Why this fascination with the term "genocide"?

Since 2006, the US Congress has had a fascination with making sure that the tragedy of the Christian Armenians forced to leave the Anatolian plateau in 1915-16 is labeled a "genocide" and that this terms is applied by all that refer to the horrific event.

Why?  What does US foreign policy gain, either in Turkey or Armenia, by applying this one-and-only term?

The event happened in the 20 months of 1915 and 1916, and the numbers of dead range from 300,000 (Turkey) to 1.5 million (Armenian).  These deaths resulted from exposure, starvation, dehydration and disease as an entire population of Armenians were forced out of Turkey entirely and into the Syrian desert beyond the "Ottoman" frontier.  No one, not even Turkey, denies that atrocities were committed.  After WWI, Turkey held trials in which the governor of Anatolia and 14 other military and political leaders were found guilty of crimes ranging from murder to "barbarism" against the ethnic Armenians, and all hanged (or sentenced to hang, if they were tried in absentia).

Armenia still has issues with this problem, and does want the event recognized as genocide... and understandably so.  They are a body of government made up of Armenians, representing Armenian interests, and defending Armenian rights, and as such can call for whatever terminology they wish to have attached to this dark chapter in their history.

I applaud President Obama for putting the brakes on this process.  Congress passed a resolution in 2008 wherein all references to the event within the US Government would refer to the tragedy as "genocide", and the President has refused to sign it, or even endorse it.  Whatever his intentions or reasoning, it is the right thing to do, because it flies in the face of the latest round of American "politically correct" obsession that seems to be floating around DC.

The shortest day of the year...

Historically, the winter solstice signaled the dawn of a new season, when the days would grow longer until the winter ended and the growing season began.

Today, on the morning of the mystical solstice, we see news of waves of bombings in Iraq that have killed dozens and injured hundreds.

The root of these bombings seems to be unrest at the Iraqi Prime Minister's call for the arrest of the Iraqi Vice President, based mainly on his being Sunni rather than Shi'ite.  I find it rather telling that the warrant for the arrest (which drove Mr. Hashimi into hiding in Kurdistan) was issued only after the last US troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

If there is going to be a new season in Iraq now that the US troops are gone, then the power-sharing structure of the Iraqi government will have to weather this test.  Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd are going to have to find a way to share power, and they will have to do it without the presence of US troops in the cities and on the roads.  Otherwise, this nation won't see the dawn of another solstice...

Not another Kim, please...

Kim Jung Eun (or Kim Jung-un, depending on your dictionary) is the new "extreme leader" of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea now that his father, Kim Jung Il, is dead.


If ever there was an example of why Western states should be able to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations to end repressive, tyrannical regimes... North Korea is it.


Since its founding in 1948, the country (which had been a marginally-developing industrial nation prior to WWII) has fallen into a state of almost constant poverty and isolationism that hasn't been seen since Imperial Japan opened its trade to the West in the mid-1800s.  Tens of millions have died of famine and disease... ten million as recently as 1997!... because of the backwards, non-functioning manner in which its leadership (Grandpa, Daddy and now Junior Kims all) has pushed the country in relentlessly.   Their mutual paranoia towards Western and South Korean "military expansionism" has forced the US and ROK governments to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to maintain one of the strongest international borders in human history (the 38th Parallel, or the Korean DMZ), and thousands of Koreans and hundreds of Americans have died on that border since 1955.


North Korea has maintained an active WMD program since 1988, detonating as many as four low-yield nuclear devices underground since 1993.  They could possibly maintain the largest stockpile of chemical weapons on the face of the earth right now (but no one knows for sure if that is the case or not).


Compared to other "despotic" regimes that the US and her allies have actively interfered with since the end of the Cold War... North Korea makes such places like Iraq and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan seem like schoolyard bullies.  Tens of millions dead, hundreds of millions kept in abject poverty and ignorance, personal freedom and liberty nonexistent, forced child labor an industry standard... these are the hallmarks of the North Korean leaderships legacy since 1948, and for the vast majority of that time, we (the West) have been content to sit back and watch as it all happened.


The images of hundreds of people (grown and presumably rational adult human beings) weeping uncontrollably at the news of Kim Jung Il's death shows the level of dependence and ignorance that the country has been forced into over the last 50 years.  Could this new generation of leadership bring about change?  Could this man, Kim Jung Eun, educated in Switzerland and more exposed to Western thinking than either his father or grandfather, be the catalyst for growth and development that many seem to think?  Yes, I suppose he could.


I'm not going to hold my breath though...

This day of infamy...

Only 120 men and women still live as survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago. God bless them all and keep them healthy and happy.

Something that is all over the airwaves now, and is front and center in MY life, is the cost of healthcare, and the 70th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack has kind of made me consider it closely.

The surviving generation of the war itself (the Greatest Generation) are now well into their 90's, and their children are well into their 60's, and constitute nearly 12% of our total population. The increased need of medical care for these people and the shrinking means of paying for it privately are driving the costs for the entire society through the roof.

Obviously, I know no one here needs this explanation... I'm doing it rhetorically. Stick with me.

I, as the provider for a family of five, now pay $165 per week (yes, per week!) for my healthcare insurance. That's just under $8,600 per year in expenses that I might or might not incur in healthcare or major medical costs... and there is (obviously) no refund on what I don't use or spend.

There was a time in this country when "insurance" covered only what you couldn't pay out-of-pocket. That would have been a major health issue... a trip to the emergency room, or extended hospitalization, major surgery, etc. ... that I didn't have the means to pay for myself. Now, even simply trips to the eye doctor cost a staggering $900 per child (and they are required for all kids attending school in my district), and our insurance only covers 90% of that bill.

Lately I have been looking at my pay stub and considering the amount of money I am throwing into healthcare right now. What could be done differently?

What if I only paid for a policy that covered medical bills in excess of $5k? All bills less than $5,000, I arrange to pay myself, either through a payment plan (i.e. credit) or through personal savings (i.e. cash). What if the policy I paid for only cost me a fraction of what I am paying now? Knowing that medical bills can reach staggering proportions very, very quickly... if it was structured like a term life policy around a contribution pool of say 100,000 people (the average amount of members in PPO-structured plans today in PA), then I could have $300,000 of major medical coverage for as little as $75 per month. That is damn near a 90% savings from what I am paying right now... which means I take home $600 MORE per month, knowing I might have to pay up to $5,000 more a year in major medical costs. Unless my math is WAY off, that means that in less than 10 months of savings, I can have an account in my own bank of my own money ready to lay out the $5k I'm obligated to cover myself, and for the rest of the time I don't have a major medical expense, I'm $600 better off every month than I was previously.

But what about the $900 vision tests I was just talking about?

It is my understanding and experience that arrangements can often be made with doctor's offices, wherein a cash payment earns you a MAJOR discount in cost of service. When I was unemployed and uninsured two years ago, I needed some dental work done. I talked to the dentist and he agreed to fix the tooth (cracked and abscessed) for a grand total of $243 over two visits. When I asked him what it would cost should he bill insurance, he told me it was a $1,000 procedure, and that the difference was in factoring in the cost of delayed payment and hours and hours of additional administrative work by his office employees.

I have since used this means of savings whenever we have hit the roadblock of a doctor or service NOT being covered by our insurance, and it has worked every time. One of the kids needs to see a specialist about a nasal condition (something that has happened twice) and that specialist isn't on our plan... make the cash arrangements and watch the job get done for about 20% of the insurance bill's cost.

Let's face it... running a dentist office or a general practice MD office is still just running a business: it isn't going to work if you can't make a profit. If the cost of making that profit via insurance companies drives prices higher, then smart doctors (no matter what their specialty is) will offer a "cash discount price" that is affordable to most clientele and they will avoid the hassle and delay associated with big insurance. More business, bills paid quicker, profit margins more accessible and costs reduced across the board.

How do I know this will work? Because it already exists and constitutes a $300 billion dollar per year industry in this country alone: veterinary medicine practice.

More than 50% of America has pets, and pets will always, at some point, need to see a vet. Less than 1% of America has any kind of insurance to cover that cost... so if that is true, and pet care gets expensive, who pays for the services? Pet owners do, and they do it in cash. I myself have run into some daunting vet bills over the years, and if I think one vet is charging too much, I take my business to someone else that offers the same or better services for a better price... like any smart shopper would. Our dog, Mick, needed a bad tooth extracted to fix a HUGE abscess on his face, and the local vet wanted $750 to do the job. I called another vet, only 6 miles further away, that would do the same job for less than $400 and Mick is happy and healthy with one less tooth in his head, while I am $350 better off for the ordeal.

If I have to continue to see 16.5% of every check I earn go towards insurance that still requires me to pay out-of-pocket and drives those out-of-pocket expenses higher and higher... where do I benefit? I'd rather see the 15% RAISE that such a reduction in cost as I am describing would constitute and pay for as much as I could myself... knowing that everyone else that does it that way would also benefit in the long run.

Why isn't THIS an option for me as a citizen of these United States? Who's advocating this plan?

And now for something completely different...

THIS is why I love ESPN:

MVP Debate

This is classic "Driveway" debate... yes?

Nope, I don't think so...

I agree, it isn't a perfect analogy at all... nothing ever is, since history never fully repeats itself... but the facet I wanted to compare between Coxey's Army and "Occupy" was the dissent itself, not the worst of the bunch.

Historically speaking, there have been many "occupy-type" protests... The Bonus Army of the early 30's, Cox's Army (another pro-public works march from PA led by a Catholic priest named Cox), the March from Selma to Montgomery... and all have had less-then-savory elements associated with them. However, I was trying to keep the protest intent separate from the protest in actuality.

Whenever America has been in a time of crisis, people have sought a reason along with a solution. Most here (and indeed, across the country) think the current fiscal crisis is due to unsustainable spending and over-blown credit extensions in both the public and private sectors... but not everyone is agreed on how to fix it. The more radical elements in the Occupy movement seem to think that corporate greed is the cause... and that violence and disdain are acceptable means of protest against this. This stems more from the ideology of their views than the validity of the protest itself, and certainly factors in to how people view the protesters and their causes.

Successful group action relies on a higher ethical and/or moral fiber... MLK's non-violence in the 60s, the Tea Party movement today... and while I agree 100% that the Occupy movement lacks that fiber, my main point was that it shouldn't be seen as "unprecedented" or a new facet to our society.

Bad, bad analogy brother ...

I dont know what "mainstream" outlets you've been watching, but both MSNBC & FOX have dedicated hours of footage and coverage. And here's what I've gathered thus far ...

The "occupy" movement has spawned 12 accusations of rape; 74 accusations of sexual assault (these are official police filings mind you); 2 deaths; multiple drug possession charges; and over 1000 arrests. They have vandalized public and private property, including a trash can through a window of whole foods. Deficated in public, including #2 on top of a squad car. The average participant is college educated. Multiple, MULTIPLE interviews of "leaders" on MSNBC (they seem to like Al Sharpton's show) have in the clearest of terms stated this is not about "reforming" what we have (the republic and capitalism), but "burning it down" and starting over. "Revolution not reform!" is the common cry. The vast food, telecommunications, PR classes, and newspapers (yes, they have sophisticated levels of each) are funded primarily by unions & a few uber wealthy donors. They also have numerous celebrity endorsements, including Rosanne Barr who said those who disagree should be given the opportunity to attend a reeducation camp, but if need be, beheaded (this from a woman worth $50 million). And a common complaint (probably THE most common after "eat the rich") is their distress over their student loan debt. And that's before you get to the multiple speakers espousing the virtues of communism.

Does that sound like Coxey's Army? You tell these kids that they have to march, on foot, across Pennsylvania and they'll turn up their Ipods and go back to chanting "death to big corporations."

The true dividing line in this country isn't between the 99 and 1%. It's between the 53% of us that pay taxes, and the 47% that don't.

Coxey's Army

A phrase that my grandparents used to throw around and that I have adopted over the course of my life is "... we've enough food here to feed Coxey's Army!" In short, it means that far too much food has been prepared for the people that will eat. It really reflects just how old my Dad's folks were... Coxey's last march on Washington occurred in 1914, but must have had a huge impact on society at large for the term to remain in common usage well into the 30s and 40s.

Jacob Coxey was a business man and politician from Ohio who, in 1894 (during the worst economic depression the country had ever seen outside of the Great Depression of 1929) and again in 1914, marched 500 unemployed men from central Ohio, through Pennsylvania and into Washington DC, gaining followers all along the way. The crux of their protest was that the Federal Government should enact a public works program to put unemployed people to work on a national road system, pumping much needed cash into the pockets of providers that had no unemployment insurance or Federal relief programs to assist them during a period of national unemployment that reached 19%.

The "Panic of 1893" was the second half of a longer era of general economic depression that began in 1873 and didn't actually end until the start of WWI. The depression was rooted in protectionist policies and Federal monetary actions that severely limited the Fed's ability to spend money without raising taxes and tariffs. As many as 22% of all banks in the country failed during this crisis, taking as much as 40% of all the savings within those banks with them. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were suddenly without jobs and without any sort of savings... mostly out west, but in the heartland, too. Bankruptcies and foreclosures reached heights that wouldn't be seen again until 1930, and had never been seen before. The price of gold on the global market (although the price was fixed here in the US) skyrocketed, and the price of silver (the monetary standard of international trade) plummeted.

Coxey and his bunch knew that increased taxes (payroll, sales or otherwise) would dampen the recovery, and they knew that there was no liquidity that could be pumped into the economy the way there is today because there was no central banking agency of the Federal government (today, we have the Federal Reserve). They were not asking for entitlements (per say) so much as asking for temporary public employment that could see them through the depression without undue hardship or even starvation. Both Presidents Cleveland and McKinley denied this logic and refused the efforts of Coxey.

Why do I bring this up?

The parallels are not perfect, but this is strikingly similar to the "Occupy" protests of today. Granted, the "Occupy" folks want less corporate influence and greater wealth equality through Government action... rather than public employment... but the efforts and reactions are surprisingly mirrored, I feel. Both protest efforts blame bad government policy and corrupt big business dealings on the economic crisis (both with some validity), and neither is getting a whole lot of consideration from the mainstream media. The general population seems a bit ambivalent toward the "Occupy" effort, as they did in '94 and '14 respectively.

Are there any conclusions that can be drawn from this?

I'm just curious ...

At what point does the Tea Party, in each locale that "Occupy Wall Street" exists, start asking for a refund on all the permits they paid for?

The CNN National Security Debate

This was a telling episode in the ongoing drama series that is the GOP Presidential race...

Huntsman did a fantastic job of asserting himself over Romney, and Cain did a fantastic job of making himself an even bigger non-factor in the race by forgetting Wolf Blitzer's name.

Santorum needs to learn that agreeing with everyone else in the debate is NOT a good way to make yourself a stand-out candidate for President. He agreed with Bachmann, Romney and Huntsman over and over again, never giving even a small indication of what he would do different than what they are advocating... with the possible exception of Ron Paul's extremist views, which he countered twice. Since none of the others agreed with Paul, either... this isn't a big win for him at all.

Ron Paul... the man is amazing. His pleading tone that he takes whenever he speaks of keeping America's nose out of foreign problems is SO unbelievably juvenile that I am amazed he got even the applause that he did (more than any other candidate on the panel). His insistence that we were never attacked, and that there is no threat outside of what we have brought on ourselves via foreign policy is almost obtuse. He epitomizes the pre-WWI isolationist views that cost America and the West so much after 1918... fight when attacked, intervene when Congress approves, keep business and money only within our own borders. In this day and age, can anyone seriously think that the US can prosper WITHOUT a strong international presence? Can anyone seriously think that that strong international presence won't need a strong foreign policy and a stronger US military to protect its interests abroad?

I'm so disappointed that the only really strong showing at this debate (in my opinion) was someone I can't stand... John Huntsman. He embarrassed Romney and Perry, stood his own very well against Gingrich, and showed a surprising (to me, anyway) grasp of how important it is to have ideas ready and waiting to present to the questioners at the debates.

Ahhh... Beck...

I haven't heard his show in months. His punditry (is that a word?) is so far outside of what I think as realistic that I have taken to spending all my radio time with ESPN and the Catholic Channel.

However, your news that he has endorsed Bachmann is no surprise to me. He wants (so badly) to be able to support a Libertarian candidate... but he can't reconcile his own foreign policy understanding with the daydreams and delusions of people like Barr and Ron Paul.

Gingrich has made himself irrelevant, as has Cain. Romney is simply running as the "I'm not Obama" candidate... and the last time that strategy worked we ended up with Carter. I had relegated Bachmann to the same level of "what was"... but she might be the last hope of the majority of Tea Party supporters.

Ron Paul is simply too far out there to be taken even a little bit seriously... yet he is a poll leader in Iowa right now! Were that man to win Iowa, and then go on to be even top three in New Hampshire... then I'd start checking the temperature in Hell to make sure the water pipes weren't in danger.

I think Bachmann is simply too much of the GOP now. Sure, she talks about cutting deficits and eliminating waste... but she is talking about ending Obama's policies, which does not equal the same thing. She can talk about ending the Department of Education all she wants, but she won't do it any more than Reagan did in two terms, either. EPA, FEMA, Interior, Labor... they are as safe as can be in a Bachmann administration, I promise you. She'll roll taxes back to 2008 (which is a start), but nothing more. More importantly, she won't win Congress' help any better than Clinton did after '94 and Carter did through his whole term.

In short, she isn't giving me anything all the others are giving me, too: cut spending, reduce government, lower taxes, strengthen our military. The same mantra we've heard from every GOP candidate since 1972... and without a single original idea to back it up.

Top it off with the very real possibility that, even as unpopular as Obama is right now... she might not be able to beat him in a general election. The status quo is always preferable to the unknown, and I'm kind of afraid that much of her promises and visions fall into the wildly "unknown" catagory.

And the endorsement goes to...

Well, I can take heart at least that this site will likely again jump to life once the presidential campaign begins in earnest... which is around the corner.

Today Beck decided he would forgoe what he, & all hosts of the top tier, usually do. Namely, abstaining from endorsements within the Primary. His choice - Representative Michelle Bachmann.

I have long said that Beck's overall media presence (radio, tv, & print - now owning his own publishing co), was greater than that of Rush, Hannity, et al. And certainly greater than the standard television & print media outlets (his online television network now has more paid subscribers than Oprah's channel has viewers). We shall soon see if Bachmann will benefit. Perry & Cain are imploding (Cain's getting baffled by where & what Lybia is surpassed his maddening abortion take), & while Gingrich is coming on strong I think overall Bachmann has an opening given conservative Republicans still regard Romney as the "if no one else shows up" choice. Lets see what she.can do with it.

My thoughts...

Just a rambling rant to try and generate some activity here...

On PSU:

I heard Sandusky's interview with Costas... and that is one twisted individual. When asked if he was a pedophile, he said "No." When asked if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he gave a long answer and had to be brought back on track by Costas to say No. The man might not think he is doing anything wrong... but he is. He needs real help.

Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, met with the President about a new "committee" that the USCCB organized called the Defense of Religious Liberty Committee. I'm delighted to see Archbishop Dolan making the effort of the Church to end abortion and curb the trend of States legitimizing same-sex marriages by making it a "defense of liberty". Too long have traditional Christian values been seen by the public and the media as infringements on liberty, rather than liberties in and of themselves. I must hear the "call to prayer" over public address systems in the Detroit suburbs... but I cannot look at a Nativity scene in a public park, or a statue of the Ten Commandments in a town square. My kids can wear Che t-shirts, but not t-shirts with Christ's face on them. Who's liberty's are being infringed?

And the Green Bay Packers?

Wow. That's it. Wow.

"Second Mile"

That's how I had it figured... you don't need an explicit law to fire, turn in, or otherwise remove an accused pedophile, especially with first hand witnesses. If you combine the 1998 and 2002 incidents, those alone would be enough to (at the very least, assuming you're concerned with being sued if the accusations are proven false), put the assistant coach on paid administrative leave as an official investigation was conducted.

Given that fact, either Joe Pa knew and should be fired, or he didn't know (I agree, impossible) and should be fired as incompetent (an adjective which never before applied to Paterno). Being fired has a different threshold then being prosecuted. And while Paterno may have not met the latter, I think it's reasonable for the trustees to claim he did meet the former.

My subject title refers to Sandusky's charity organization. The very organization which apparently gave him access to young children. I just heard at top of the hour CBS Radio News that the president of that charity has resigned and a second charity, based out of New York, has come forth to announce an investigation. Apparently, in coordination with Second Mile, they sent children to bunk at Sandusky's home as they attended Second Mile events. You're right, this is going to get much, much worse.

As I was thinking more about this whole disgusting affair something occured to me, and it's the part that bothers me the most about behavior of the PSU staff involved: Sandusky is a predator, and his particular vulgar predilection is incurable. Pedophiles don't just "stop." Joe Pa, the President, the athletic coordinator, the campus security chief, and anyone else in the loop at PSU all knew why Sandusky was being made to quietly "retire" a few years back (and in fact were directly responsible for that chosen course of action). The inescapable conclusion is they were convinced - to the point of removing him - that he was committing sex acts with children. And since they allowed him to just walk away they are responsible for each and every criminal act Sandusky may have committed between his retirement and his indictment. I other words, they didn't have the authority to fire him from his charity, did they? Meaning he was still presumably affiliated with that charity, to one degree or another, and had access to kids. Right? My point being, if you have enough evidence to convince you that an employee must be fired over pedophilia, then you have enough evidence to go to the police. You don't just let him walk away, especially when he has a charity that affords him ready access to children! If you're a member of the board of trustees and you're looking at that, combined with the fact that Paterno was a primary shot caller (if not "the" primary), then Joe Pa has to go if for no other reason then he can no longer be trusted to make executive decisions.

By the way, and I say this not in jest but rather because it is news worthy... some years back Sandusky wrote a book based primarily on his "charity" work. The title of the book?

Touched.

One more thing...

There is a factor in this PSU situation that I think some forget (not Ryan... just "some"):

The sacred trust that educators are held to.

Penn State University has a sacred trust. It's primary role is as an institution of higher learning, where young minds are molded and broadened into more capable men and women ready to lead the world in action, thoughts and words. This is true of any learning institution, from pre-school to the highest level of graduate study.

The staff and teachers of this University must lead by example, and they cannot be guided and directed solely by the "letter of the law" simply because no body of law is ever 100% complete. It is impossible. If they cannot be guided and directed by purely "legal" aspects of the society they function in, then a moral and ethical standard must also be maintained and followed, strictly and completely.

Perhaps Paterno was acting within the legal framework established by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (of which the University is an departmental organization)... but one cannot deny that if that legal framework fails to adequately protect and defend the most helpless among society (in this case, pre-teen children), then that society can expect those associated with the University to follow a greater, broader framework of responsibility based on general principles of moral and ethical standards.

If Paterno did suspect what Sandusky was, then he failed to make sure he was removed entirely from the football program, its staff and students, and the University in general. That might not be spelled out in the legal framework of his position at the University... but it should be understood in a moral and ethical sense by any right-thinking individual hold that position.

If Paterno did NOT suspect or know anything about Sandusky (patently impossible, according to the grand jury testimony)... then he damn well should have, given the level of control and authority he had over that program, and indeed, the entire PSU campus.

Perhaps this was Paterno's one and only "bad judgement call"... but it was "bad" enough to injure and put at risk at least 11 (and counting) children over the course of the last 16 years... and these are only the kids that are allegedly abused while ON PSU property by Sandusky.

I think the right call was made. Paterno had to go. Period.

So sad...

And I'm not even a Penn State fan.

However, having become immersed in this nightmare that is the PSU child abuse scandal over the last two weeks, I think it was inevitable: Paterno had to go.

I think the "didn't do enough" factor became a primary issue when it came out that Paterno knew Sandusky was at practices, in the facilities, with children AFTER the 2002 incident with the 10-year-old in the shower. They knew Sandusky was at the practice with a child, and they knew Paterno was there, too... and this was as recently as 25 days ago. Perhaps nothing happened THAT time, but the possibility that it could happen again was enough.

With a coaching staff that is that entrenched... some have been there more than 30 years... it is difficult for me to believe that there was NO (read ZERO) knowledge of this sort of criminal behavior between the various coaches, and (at the very latest) it should have ended completely after the 2002 incident (it should have ended in 1998, but that wasn't a PSU call... that was a district prosecutor that chose not to indict). That means Sandusky was no longer allowed, in any way, shape or form, onto PSU property or at PSU games.

I feel bad for the school and the students. This is going to be a stain on a top-ranked school for decades to come, and the healing process is going to be slow. I also fear it is going to get worse before it gets better. Decisions were made, calls made... and those that chose to make the calls (or NOT to make the calls) are answering for them now. Paterno was a BIG decision maker at that school, and if the President had to go, then I think Paterno did too. Let's face it... Nittany Lion football WAS Joe Pa, and the problem seems to have been with what the coaches knew and did/didn't do. Tough not to hold the Head Coach responsible.

Can I ask our in-house PA resident a question?

Understand, this is absent any and all sarcasm.

Why exactly did they fire Joe Paterno?

I'm serious. And I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the reasoning. I haven't read the 23 page Grand Jury report, but it occurs to me that Paterno isn't in any legal trouble. To the best of my limited knowledge of PA state law in these cases any school official, from kindergarten to graduate school, whom witnesses or suspects sexual abuse of a minor must report it through one of three official channels: the police, Child Services, or his superiors. From what I've gathered Paterno did just that, in the case of the latter.

So again, why did they fire him? I can't find a definitive answer in any of the coverage or reports. If I had to guess it would go something like the following - the offender was allowed to retire unscathed. He worked directly for Paterno. Paterno has more authority within that school and his program than any three deans combined (presumably). If you add those 3 factors together the trustees must have come to the conclusion that the only way Sandusky could have "walked away" without arrest is if Paterno signed off on the maneuver.

Clearly Sandusky should have been fed to wolves (the actual police). But according to the letter of the law Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement. Is it just an assumed fact among locals and the trsutees that in this case, with Paterno having so much influence, so much sway, that they can not fathom that such a thing could have been hushed up and made to "go away" without the knowledge and consent of Paterno? Because if that's the case, I get it. That seems a reasonable position for the trustees. However, doesn't that leave Paterno some legal room to claim his contract was unlawfully terminated? If he was inclined to preserve his reputation, on the face of it, it would seem he'd have a case.

And look, I don't want to have to do the thing where I qualify all this with stating how serious I take the charges, how vulgar and heart breaking it all is, and how many victims there were - we all here would serve that pedophile up to an electric chair, in a heart beat. I just want to be sure of the "he should have done more" standard. If you suspect sexual abuse of a minor, as a school official, and you don't approve of how your superiors are investigating the accusation you reported, are you to conduct an investigation yourself? If Paterno doesn't get a satisfactory action on the part of the school president after he reported the accusations, is he obliged to go directly to the authorities? Morally, I would unquestionably say yes, and loudly. I just get a little uncomfortable with the "fire everybody" mentality when those positing such a demand don't offer specifics on how Paterno should have done more.

Unquestionably the coward of the century award goes to that spineless twerp whom actually witnessed the sex act in the showers with the minor. In that instance I say yes, you personally interfere, right then (and I mean in the shower). And then go directly to the police. I'm simply saying that if a member of the coaching staff comes to Paterno and says he saw Joe's offensive coordinator committing this crime, and that coordinator happened to be a 20 year friend of Paterno, it might be understandable if Paterno turned around and reported it to the school president and the chief of campus security. But after that, if the two of them both decide they're not going to the police (lack of evidence, fear of hurting the school reputation, etc), is Paterno liable to the point of being fired for not going above the head of the President, to the police? And if so, OK. But why was the campus security chief and the athletic coordinator - both in the loop as much as Paterno, neither of whom went to the cops - not fired as well?

Again, I think anyone involved in sweeping this under the rug & letting that animal simply "retire", deserves to be fired. I guess what I'm asking is, if Paterno reported it to multiple school officials, and then they did nothing, is that cause enough to say Paterno participated in the "sweeping?"

Romney will be the nominee ...

This is becoming clear to me. He is just devastatingly lethal in these debates. The man is a born and bred CEO. He just doesn't make mistakes.

I caught parts of the CNBC debate tonight, and immediately at its' conclusion I got a call for a push button poll (happening nightly around this time I might add), this one from Ron Paul.

Look, I prefer a more conservative candidate than Romney. This is a general complaint, I understand, but in my gut I'm just not sure behind closed doors I can trust him not to pull a George H. Bush. But at this point all Romney has to do is not lose, just survive. Cain is a contender, and he held his own in tonights's debate, but he's getting crushed as now the 4th woman is coming forward with sex allegations. Shockingly the Left of the 1990's suddenly cares about such behavior. More disconcerting to me is his bizarre take on abortion. He seems to be for it before he was against it, and it's a personal choice government should make illegal - ya, got it Cain, thanks, the Ramstein goes in the doohickey to help the thingamajig. I was sorely dissapointed with that issue after the promising start of 9-9-9. And the nearest challenger after Cain, Perry, effectively ended his primary campaign tonight. If you haven't heard I'm sure it will make the chattering class rounds tomorrow. He was in a dust up with Ron Paul over what government departments/agencies he would do away with. First off, don't try to out cut Ron Paul. He will always see your number and raise. He'll cut things you didn't know existed. It'll be him and two volunteer park rangers by the time he's done. At any rate, as I said, Perry was in a dust up with Ron Paul and he says, "There are three agencies of government that when I get there are gone, Commerce, Education, and ..." He just stood there, mouth gaping for what seemed like an eternity. Then he asked himself, out loud, "what was the third?" Again followed by a few moments of mouth gaping, body cringing uncomfortableness. Then Ron Paul says, "you can't name the third?" And in an attempt to make himself recall, Perry started over saying, "The three I'd cut are Commerce, Education, and ..." Again nothing, that engine just wouldn't turn over.

The incident couldn't of ended worse. Finally, and I don't know if it was murder or a mercy kill, but a voice pipes in and says, "EPA?" Perry responds, "Yes, thank you, EPA." Guess who the off camera voice was? If you guessed Romney, you win the prize ... which is more than Perry will win in Iowa.

The "needed" conversation...

Good post... why can't we have more of that? More often?

You mentioned where the conversation needed to go... and I agree with you... but it isn't going there, is it?

Here, in the run-up to the 2012 general election, we have GOP candidates discussing issues and making and taking positions that I think are unrealistic at best... and damaging to the conservative effort as a whole, worst-case.

In order to appeal to Tea Party conservatives, we have Perry and others taking real, solid (and ultimately unmovable) positions on the US tax code. Specifically, whether or not a flat tax is something we should shoot for. Perry promises its simpler. Gingrich wants it to be an "option" for those that choose to take it. Cain seems to be focused on the "9-9-9" to the point nothing else is spoken of.

Please, people... it isn't going to happen. EVER.

It isn't simpler... and that is coming from someone that supports the flat tax idea! It just isn't.

Look, even with our progressive tax system... where does the complicated portion of the job lay? Not with figuring what percentage of taxes you owe... you take your income and match it to a percentage on a list, and find the corresponding tax amount owed. That's actually as simple as we are going to get, if you ask me.

The complications start when one is asked to determine what your "income" is. That is where one finds the deductions, credits, allowances, proportional expenses, and other such mitigating factors that effect what the specific "income" for one year has been.

Would that change in a flat tax system? I doubt it very much. One would still find loopholes, arguments and costs that they feel should "reduce" their income, and thus reduce what they owe in taxes, and thus complicate what is being promised as a "simpler" means of determining and collecting tax revenues.

Gingrich wants Americans to do their taxes TWICE, and pick the cheaper means of paying... how is THAT simpler? Cain wants to take the Laffer curve to the opposite extreme that most liberals do, and reduce the flat tax to factors of 9%... which would equal a huge tax cut to anyone making more than $26,000 a year, but increase more than 40% of the country's tax bill by 9%. THAT is not the sort of campaign promise that is going to get him elected in a general election cycle, I can tell you that. Fine print and details aside... that is a dangerous game to play when you are looking to beat the promises of an avowed progressive in a welfare-state society like ours.

Yes, reducing tax burdens increases tax revenue... this I know. So, reducing the tax burden of the top 45% of earners in this nation is a good thing, right? They are, after all, the nation's top EMPLOYERS, right? Not if you are going to correspondingly INCREASE the burden of the bottom 40%... who are the nation's largest group of CONSUMERS. In this case, at this time... the math doesn't work.

Why can't we simply take what has worked in the past and utilize it again? A reduced corporate tax rate, zero capital gains for ten years, a reduced income deduction table for the common 10-40 form, but an increased deduction form for itemized returns, and a lower (by, say... 7% to 9%?) general tax rate across the board. It worked in 1981, carried us through 1996... and it will work again NOW!

More money in the hands of consumers to free them from the needs and costs associated with bigger and bigger Government regulation and control. THAT was what brought us out of the Carter recession and ushered in the boom years of the 1990s. It is going to be tough going, no question... tough cuts will have to be made at a Federal level, but it is DOABLE, right now.

Why is this so hard?

"...to thunderous applause."

Do you remember that scene from Star Wars in which the Sith Lord, as chancellor, makes his case for assuming undemocratic powers, and the assembly wildly applauds? Senator Padame then makes the comment, "So this is how a Republic dies. To the sound of thunderous applause." Then Jimmy Smits looks all worried, remember?

I ask this question rhetorically of course, for I know my audience, and I know you recognized the quote before your eyes even left the subject line. Allow me to follow up on Titus' "hubris" post ... all due respect buddy, you haven't even scratched the surface of what this President "assumes" he can do.

The President, MY president, is landing in Las Vegas today to push for his $447 Billion "Jobs Act." It has no chance of passing the House, or even the Senate. Reason? Bipartisan opposition. So why is he wasting our time and clogging up McCarren International Airport for a Bill he can't possibly get passed into law? Maybe he doesn't care about "passing" it.

"We can't wait on congress to act."

The PoTUS actually said that. He is landing in Las Vegas in about 2 hours to make that case. His jobs bill is "stymied", so he is going to attempt to enact it ... himself. I kid you not.

"With his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition, President Obama on Monday will begin a series of executive-branch actions to confront housing, education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra: “We can’t wait” for lawmakers to act.

According to an administration official, Mr. Obama will kick off his new offensive in Las Vegas, ground zero of the housing bust, by promoting new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that more homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes, can refinance and avert foreclosure.

And Wednesday in Denver, the official said, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising tuition."
(source: HERE)

Do you see why it matters when he federalizes student loans? Why it matters whether or not to call an executive leader out as a socialist, or Marxist, often and early? This is a man who went on the record in the year 2000 with Chicago NPR describing our Constitution as "inadequate." A man who described our nation in 2008 as needing a "fundamental transformation." Well, here it is - he dislikes this pesky "Republic" system, and he isn't going to abide by it anymore. How big of a "change" is that? Pretty damned "fundemental" if you ask me.

There's more (and this is all dated from 10/14 through today):

"Obama told his advisers on the White House Jobs and Competitiveness Council in Pittsburgh on Tuesday that he is “not going to wait for Congress” to act on jobs.

“I’ve shown repeatedly my willingness to work overtime to try to get them to do something to deal with this high unemployment rate. What we haven’t seen is a similar willingness on their part to try to get something done,” Obama said on Thursday. “

“So my instruction to all the advisers who are sitting around the table is, scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.”
(source: HERE)

John McCain, a supposed leader in the upper House of OUR congress, went on to say that the GOP would do everything they could to stop him, but quote: "He will probably get away with it."

How many times? How many times must the PoTUS act in a way that leaves us slack-jawed and stunned before we stop saying, "Oh, he'd never do that."???

From 9/27/11:
"Republicans rebuked North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue after she suggested Congress suspend elections for two years so lawmakers can get to work stimulating the economy unencumbered by anxiety about what voters think."
(source: HERE)

Say Beverly hun, be a dear and say that again, only this time do it in German, just for kicks and giggles. No, you wouldn't want to worry about what voters think. This is a sitting governor. She is taken seriously. You should hear the audio - this was no joke, no kidding around, no hyperbole.

Just this week:

"Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.”

Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment.

“I hope the president continues to exercise extraordinary constitutional means, based on the history of Congresses that have been in rebellion in the past,” Jackson said. “He’s looking administratively for ways to advance the causes of the American people, because this Congress is completely dysfunctional.”
(source: HERE)

That constitutes "dysfunctional", not agreeing with the Chief Executive. Jackson Jr. went on to describe this plan. He wants "direct hire" by the federal government of all unemployed persons, at "prevailing union wages." What do you think the price tage for that would be?

Did you know the PoTUS approved the kill order of an American citizen?

"American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior U.S. government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to U.S. officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a U.S. citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process."
(source: HERE)

His role is "fuzzy?"

Sounds an awful lot like plausible deniability to me. Search the Web, as many as 20 names are suspected to be on this "list." 20 Americans, with assassination orders pending by their own government. And Nixon's list was a problem?

The three of us are in what, the upper 2, maybe 1% of information consumers? Did you even know this panel existed? I didn't. Follow those links if you wish. They wont take you to Beck, or Savage or Drudge. They're much more wildly right wing sources than that, such as the NY Times, Yahoo News, and the UK's Daily Caller.

Here is the problem with ALL of this ... thus far the discussion, be it on television, radio, or at the water cooler, has been centered around whether this jobs bill will work. Whether we should spend more tax payer dollars. How much Jackson Jr.'s plan would cost. The infeasibility of it all working. Whether al-Awalki deserved it, etc, etc, etc.

THAT IS NOT THE NEEDED CONVERSATION.

The needed conversation is where does our Executive Branch get the authority for ANY of this?

How can he conduct his administration in this way and not have articles of impeachment brought? Where is any real opposition to the president's insistence that he need not answer to congress ... or perhaps even to voters!?

That female writer whom so cleverly came up with the 10 ways Bush was definitonally a fascist dictator, where is she now?

I don't have to tell you, but it bares repeating - history is replete with states who's chief executive went about installing "ministers", "commissars", or as we have, "czars" that are allotted make believe "administrative authority" based on the musings of a single man, a single leader. And they go about the business of circumventing Politburos, Reichstags, Parliaments and Congress's all in the name of "Getting things done."

This guy, this president, is at the border of the Rhine, spitting, cursing at the name of Versailles while eyeing Paris. And the opposition is busy debating whether the Audubon can be completed in two years, or three.

Let me ask you something. If this President wins reelection, do you believe he is above declaring a state of emergency, suspending congress, and simply implementing his policies as law? Bare in mind, we are now at a place where sitting congressmen are comfortable publicly suggesting that he do just that.

Perhaps this is a better question: do you believe this President is above doing that if he loses?

This is disturbing...

Vice President Joe Biden said that the manner in which the US "assisted" the Libyan rebels was the "new formula" in how America would respond to international crisis in the future... and the less than $1.1 billion price tag and "no lives lost" moniker would show the success of the formula.

This, to me, is the height of hubris.

Looking at the bigger picture, where will this sort of policy get the US in the long run? What historical examples to we have that can be viewed as a comparison to this "new formula"?

Well, the entire US foreign policy for the last three decades of the Cold War jump instantly to mind.

Vietnam. Laos. Honduras. Nicaragua. Iran. Iraq. All nations that we pumped support, money and material. Of these examples, only Vietnam developed into a long, drawn-out combat arena. The rest were quiet interventions that rarely made headlines as the US pumped millions and millions of dollars of material and funds to support foreign regimes and efforts. All failed utterly, in one way or another.

Of all the interventionist policies that we've adopted, the only one that I can say categorically worked was Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. Our support and aid directly assisted the Afghani fighters to beat back the Soviets over an eight year battle... but we failed to follow that support with further aid and assistance and we allowed the Taliban to take over.

NATO and US support of the Libyan rebels has removed and killed Qaddafi... and that is a good thing, but if we do not continue to support and aid the transitional government, we face having helped create a vacuum that any tyrannical extremist regime might fill.

This week we heard Obama say that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the New Year... and perhaps that is a good thing, too. But the position we are leaving Iraq in is far different than that which we find Libya in, and comparisons between the two by the liberal Left are unfair and grossly inaccurate. The difference between the two?

Boots on the ground... that is the only difference. What secures peace and builds stability is boots on the ground, ready to maintain the peace and security won in the first place.

Just curious...

I have just looked through more than 11 pages of articles about the "Occupy Wall Street" effort going on across the country (but mainly in NY)... and I can't find ONE thing about what these people hope to gain from their efforts.

Does anyone know what the agenda is with this "protest"? Because, as far as I can see, this is a protest purely for the sake of protesting.

I see images of "hammer and sickle" flags, but I read and watch videos of speeches that declare communism "utterly dead and justly so"... so what do they want to replace the free market system with? If capitalism is so bad... what do we replace it with? I see people calling for dialogue and tolerance in debate... and calling defenders of the traditional American lifestyle as "tyrannical Christian zealots" and "fascist warmongers" and much, much worse.

This is the Left's counter to the Tea Party movement? A pointless, angry mob ranting for days in public about what they don't like, while offering no alternative ideas or opposing points of view?

Enjoy the weather, kids... looks like rain later in the week.

I'll be damned...

The reigning Superbowl Champion Green Bay Packers are undefeated.

The University of Wisconsin Badgers are ranked #4 in the nation, and are also undefeated and are playing for a bid at the national championship.

And the Milwaukee Brewers are going to the NLCS after their win tonight.

I will be damned... Wisconsin sports is looking pretty tough right now.

I concede...

I really hadn't known the penalties were that stiff... far too stiff, if you ask me.

However, the fair market value of bullion was offered and given. "Seizure" is simply too tough a word if we are going to discuss taking gold currency out of general circulation.

The topic has been discussed before. Managing the market price of gold through arbitrary and artificial means was a handicap on our markets, and when the actual value of of a $20 gold piece was closer to $60, why would a savvy citizen spend it at all? Gold is meant to be horded... used as a hedge against inflation and economic crisis... and the US couldn't afford to have 2% of its circulation value tied up in coins that weren't being spent.

I'm not convinced that taking gold out of circulation was not a good thing... but 9 years in the "big house" for having more than $100 worth is going too far.

No thoughts on whether or not Fort Knox is empty? I thought you'd slam me for that.

Executive Order 6102

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let this slide.

"Beck and other pundits love talking about how FDR and the other "progressives" in the White House destroyed the American financial system by making it "illegal" for citizens to own gold bullion (constantly referencing the New Deal policy of removing gold coins from circulation). This was NOT a seizure of private assets as it is so often described by Congressman Ron Paul... it was a means of buying the coins back from private ownership by the Fed at an established rate and building a stockpile of bullion (at Fort Knox) to have on reserve for the US Government. Period. Were this NOT the case, Glenn Beck would not be making hourly claims to "owning" such a precious and protecting commodity as gold in his own portfolio, would he? "

I don't think Beck has ever claimed that FDR's gold seizures "destroyed" the American financial system (but yes, he has routinely referenced it as an example of progressive failings), but then again I can not claim to have bore witness to every word he's ever uttered. What you are absolutely wrong about is FDR did seize private assets. This was no simple "buy back" program. This was the equivalent to a hostile take over, an illegitimate financial eminent domain claim.

Executive Order 6102 was the Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation over $100, in gold coins. Executive Order 6102 required U.S. citizens to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but that small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 or up to ten years in prison, or both.

Order 6102 specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art", a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The same paragraph also exempted "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins." This protected gold coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting. The regulations prescribed within Executive Order 6102 were modified by Executive Order 6111 of April 20, 1933, both of which were ultimately revoked and superseded by Executive Orders 6260 and 6261 of August 28 and 29, 1933, which were even MORE restrictive.

The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of all gold coins, bars, bullion and certificates in 1974 (post Nixon taking us off the standard, obviously).

FDR enforced the forced "buy back program" under the auspices of the Trading With The Enemy Act for goodness sake! You're right, that's not a seizure, it's totalitarianism (in my opinion). I don't care what you compensate the private owner with, to force his sale of his possessions - under penalty of imprisonment - IS A SEIZURE. And while we're at it, this post makes it perfectly plausable for Beck to simultaneously rail against FDR's executive gold seizure orders of the 1930's AND advertise the current ownership of gold within his portfolio.

On Gold...

Gold itself is not a "problem," up or down. It is a barometer measuring the problem. The less confidence people have in the US Dollar, the higher the price for an ounce of gold climbs.

And that barometer is zooming more than you suspect. Gold 10 years ago was roughly $200 an ounce. 5 years ago it was $600 an ounce. 1 year ago it was at $1000 an ounce, and now it's floating between $1,900 and $2000. That is a HUGE spike in just the last year. And it portends bad things for the US currency. For the conspiracy nuts out there, there already exists a "global currency", it's the US Dollar. It is the Petro dollar of choice, meaning crude can only be purchased in US Dollars. It's why Germany, France, the UK, et al all hold billions of USD in reserve. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange has opened up 5 different avenues (in the last year) of crude purchasing power using currency other than the USD. If that becomes a wide spread trend, if we are no longer the reserve Petro Dollar, then why would these nations need to store billions of our currency? Why would our debt be worth holding? What gold's driving price does is send up a warning flare. If we continue to devalue our currency (read: print and spend) to the point that sovereign funds feel it no longer stable enough to use as the globe's Petro Dollar, then it's lights out for us. Gold isn't the problem, it's the screaming symptom of the problem, and thus is very important to monitor.

On what we DID agree upon ...

"The question facing the American people right now ... is a question of whether or not we, as a people, WANT all our "problems" solved by the government rather than by ourselves. We (the Bund) may NOT want that, but it is undeniable that many in America right now do want that... because they see it is free and easy relief from the daily troubles that plague all of us."

I completely agree. That is the choice, the fight, before us.

This is what I mean when stating we must defeat the argument, the entire premise, not just the man. I gave a history lesson on the "man" simply to illustrate there is nothing about his ideology for us to compromise with.

I've thought a lot about this - the appeal of the president's message. Not just now, but the fact that this state based ideology rears its' ugly head every other generation or so. And on a philosophical level this is the conclusion I've drawn about what our mind set, our argument, must be: as thinking people we must all agree that man is imperfect. By definition then his society will be made imperfect. The president and his followers insist they can remedy this. Where we would insist that the only path to the optimal society is to ensure maximum liberty for the individual, he believes we can achieve paradise in this life by state mandated collectivism. What we must know with certainty is that man can not achieve paradise in this life. There is no collective salvation. Any more than there exists a collective Right. There is no Right that I do not possess as an individual that suddenly becomes available to me as part of a collective. To believe such is to immediately devalue the worth of the individual. There is no responsibility belonging to society that I am not called to personally. To do is to immediately devalue charity. And in turn there is no salvation available to me as part of the collective that I can substitute for personal salvation. To believe so is to immediately devalue the worth of the soul.

That is the defining issue of our time - can man best achieve "salvation" (or the optimal society)through self rule, or must he be shepherded into collective salvation bound and gagged within the arms of the state? Having chosen where we stand, we must demand that those seeking elected office, especially those claiming to be on "our side", do the same.

Can't see the connected dots for the forest...

Of course the sins of the father do not taint the son, that's not the automatic conclusion I drew.

President Obama named his book not Dreams OF My Father, but Dreams From My Father ... as in passed on to the next generation, him. I submit were you to investigate that book , you would agree. President Obama also spent 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church listening to Black Liberation Theology, which at its' core (openly and proudly declared by Wright) is Marxism. He (Pres. Obama) admitted to acquiring audio recording of these sermons so that he could listen to them at night. And he went on a 1988 trip to Kenyan visiting Granny Sarah (where in the book he claimed to hear these stories first hand) prior to writing this book, which clearly enhanced (in my opinion) his anti-Western sentiments. He claims that in college he purposely sought out the Radical feminists, the Marxists, and so on. My point is that there is every reason to believe that he has willingly chosen to take on this "taint" as you described it. The "taint" is a man opposed to the traditional Western powers, opposed to the fundamentals of their culture (not race mind you, but individualist culture). And what ideology best represents the antithesis of that Western culture? What ideology best explains his policy decisions, speeches, legislation, and what ideology best fits with the familial past he was raised around and on?

Marxism.

The man is a Marxist.

I was simply providing background context which further illustrates why I believe this to be true. Background context that he didn't "inherit", but - as the evidence to date suggests - embraced and made a part of his mind set to this day.

So what does that mean for us now? It's simple (to me) - enough trying to compromise, water down, slow down, or stall this ideology (represented in this PoTUS). The entire premise must be defeated. In other words the GOP nominee need not be scared to talk about the unconstitutionality of Social Security (or at very least the inability for it to function); the nominee and the GOP in general must not be afraid to use the Constitution to declare the Dept of Ed unconstitutional; to reign in if not end the Federal Reserve; and on and on and on. As a Party the GOP must stop playing this game of , "We must live by the Constitution ... except here, here, here, and over here." And the only way that Party will have the backbone to do such a thing is if WE demand it.

And by the way, "Royal Colonist" described what I thought he was becoming, with his Czars answering only to "the reigning sovereign." It was meant to be a clever twist on the phrase. I wasn't implying, nor did I state, that Kenya was technically a "Royal Colony." You're right ... so little has changed.

Speaking of conspiracy theories...

The one that seems to be popping up left and right today is the question of whether or not there is any gold still stored in the vaults at Fort Knox.

I've read the books and seen the shows... no public audits of the vaults since 1974, and absolutely no access to anyone (public or private) is allowed by the US Army onto the vault complex. National security is the official line, and perhaps there is some kernel of truth in the opinion that the public has a right to know whether that gold is there, and if it is... how much it is worth. I find it curious that, given the current value of gold and the nature of its value on the global commodities market at any given time over the last 40 years, the "value" of those hundreds of tons of bullion hasn't changed more than $0.45 an ounce since 1971. However...

I just don't see how it is pertinent to discussions about our current financial crisis.

The dollar hasn't been "backed" by gold since 1971, when Nixon removed the convertible nature of the US dollar into gold... so what is the problem? We have been a confidence currency ever since. The strength of our currency lies in the strength of our national economy, and when that economy slips, the value of the dollar slips accordingly.

Beck and other pundits love talking about how FDR and the other "progressives" in the White House destroyed the American financial system by making it "illegal" for citizens to own gold bullion (constantly referencing the New Deal policy of removing gold coins from circulation). This was NOT a seizure of private assets as it is so often described by Congressman Ron Paul... it was a means of buying the coins back from private ownership by the Fed at an established rate and building a stockpile of bullion (at Fort Knox) to have on reserve for the US Government. Period. Were this NOT the case, Glenn Beck would not be making hourly claims to "owning" such a precious and protecting commodity as gold in his own portfolio, would he?

Let us, for a moment, imagine that there is no gold in Fort Knox. Would the fact that the Fed has used, spent, traded or stored the gold somewhere else (roughly $300,000,000,000 worth of the stuff) really crash our financial system completely? Would banks fail? Would interest rates go through the roof? Would major companies go down the toilet?

How much does gold really effect the financial and industrial heart of America? How much does your daily life revolve around gold? What portion of your day is directly and measurably impacted by the fact that gold has now reached an all-time high in commodity pricing? Chances are, the answer to all these questions is very, very little.

But...

What if the price of a barrel of oil doubled tomorrow? Or tripled? Or increased by an order of magnitude over the course of a single decade? How different would your life be in ten years if THAT were to happen? How different would the national landscape be?

In 1971, the price for an ounce of gold was $40.62 (un-adjusted). In less than 40 years, that price has gone to over $2,000 an ounce... and most of THAT climb was in only the last 10 years. How different, and I mean fundamentally different, has our daily life been from before 1971 to beyond 2011? Different yes, but not fundamentally so.

The same timeline and increase in cost applied to the average barrel of light, sweet crude oil would mean an average price in 2011 of $890.00 per barrel. That would give us a price for gasoline (at the same tax rates as we have now) of just about $38 per gallon.

Which commodity do YOU think has the bigger impact on American and global financial matters?

A couple of questions...

Does it matter that Kenya was never a "royal colony"? How does the definition provided for the term relate to the essay itself?

Are we suggesting that Obama hates "the white man"? Or is the historical relationship between Obama and the Mau Mau rebellion somehow responsible for his fascination with collectivism and anti-capitalism?

In regards to Obama's ancestors being the root of his "pinko-commie" ways, does that mean the sins of the father ALWAYS taint the son? Why, then, did Washington not carry the "taint" of his loyalist forefathers? Or Lincoln the "taint" of his slave-owning ancestors and in-laws?

This sort of rant smacks of far-right conspiracy like that spewed out by Beck and Savage on a daily basis... and it does nothing to solve the problems facing the nation. You can cry that we need to understand the root of the problem before we can fix it, but that simply is not true.

The question facing the American people right now is NOT whether or not Obama has radical elements in his family's past, or in his own associations. Rather, it is a question of whether or not we, as a people, WANT all our "problems" solved by the government rather than by ourselves. We (the Bund) may NOT want that, but it is undeniable that many in America right now do want that... because they see it is free and easy relief from the daily troubles that plague all of us.

Find yourself into a mortgage you can't afford? Why not vote for a leader that promises "fair and equitable" housing allowances? But you won't get a new house for free... you get your name on a waiting list for a tenement like those found in Obama's own Chicago-land, Cabrini-Green. Find yourself unemployed and unable to find work? No worries, the Fed will send you a UEC check for 99 weeks (or more) until you can find a job... but you shouldn't take a job that pays less than you were making, because that simply wouldn't make sense, would it?

We don't need to see Obama's birth certificate... or to study and understand his Mau-Mau ancestors (if any were) and their hatred of all things Caucasian... we need to know that government is not the solution to our problems. It is the cause of most of them, and a roadblock to solving even those that aren't caused by government.

Occupy Wall Street

The CIA has warned that a domestic terrorist group named Anonymous, primarily computer hackers, have vowed to crash the NYSE on October 10th. To quote one intelligence source: "They don't make threats, they make promises." It is one of the creepiest pieces of audio I've ever heard. You can listen to the 2 minute, 4 second clip HERE. Particularly creepy in this cryptic message is the self identifying claim "we are legion." If you are at all familiar with the Bible you know (as does Anonymous) what that portends.

Now I mention this because Anonymous feels the Occupy Wall Street crowd is being thwarted, and they intend to take the "protests" to another level - declaring war on the NYSE.

And just a word on these protesters. They try and liken themselves to the Tea Party. They are not. These are thousands of wanna-be 60's radicals; socialists; communist; hard core wealth redistributionists; and revolutionaries. Why do I say that? Because of the Al Sharpton MSNBC interview (yes, he has a show now), and the countless other signs, statements and speeches in which the protesters and their chosen orators claim to be radicals, socialists, communists, wealth redistributionists, and revolutionaries. Said one man when asked by Sharpton what reforms he'd like to see, "We don't want reforms. We're not trying to fix this system, we're trying to end it."

And just to further demonstrate the difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street: over 3 years and some 301 gatherings the Tea Party produced a grand total of ZERO arrests. We've seen two weeks of OWS, and well over 700 arrests.

This is NOT the same movement. They want to, "burn the mutha down." And those in the Tea Party should not fall prey to seeing a kindred spirit in these people.

Decoding The Royal Colonist

Royal Colony (noun) - a colony ruled or administered by officials appointed by and responsible to the reigning sovereign of the parent state.

It was an unusual move, to say the least. Having done my own research during the 2008 campaign I was very aware that the man about to assume the Oval Office was “hostile” to the traditional sense of Americanism: capitalism, the free market, even the Constitution itself which he described as “inadequate” in a 2000 interview with Chicago NPR; but even knowing all that I was caught off guard. I mean, send back a bust of Winston Churchill? And not send it back as in “take this gift from Tony Blair, given to George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, and put it in the basement,” or the Smithsonian, or simply another White House room. But rather he sent it back, back… To England.

Those of us in the know, those of us whom make it their business to follow the events of our nation, should have asked why. Now you may believe we did, for there was much discussion about this on talk radio and online. However, the general consensus, in which I partook, was that this was yet another example of the President’s opposition towards all things George W. Bush in specific, and his hostility towards all things “traditional” in general. We didn’t ask “why” on a more intimate level, and we should have.

Have you ever heard of the Mau Mau Rebellion? And no, this is not the rebellion so nice they named it twice. Not ringing a bell? Nothing? I’m not surprised. Few historians can discuss it with any authority, let alone the average American. Yet it affects every American’s life to this to this day, and has since 2008.

The year is 1949. Rumblings of revolution fill the air and the distinct odor of weakness permeates the British Empire. Post WWII they are a shadow of their former selves. And the colonized throughout the Near East can sense the opportunity to throw off their rulers. In Kenya they begin to meet, to talk, to consider the unthinkable - defeating an empire. By 1951 information is filtering back to London about secret meetings being held in the forests outside Nairobi. A secret society called the Mau Mau, believed to have been started in the previous year, requires its members to take an oath to drive the white man from Kenya. The movement grows.

By August of 1952 the British ruled Kenyan government imposes a curfew in three districts on the outskirts of Nairobi where gangs of arsonists, believed to be members of the Mau Mau, have been setting fire to homes of Africans who refuse to take the Mau Mau oath.

In early October of the same year a senior chief named Waruhui is assassinated in Kenya. He is speared to death in public, on a main road outside of Nairobi. Recently he had spoken out against increasing Mau Mau aggression towards colonial rule. The rebels, intent on ejecting the colonists, are starting with the easiest targets - fellow Africans sympathetic to the UK.

Soon after the British government fears things are getting out of control, and they pledge to send British troops to Kenya in order to subdue the situation.

On October 21st, 1951, and with the immanent arrival of British troops, the Kenyan government declares a state of emergency. Nearly fifty people have been murdered in Nairobi within four weeks and the Mau Mau, officially declared terrorists, have acquired firearms. As part of the overall clamp down Jomo Kenyatta, president of the Kenya African Union (the British proxy government), is himself arrested for alleged Mau Mau involvement.

On October 30th British troops initiate a round-up of at least five-hundred suspected Mau Mau rebels.

By November 1952 The Mau Mau declare open rebellion against British rule in Kenya. British forces respond by arresting over two-thousand suspected of Mau Mau membership. Suspicion is everywhere. Neighbor informing on neighbor. White land owners become suspicious of their servants, and their servant’s children. The volatility of the country is on a razor’s edge, they are falling into open civil war.

Amidst the chaos of round ups and skirmishes was a cook. A black African named Onyango whom served dutifully in WWII on behalf of the British in the “Luo’ regiment. At the time of insurrection he happened to be the primary chef for a well-to-do British Army officer living in Nairobi. Onyango was outspoken, politically oriented, and soon gained the suspicions of his employer.

Mr. Onyango was eventually arrested, detained, and interrogated. As a servant for a British Officer it was feared that he was in prime position to relay Intel to the Mau Mau Rebels. I warn you, the following account, offered by Mr. Onyango’s third wife Sarah, is not for the faint of heart:

He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down… The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed.

“There was torture in Kenya during the Mau Mau emergency, institutional and systematic, and also casual and haphazard,” Professor Anderson writes in Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (2005). “Violence . . . was intrinsic to the system, and the use of force to compel obedience was sanctioned at the highest level.”

Mrs. Sarah Onyango went on.

This was like a death camp because some detainees died while being tortured… We were not allowed to see him, not even taking him food. [He] was told that he would be killed or maimed if he refused to reveal what he knew of the insurgency, and was beaten repeatedly until he promised never to rejoin any groupings opposed to the white man’s rule.

Even after he confessed, and renounced the insurgency, the physical abuse allegedly continued. An estimated 71,000 Kenyans were eventually held in prison camps on suspicions of Mau Mau affiliation. The vast majority were never convicted. Letters smuggled out of the camps complained of systematic brutality by warders and guards. And there were reports of sexual violence and mutilation, including the use of a device known as “castration pliers.”

Kenya would go through nearly another decade of on again off again war with the British Empire until finally gaining its’ independence in 1964. The total of Mau Mau activists killed is placed well above ten-thousand. During the same time period thirty-two Africans of European descent were reported murdered.

Mr. Onyango would eventually be released and returned to his family… The Obamas. Mr. Onyango’s full name was Hussein Onyango Obama. He is President Barak Obama’s paternal grandfather.

The woman, the third wife of Mr. Onyango Obama whom so vividly recalls the details of her husband’s ordeal, is referred to as “Granny Sarah” in President Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. In that book President Obama recalls another of Granny Sarah’s stories about his grandfather‘s return home:

When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. For some time he was too traumatized to speak about his experiences. From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man.

It should be noted here that the Prime Minister responsible for quelling the rebellion, initiating the original round ups, and the man responsible for sending the first waves of British troops to Kenya was none other than Sir Winston Churchill.

It should also be noted that another man was arrested and imprisoned for a short time during this ten years of war, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (Kanu), the organization spearheading the independence movement. That man’s name was Barak Obama Sr. - son of Mr. Onyango, father to our president. Barak Obama Sr. would later take advantage of a scholarship program initiated by JFK to enable Kenyan’s to self-govern their emerging country. That scholarship was taken at the University of Hawaii.

Let me ask you my fellow Americans, why is this story not widely known? Why has the media intentionally chosen to ignore, perhaps even cover up, information so vital to understanding what informs our Commander-in-Chief’s persona, his prejudices, to this day? Armed with this information is there any doubt as to why the bust of Churchill was returned? Is there any wonder why our President self imposes the role of “warrior” on behalf of those he sees as “colonized?”

This is a man weaned from birth on stories of the oppressive white man. Not theoretical dissertations, but personal family stories. He openly describes befriending Marxists, and purposely falling in with radicals while attending college. He insults our closest European ally on behalf of his family lineage. He routinely sides and sympathizes with the “colonized” Palestinian over the “colonizing” Israeli. His first call, literally his first phone call in his capacity as President of the United States, was to Abas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, whom is not even the head of a recognized state. In his first public appearance after the attack the President saluted the American Indian and their plight prior to addressing the mass murder of US soldiers on US soil by Major Nadal Hassan .

Now pause for a moment. Such a build up, as I have laid it out, may be stirring a resentment for the President within you, at this very moment - this is not my intent. My intent is to understand what informs his decision making process. Consider your own reaction. Your family, your people, your history. What if it were full of not general, not theoretical, but specific, real and measurable instances of intense brutality, of torture, or racism? Could the perpetrators, their descendants, their nation, ever find forgiveness in your heart?

So abandon the resentment and simply understand, it is our best strategy. Unlocking the president’s motives is the key to stopping the “change” he is attempting to bring this nation. This is a man dedicated - and this is vital to remember - a man dedicated to undoing the aggression of the traditional colonial powers, including America - their land, their status, their wealth, their power. In his mind it is all ill-gotten That is the “fundamental transformation” of America, “and the world” that he promised in 2008. He is orchestrating the bottom up reformation of our world as shaped by the 18th - 20th century powers, via their collapse.

Ironically if he is to be successful he must in the end become what he despises. He must “colonize” our traditions, our history, even our “inadequate” founding document. And replace it with “officials appointed by and responsible to the reigning sovereign.” Such push and nudge Czars are the only path to his collective salvation - the only way to cleanse us of our collective historic sins. In other words, he must become the governor of a royal colony in order to save us from our colonial past.

This family lineage has all along been made up of fighters. Senator Barack Obama is fighting using his brain, like his father, while his grandfather fought physically with the white man.
-Granny Sarah

*Sources:
Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (2005); Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire (2005); UK Times Online; African History/About.

Its good to see you back...

... but so little has changed.

You are right, we are all familiar with the disdain and contempt that you continually show any concern anyone might have over any environmental or conservation issue. I am also familiar with the propensity you tend to show in assuming anything associated with "Earth" equals an environmental issue.

Regarding you last, I have to assume you are speaking of the Earth Charter that Gorby supports. The Earth Charter does contain conservation topics and agendas, but it is primarily an economic model designed to counter what Gorby (and many others) have determined to be the failed Washington Consensus... which is a model designed to show what guidelines and standards the US will support in developing countries.

Understand, I'm no fan of the Earth Charter. It smacks of centralized control of national and regional resource development and utilization... and that is a bad thing. In my opinion, it is utterly unsustainable, solely because of its grand scope. A country of a billion people (China or India) has less say about the use and development of resources than a country like Costa Rica, based only on the scale of consumption. I'm sure it fits nicely into what a former Communist would feel used to and comfortable with... but it can't ever work, for the same reasons communism can't ever work.

I'm also no fan of the Washington Consensus. Having a policy (stated or unstated) that says we support this sort of reform and organization, and then picking and choosing where and when such support will be applied is worse than meaningless... its a waste of time and money. The US will hold these standards and guidelines to the domestic agendas of states like Honduras, Mexico, Uganda, Liberia, and Ceylon... but will utterly ignore the violations of the same policies by nations like Pakistan, South Korea, South Africa and Brazil.

Supporters of the Earth Charter have no more right to dictate when, where or how a nation can use its own resources (fiscal, natural, environmental or otherwise... and that includes populations and demographics) than the US does to nations held to the yardstick of the Washington Consensus.

Both are meaningless and arbitrarily applied... so both are bad. However, the fact that it is a movement embraced by "green" supporters should be the LAST indicator of what is wrong with Earth Charter.

Comrade Greenie

This is priceless...

Throughout the Ethos of Bund lore I have clearly, from the beginning, opposed the "green movement." In brief (very brief in fact), I'll recap the 3 primary reasons why: 1.) The science didn't add up to me on a very basic level. 7 or so ice ages, millions of years of volcanoes, continent fragmentation, bodies of water drying up & reforming, & I am to believe that in the sliver of time human beings have been residents on earth that Model T's are going to effect let alone upset such a ferociously powerful force as planet wide climate, especially when 97% of Co2 occurs as water evaporation? Please (& this was well before recent scandals involving faked data). 2.) It seemed a secular religion. Beat your wife, abandon your kids, & snort cocaine but as long as you recycle, well hell, Susan Surandon will show up on " earth day" & call you a saint. 3.) and most importantly, it appeared to me to be an all too convenient movement for those predisposed to opposing capitalism. Call it socialism, communism, statism,whatever you like, the bottom line is the tenants of the green movement are nearly indistinguishable from top down state controlled economic theory. And I have always suspected these "watermelons" - green on the outside, red on the inside - were merely packaging their preferred economic theories into a presentation more palatable to the American people - "we're saving the planet, and seals, baby seals in fact!"

Well ...

Forget .org or .com, .net or even .gov - there is a new web domain available for those wanting to prove their dedication to the environment. Presenting ".eco"!

Al Gore, who owns the "Green Channel", dedicated exclusively to his propaganda, has been fighting furiously to purchase & own this new domain. Alas, it was not to be. He ultimately dropped his bid for control. He lost to the man quickly becoming known as the "Al Gore of Europe."

Who won? You ready for this?

Mikael Gorbachev.

Ha! Ya greenies around the world, nothing says "we're environmentalists not socialists" like having the former premier of the UNION of SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS (and hard core commie I might add) as your helmsman.

You can't make this stuff up.

Who are you again?

Just kidding...

Funny, this subject was on my mind recently too.

I'm sure we all recall the hubbub raised by Wright back in '08, and that hubbub focused a lot on his position as a pastor of a church that held a tax exempt status in IL. The unjust nature of the law in question is clear to me... but it was my understanding that a portion of the reasoning behind NOT doing away with it entirely was that it afforded the US, and specifically the Department of Homeland Security, its only foothold into investigating these sorts of pastors and religious leaders who advocate hate and/or violence against Americans.

Now, I don't know nor can I say just how much of the failure to follow up on this troublesome piece of legislation is because someone in executive authority feels it is better left alone than dealt with in the Supreme Court... but the prospect is interesting, is it not?

Radical Islamic leaders preaching hate and violence within American mosques... or rabid racists and ethnic supremacy-advocates lecturing on the evils of skin color and national origin, all are open to investigation via this law... which is a tax issue rather than a criminal investigation, and might make the process just a little easier to follow through.

My point? Is knowing that the purely "political" speech that is happening from the pulpit (be it about abortion, health care, welfare, et al) is utterly and completely ignored by the investigating agency (the IRS) time and time again enough to justify leaving it "on the books" to help combat the evils that stem from the more radical elements that also use the pulpit against American interests and policies?

For example:

You used the abolitionist movement as an example of pulpit politics, and it is an excellent one. I agree 100% with your thoughts on the important nature of keeping the abolitionist movement alive and kicking from 1776 all the way through 1865 via this venue. I just want to point out that there was a down-side to this, too... and one example of that down-side was John Brown.

John Brown was a failed and bankrupt preacher who, due to huge debt and massive amounts of mental instability, used the pulpit to advocate and justify rebellion and murder in the cause of ending slavery. Ultimately hanging for his crimes, he was found responsible for the murder of no fewer than seven men (one of whom was a freed slave) and the destruction of several pieces of private and government property in his radical efforts. Brown, too, used the pulpit... just as the more peaceful and non-violent anti-slavery elements did that we now know as the Underground Railroad.

You also made the example of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s... another excellent example (probably the best), but the advocates of segregation and racism that fought MLK and the rest used the churches they frequented on Sunday mornings just as often and just as efficiently as the integrationists. KKK recruiters often used churches as their primary means of finding new members and (more importantly) finding new money... and not only in the deep South.

I recognize and agree with your thoughts about the unjust nature of this law... seriously, I do. I think it should be struck from the books immediately. It is a clear violation of free speech, no question. I just want to make sure that you understand that there are those that defend it who hold a political view very similar to yours in regards to defending American from radicals who would cause her harm.