuel. Pestilences haven’t happened yet. Japan had a major earthquake and several aftershocks.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. This is nothing new. Christians have always been persecuted. Here I believe Jesus is talking about the Antichrist killing people when the new world order is created.

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. This sounds like the total breakdown of civility. Of morality. This is exactly what the far-Left radicals wants. Total chaos so they can re-create society in their own sinister image.

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. The false prophets are the ones that say follow me blindly and without question and I will save you during the chaos. And when you don’t follow them you be treated as a traitor and will be dealt with.

So are we in the end of days? Hard to say. Some of the signs are there but not all.

Senator Durbin wants Internet sales taxes

From CNET News.com (April 12):

A Democratic senator is preparing to introduce legislation that aims to end the golden era of tax-free Internet shopping.

The proposal--expected to be made public soon after Tax Day--would rewrite the ground rules for Internet and mail order sales by eliminating the ability of Americans to shop at Web sites like Amazon.com and Overstock.com without paying state sales taxes.

Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second most senior Senate Democrat, will introduce the bill after the Easter recess, a Democratic aide told CNET. [read more]

It must be true a Democrat never met a tax he or she did not like. Isn’t this a state issue? Then again that doesn’t matter to The Left. They are so addicted to power it’s ridiculous.

I am just waiting for Congress to tax money found on the street. After all it is income you know. Have you seen all the things that are taxed on the IRS forms? It’s got to be like 20 items or so.

Then you have a wealthy real estate millionaire on The O’Reilly Factor wanting to give more to the gov’t to make the debt smaller he said. You’ve got to be kidding me! He said he would give more but thought the gov’t would waste it. They are already doing that now!

The Measures of Restoration

In his 1954 book A Program for Conservatives, American conservative founder Russell Kirk mentions six ways to restore America’s boredom:

1. Renewing the power of religious faith, and piety, among the mass of men. Men must always be bored, if they can find nothing better in the universe than their own little mean selves; they suffer the punishment of Narcissus.
2. Reviving the concepts of honor and dignity which gave motive to honest desire for emulation-in short, reminding men that there are some persons who are more, and better, than "just ordinary guys," and that mediocrity is not the norm for civilized beings.
3. Returning to individuals the responsibilities which bring a decent satisfaction, the duties of self-reliance, and the rights and actuality of private property and inheritance.
4. Reaffirming the right of men to what is their own, and to whatever they can make their own without injustice to others-rewarding ability and honesty and diligence with those material satisfactions which most men always must hunger for.
5. Reminding modern society of the truth that security, though a good thing, is not a better thing than freedom-and that, indeed, security does not long survive the extinction of prescriptive freedom.
6. Reawakening men's minds to the eternal contract of society, which affirms that we do not live simply for ourselves, in the fleeting moment, but instead live to justify the faith and labor of our ancestors, and to transmit life and justice to our posterity.

Not bad advice.

Lawsuit wants to dissolve some Georgia city charters

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website (March 28):

The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit Monday against the state of Georgia seeking to dissolve the city charters of Dunwoody, Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills. Further, the lawmakers, joined by civil rights leader the Rev. Joseph Lowery, aim to dash any hopes of a Milton County.

The lawsuit, filed in a North Georgia U.S. District Court Monday, claims that the state circumvented the normal legislative process and set aside its own criteria when creating the “super-majority white ” cities within Fulton and DeKalb counties. The result, it argues, is to dilute minority votes in those areas, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. [read more]

This lawsuit is completely stupid. It would be like suing the state because there is not enough women in a city for example or not enough Republicans. How does a city stop anyone from entering itself? Unless they have a law against black people entering I don’t see how this is done.

Officials: Yemen a Bigger Security Threat Than Libya

From NTI.org (March 28):

WASHINGTON -- As the United States spearheads the attack against Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's military assets, key former officials said an even bigger threat to U.S. national security comes from Yemen, a country that hosts many militants and is now enmeshed in a civil uprising that is threatening to unseat U.S.-backed President Ali Abdullah Saleh (see GSN, Feb. 10).

Saleh has been a crucial American ally in combating al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that chief U.S. counterterrorism analyst Michael Leiter recently called the “most significant risk to the U.S. homeland” and the most poised to successfully attack American cities (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2010). Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and government officials said the current instability in Yemen appears likely to threaten already strained U.S. counterterrorism efforts and could provide new opportunities for AQAP to launch attacks.

“From a security standpoint, our interest in what happens in Yemen is much more significant than our interest in Libya,” Chertoff told National Journal. “In Libya it's a humanitarian issue -- there's some security issue, but really, Yemen is a critical issue.” [read more]

Well, that’s nice to know. So, is Obama going to do a kinetic military action against Yemen then? Who knows.

I watched Obama’s speech about the war in Libya and I did not notice any mention about an exit strategy. Are we going to take out Qadhafi or not? That’s the question to paraphrase Shakespeare. And by the way why wasn’t his speech on the CBS, NBC, or ABC? Seems odd.