Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Op-ed:                                                                                                                                     Looky at what our US Postal Service is putting in your mailboxes                                                         By: Diane Sori
Yesterday I received this in the mail to send money to support muzzies in muzzie countries by an organization that is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Guess these people don't know we're at war with them and to help them is paramount to 'aiding and abetting' the enemy (as in TREASON...hear that Obama) or read the blogs or FB or they would know that I am one of the last people on Earth who would ever support anything muzzie.  Hell would have to freeze over first and with it actually getting colder here on Earth (global warming is a hoax) there's NO chance of that happening!!! 
Just wanted you to know what our US Postal Service is putting in your mailboxes...if it wasn't so sad it would actually be funny.
Obama’s Global-Warming Folly
No, Mr. President, we don’t need a war on coal.

The economy stagnates. Syria burns. Scandals lap at his feet. China and Russia mock him, even as a “29-year-old hacker” revealed his nation’s spy secrets to the world. How does President Obama respond? With a grandiloquent speech on climate change.

Climate change? It lies at the very bottom of a list of Americans’ concerns (last of 21 — Pew poll). Which means that Obama’s declaration of unilateral American war on global warming, whatever the cost — and it will be heavy — is either highly visionary or hopelessly solipsistic. You decide:

Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil a grand, hugely costly, socially disruptive anti-warming program.

Now, this inconvenient finding is not dispositive. It doesn’t mean there is no global warming. But it is something that the very complex global-warming models that Obama naïvely claims represent settled science have trouble explaining. It therefore highlights the president’s presumption in dismissing skeptics as flat-earth know-nothings.

On the contrary. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who refuse to acknowledge the problematic nature of contradictory data. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who cite a recent Alaskan heat wave — a freak event in one place at one time — as presumptive evidence of planetary climate change. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who cite perennial phenomena such as droughts as cosmic retribution for environmental sinfulness.

For the sake of argument, nonetheless, let’s concede that global warming is precisely what Obama thinks it is. Then answer this: What in God’s name is his massive new regulatory and spending program — which begins with a war on coal and ends with billions in more subsidies for new Solyndras — going to do about it?

The U.S. has already radically cut CO2 emissions — more than any country on earth since 2006, according to the International Energy Agency. Emissions today are back down to 1992 levels.

And yet, at the same time, global emissions have gone up. That’s because — surprise! — we don’t control the energy use of the other 96 percent of humankind.

At the heart of Obama’s program are EPA regulations that will make it impossible to open any new coal plant and will systematically shut down existing plants. “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal,” explained one of Obama’s climate advisers. “On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

Net effect: tens of thousands of jobs killed, entire states impoverished. This at a time of chronically and crushingly high unemployment, slow growth, jittery markets, and deep economic uncertainty.

But that’s not the worst of it. This massive self-sacrifice might be worthwhile if it did actually stop global warming and save the planet. What makes the whole idea nuts is that it won’t. This massive self-inflicted economic wound will have no effect on climate change.

The have-nots are rapidly industrializing. As we speak, China and India together are opening one new coal plant every week. We can kill U.S. coal and devastate coal country all we want, but the industrializing third world will more than make up for it. The net effect of the Obama plan will simply be dismantling the U.S. coal industry for shipping abroad.

To think we will get these countries to cooperate is sheer fantasy. We’ve been negotiating climate treaties for 20 years and gotten exactly nowhere. China, India, and the other rising and modernizing countries point out that the West had a 150-year industrial head start that made it rich. They are still poor. And now, just as they are beginning to get rich, we’re telling them to stop dead in their tracks?

Fat chance. Obama imagines he’s going to cajole China into a greenhouse-gas-emissions reduction that will slow its economy, increase energy costs, derail industrialization, and risk enormous social unrest. This from a president who couldn’t even get China to turn over one Edward Snowden to U.S. custody.

I’m not against a global pact to reduce CO2 emissions. Indeed, I favor it. But in the absence of one — and there is no chance of getting one in the foreseeable future — there is no point in America’s committing economic suicide to no effect on climate change, the reversing of which, after all, is the alleged point of the exercise.

For a president to propose this with such aggressive certainty is incomprehensible. It is the starkest of examples of belief that is impervious to evidence. And the word for that is faith, not science.

Get Ready For The Next Great Stock Market Exodus

By: / Personal Liberty Digest

Get Ready For The Next Great Stock Market Exodus
In the years 2006 and 2007, the underlying stability of the global economy and the U.S. credit base in particular was experiencing intense scrutiny by alternative economic analysts. The mortgage-driven Xanadu that was the late 1990s and early 2000s seemed just too good to be true. Many of us pointed out that such a system, based on dubious debt instruments animated by the central banking voodoo of arbitrary fractional reserve lending and fiat cash creation, could not possibly survive for very long. A crash was coming, it was coming soon, and most of our society was either too stupid to recognize the problem or too frightened to accept the reality they knew was just over the horizon.

The Federal Reserve had cheated America out of an economic reset that was desperately needed. The 1980s had brought us utter destruction disguised as “globalization.” Our industrial center, the very heart of the American middle class that generated enormous wealth and decades of opportunity, had been dismantled and shipped overseas to the lowest bidder. It was then that the U.S. economy actually died; we just couldn’t see it. From that point forward, Americans were fully dependent on the charity of central bank money creation and international bank lending standards. The collapse that should have occurred in the 80s was delayed and thus made more volatile as the Fed artificially lowered interest rates and allowed trillions upon trillions of dollars in dubious loans to be generated.

Free money abounded, and average citizens were suckered royally. Their greed was used against them, as they collateralized homes they could not afford to buy more crap they didn’t need. Of course, you know the rest of the story.

Today, credit markets remain frozen. Lending is nowhere near the levels reached in 2006. The housing market is showing signs of life; but that’s only because most home purchases are being made by banks, not regular people, for pennies on the dollar, as bankrupt properties are then reissued on the market for rent rather than for sale. If you are lucky, maybe one day you’ll get to borrow the keys to the house you used to own. And millions of higher-paying full-time jobs have been lost and then replaced with lower-paying part-time-wage slavery. The image of American prosperity carries on, but it is nothing but  a farce; and anyone with any sense should question how long and false image can be given life before the truth dawns.

The novice will question why it is necessary to re-examine all of this information. Is it not widely known? Am I not simply preaching to the choir a message heard over and over again since the crash of 2008? Maybe, or maybe it is time for us to finally apply some foresight given our knowledge of the recent past.

Why did 2008 creep up on so many people? Weren’t there plenty of economists out there “preaching to the choir” back then? Weren’t there plenty of signals? Weren’t there plenty of practical conclusions being made about the future?

The truth is human beings have a nasty habit of ignoring the cold, hard facts of the present in the hopes of using apathy as a magical elixir for future prosperity. They want to believe that disaster is a mindset, that it is a boogeyman under their bed that can be defeated through blind optimism. They refuse to believe that disaster is a tangible inevitability of life that pays no heed to our naïve, happy-go-lucky attitude. The American people allowed themselves to be caught off guard in 2008, just as they are setting themselves up to be caught off guard again today.

Again, the reality is clear; the Federal Reserve has propped up equities and bonds using money created out of thin air — so much so that both markets have become totally reliant and disturbingly addicted to fiat injections. The distribution of this fiat threatens the continued dominance of the dollar as the world reserve currency and will invaribly lead to currency collapse and hyperstagflation. This process is much more likely to climax in the near term given the accelerated rate of quantitiative easing within our system to date and the accelerated rate at which our primary lenders (namely China) are dumping the dollar in bilateral trade with each other. The endgame is obvious, yet I still fear millions of people within this country and around the world will be shell-shocked once again by a renewed crash.

The argument is always the same: “Yeah, things might get dicey, but it won’t be as bad as all the doom-mongers claim, and probably not for many years.”

Similar statements were made by naysayers before the Great Depression and before the 2008 crash.

So why are the skeptics wrong again this time around?


The Stimulus Fantasy

Let’s put this in the simplest terms possible: Stimulus is now the lifeblood of our economy. There is nothing else sustaining our Nation. Period. Stimulus in the form of bailouts and QE are keeping the stock market and bonds afloat. And now, in recent weeks, the Fed is announcing its intentions to shut down the life-support machine and let the patient drown in his own fluids.

Day traders and common investors are not very bright, but they do understand well that no stimulus means no stock market and no bond market. In response, indexes have become erratic, shifting on the slightest rumor that the central bank might continue QE for a little longer. Pathetically, the Dow Jones now rallies upward whenever bad financial news hits the wire, as insane investment groups pour in money in the hopes that dismal economic developments might cause the Fed to extend the bailout bonanza.

This is, of course, horribly backward; and clearly, it cannot last. Stocks are supposed to perform based on the true profitability of individual businesses as well as the political and social health of the overall culture. The wild printing of paper money by private banking magnates is not a catalyst for a successful economy. Whether the Fed actually ends QE is ultimately irrelevant. No fiscal structure can survive when it abandons fundamentals for fantasy. Either QE continues, becoming less and less effective in staving off negative results in equities, leading to a crash, or QE ends, exposing the inevitability of negative results in equities, leading to a crash.

But every crisis has a defining moment, a moment in which the tide turned overwhelmingly sour for a majority of the public. The question now becomes what, exactly, will trigger the avalanche?

Overthrow of Morsi shakes up Islamic supremacists all over Middle East and North Africa

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Will Obama again act in their support and move to shore them up? "Egypt overthrow shakes Islamists in the region," by Paul Schemm for the Associated Press, July 7 (thanks to Paul):
CAIRO (AP) — The military's overthrow of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood's fall from power in Egypt have sent Islamist parties around the region scrambling to preserve gains made in the Middle East and North Africa as a result of the Arab Spring uprisings. 
The stunning reversal has instilled caution among some Islamists against pushing their agenda too hard, but it has also strengthened hard-liners long opposed to democracy.
The Arab Spring uprisings boosted Islamist political parties from Morocco to Syria, and nowhere was their victory more complete than the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's domination of parliamentary and presidential elections, which made its repudiation by the people and then the army all the more striking.
Brotherhood offshoots in Tunisia and Syria are struggling to distance themselves from their parent outfit in Egypt, while the secular forces they are struggling against have been emboldened....
The night the military deposed Morsi, celebrations erupted across the Tunisian capital, with people calling for dissolution of the Islamist-dominated assembly elected in October 2011.
After Egypt, the Islamists' electoral victory in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, was the most impressive. The long-repressed Ennahda Party won more than 40 percent of the seats and rules in a coalition with two other leftist secular parties.
The head of Ennahda, Rachid Ghannouchi, was quick to condemn the overthrow of Morsi as a "flagrant coup" but soon followed up with statements setting his party apart from how the Brotherhood conducted itself in Egypt.
"We have followed a strategy based on consensus, especially between the Islamist and modernist movements, which has saved our country from divisions," he told the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat on Thursday.
But now Tunisia's diverse opposition of left-wing parties and remnants of the deposed regime have been galvanized and are calling for a new national unity government. There is even a signature-gathering campaign modeled on the Egyptian one that helped mobilize opposition to Morsi in the past few months.
They accuse Ennahda of many of the same failings that brought down Egypt's Brotherhood, including incompetence and an arrogant approach to rule.
North Africa analyst Issandr El Amrani noted that the significance for the region is more than just the triumph of secularists over Islamists in Egypt, but a realignment of the original coalition of the Arab Spring that overthrew dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia.
"It's not just an anti-Islamist shift, but elements of the revolutionary leftists and liberals who had once allied with the Islamists against the old regime now allying with the old regime against the Islamists," he said.
The Brotherhood's fall comes at a delicate time for Tunisia. It not only faces an economic crisis but is also finally coming to the final stages of the difficult process of approving the country's new constitution.
The upheaval in Egypt, however, has also shown Tunisia how much smoother its own rocky transition to democracy has been. Tunisians may opt to let the process run its course and express their feelings about Ennahda in elections that could be held as soon as early next year.
In Syria's conflict, which pits a rebel movement rife with Islamist groups against the regime of President Bashar Assad, the Brotherhood has always played a large role in the attempts to create a leadership in exile.
But following the setback in Egypt, it has have taken a more subdued part. At a meeting in Istanbul this week, its candidate to be the new leader of the opposition's political umbrella group lost by a narrow margin.
The Syrian Brotherhood's spokesman, Zuhair Salem, warned that the overthrow of a democratically elected Islamist leader sends a deeply negative message to other Islamists around the region.
"I've been in the Brotherhood since I was 15 and I used to always preach the value of the election box and democracy, conciliation and partnership. This makes a lie of what I said," he said....
Hard-line Islamists who have been among the toughest and most effective fighters in the rebel movement may now be even more resistant to allowing more moderate factions to move to the fore — with an eye on who will hold power in Syria if Assad ever falls.
A jihadist site on Sunday compiled a series of tweets from commanders of extremist groups fighting in Syria saying that the overthrow showed that Islamists would never be allowed to succeed in elections.
"Secularism has shown its ugly face to those who were blind, and the mask of democracy has fallen in the struggle between right and wrong," said Sheik Zahran Alloush, a commander of the Islam Brigade. "As the mujahedeen leaders say, we chose ammunition boxes over ballot boxes."
Extremist groups around the region that have long called democracy un-Islamic and a Western conspiracy were positively gleeful over what they saw as proof that elections were no way to seek power.
In North Africa, al-Qaida's branch issued a statement Thursday saying that Western governments' refusal to condemn the military overthrow of the Brotherhood showed that the only path lies through armed struggle.
"The youth of Egypt should learn that the price for applying principles on the ground is a mountain of body parts and seas of blood, because evil must be killed and not shown mercy," said its spokesman Abu Abdelilah al-Jijeli.
Probably the Islamist party hit hardest by the Brotherhood's fall has been Hamas, in the tiny Gaza Strip next to Egypt's Sinai. Hamas has lost its most important regional ally.
Senior Hamas officials have largely remained silent about the development, especially since the new Egyptian government could easily re-seal their borders, but one Hamas official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject that it was a serious blow.
"It's a setback to Hamas and the Muslim Brothers in the region. People now view the Muslim Brothers in Egypt as losers," he said.
Many countries in the region that have regarded the Brotherhood in Egypt with deep suspicion welcomed its downfall as a vindication of their long-held view that the organization was dangerous and had no business ruling.
Saudi Arabia applauded Morsi's fall. The normally staid official news agency of the United Arab Emirates described its "satisfaction" at the turn of events. The UAE claims groups backed by the Muslim Brotherhood have sought to topple its Western-backed ruling system, and earlier this week 69 people were convicted on coup-plotting charges.
But it was from Damascus that the real crowing could be heard, as Assad told the daily Al-Thawra that "this is the fate of anyone in the world who tries to use religion for political or factional interest."
Most analysts don't see the Brotherhood's setback as the end of political Islam as a force in the region. It remains the most organized political movement in many countries. The ideology has remained relevant despite several military interventions in the past, including Algeria's overturning of elections Islamists were set to win in 1991 and the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize a Hamas electoral victory in the West Bank in 2006....

Pissed off...I sure am!

Could the boondoggle we call "Obamacare" be a bigger disaster? Is there any better example of the arrogance, incompetence and remorselessness of top-down central planning?

The very name of the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is a deceptive euphemism, as it neither protects patients nor makes health care more affordable.

The law was born in hell. The premises upon which the bill was based, the promises its proponents made and the corruption and high-handedness in its legislative process tainted it from the outset.

Remember how the administration sent a threatening letter to Humana and other companies, threatening legal action for expressing their opinion that under Obamacare, some seniors would lose their coverage? Or how it pressured insurance executives to support the plan?

Anyone paying attention at the time knew the bill was full of accounting gimmicks and political tricks. Sen. Lamar Alexander aptly described Obamacare as "the most brazen act of political arrogance since Watergate ... in terms of thumbing your nose at the American people and saying, 'We know you don't want it, but we're going to give it to you anyway.'"

It was not President Obama's fancifully optimistic predictions about the bill that were vindicated but those of the bill's opponents, whom Obama brutally demonized during his endless campaign to pass the measure.

Contrary to Obama's assurances before it passed, Obamacare would increase, not decrease, the cost of health insurance to individuals. It would not improve but reduce the quality of health care. It would not reduce but increase the deficit. It would not come close to eliminating the number of uninsured. It would not enable people to keep their own plans or doctors. It would violate the conscience rights of faith-based health providers. It would fund abortion. It would create new burdensome taxes. It would not grow the economy but shrink it. It would increase unemployment and part-time employment. It was a Trojan horse for a single-payer plan. It would result in many doctors' early retirement and thousands of bright students reconsidering their pursuit of a career in medicine.

The American people sensed from the beginning what a mess Obamacare was. Even after all the lies, backroom deals and executive branch strong-arming, the people didn't buy into it. Indeed, the authoritarian cram-down of this monster catalyzed the creation of the tea party and led to the Republican congressional rout in 2010.

Without exhibiting an ounce of remorse for this nightmare, the administration has stood by the law with stubborn tenacity, ignoring the people's will every step of the way and bending the law and rigging its implementation in order to ensure its survival. When the administration was faced with the prospect of employers dropping their coverage to avoid drastic premium increases, it arbitrarily and capriciously granted more than 1,000 temporary waivers, more than half of which went to members of union health insurance plans, to delay the inevitable pain the law will inflict.

Now it's deja vu all over again, as the administration recently announced a one-year delay in Obamacare's employer mandate, the effects of which, conveniently, will not fully manifest themselves until after the 2014 congressional elections. This was after officials adamantly insisted that the implementation of the law was on schedule. The administration did not consult with Congress to amend the law or tweak it in any way to make it work, but in keeping with its contempt for the rule of law, it unilaterally imposed this change via executive fiat -- in wholesale defiance of the president's duty to faithfully execute the laws. The culture of lying surrounding Obamacare is so pervasive that once again, the administration has attempted to candy-coat its selective delay of the law as a prudent move. Imagine its audacity in characterizing this move as "continuing to implement the ACA in a careful, thoughtful manner."

Lest you think this employer mandate delay is a one-off event (of course, you couldn't rationally think that, considering the aforementioned thousand-plus waivers), The Heritage Foundation's blog, "The Foundry," details a dozen more Obamacare implementation failures that aren't getting as much media play. These include the abandonment and then the repeal of the CLASS Act, missed deadlines on insurance exchanges, a partial delay of the law's anti-conscience mandate, a delay in the promised right of workers to choose plans from different insurers in the small-business exchanges, a reduction in access to care for children with pre-existing conditions, a delay in the government-run plan for states, gross underperformance of high-risk pools, the insolvency of the early retiree reinsurance program, a defunding of co-ops, the repeal of a provision that would have allowed certain workers to use contributions from their employers to buy exchange health plans, and Medicaid expansion rightly rejected by many states.

Even Democrats and the liberal media are now acknowledging that this legislation is a "train wreck."

It is utterly unworkable, a drag on the economy, a menace to health care and a comprehensive assault on our liberties, yet Obama will not be deterred in his single-minded obsession to expand government through the vehicle of health care.

It would not be an act of extremism for Congress to defund this law. It would be exceedingly irresponsible for it not to. Defund and repeal.

I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

Apparently other Americans also recognize that the sources of racism are different today from what they were in the past.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31 percent of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24 percent of blacks think that most whites are racist.

The difference between these percentages is not great, but it is remarkable nevertheless. After all, generations of blacks fought the white racism from which they suffered for so long. If many blacks themselves now think that most other blacks are racist, that is startling.

The moral claims advanced by generations of black leaders -- claims that eventually touched the conscience of the nation and turned the tide toward civil rights for all -- have now been cheapened by today's generation of black "leaders," who act as if it is all just a matter of whose ox is gored.

Even in legal cases involving terrible crimes -- the O.J. Simpson murder trial or the charges of gang rape against Duke University students -- many black "leaders" and their followers have not waited for facts about who was guilty and who was not, but have immediately taken sides, based on who was black and who was white.

Among whites, according to the same Rasmussen poll, 38 percent consider most blacks racist and 10 percent consider most whites racist.

Broken down by politics, the same poll showed that 49 percent of Republicans consider most blacks racist, as do 36 percent of independents and 29 percent of Democrats.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, just 29 percent of Americans as a whole think race relations are getting better, while 32 percent think race relations are getting worse. The difference is too close to call, but the fact that it is so close is itself painful -- and perhaps a warning sign for where we are heading.

Is this what so many Americans, both black and white, struggled for, over the decades and generations, to try to put the curse of racism behind us -- only to reach a point where retrogression in race relations now seems at least equally likely as progress?

What went wrong? Perhaps no single factor can be blamed for all the things that went wrong. Insurgent movements of all sorts, in countries around the world, have for centuries soured in the aftermath of their own success. "The revolution betrayed" is a theme that goes back at least as far as 18th century France.

The civil rights movement in 20th century America attracted many people who put everything on the line for the sake of fighting against racial oppression. But the eventual success of that movement attracted opportunists, and even turned some idealists into opportunists.

Over the generations, black leaders have ranged from noble souls to shameless charlatans. After the success of the civil rights insurgency, the latter have come into their own, gaining money, power and fame by promoting racial attitudes and actions that are counterproductive to the interests of those they lead.

None of this is unique to blacks or to the United States. In various countries and times, leaders of groups that lagged behind, economically and educationally, have taught their followers to blame all their problems on other people -- and to hate those other people.

This was the history of anti-Semitic movements in Eastern Europe between the two World Wars, anti-Ibo movements in Nigeria in the 1960s, and anti-Tamil movements that turned Sri Lanka from a peaceful nation into a scene of lethal mob violence and then decades-long civil war, both marked by unspeakable atrocities.

Groups that rose from poverty to prosperity seldom did so by having racial or ethnic leaders. While most Americans can easily name a number of black leaders, current or past, how many can name Asian American ethnic leaders or Jewish ethnic leaders?

The time is long overdue to stop looking for progress through racial or ethnic leaders. Such leaders have too many incentives to promote polarizing attitudes and actions that are counterproductive for minorities and disastrous for the country.