I'm at a loss for words...

Not really... I have many words I'd like to use, but we do try and keep this a "family-ready" sort of site.

Sunday's NFL games and the officiating that went with them brought to new heights the questions and concerns about what the replacement officials are doing to football in general.  Then came the Monday Night Game...

I am an unabashed Packer fan, I admit.  I cannot deny that I want to see them win.  However, Seattle's QB Russell Wilson has no bigger fan then me, either.  I was delighted that these two teams, one with the absolute WORST defense in football only last year and the other routinely ignored and ridiculed for being "sub-par" in light of the rest of the NFC West division (mainly SF and AZ), put up what I'd have to say was the best defensive game I've seen in many years.

It was a great game, hardly diminished by the bad (and I mean BAD) officiating all through the effort... right until the last 8 seconds of the game.

Now, I know you are ALL going to assume that I am sore because Green Bay lost.  You are wrong.  I am sore because the integrity of the game of football was tarnished, severely.  What happened on that last desperation play not only took a win from the Packers, but it diminished and belittled the effort of the entire Seattle Seahawk's organization, who put forth one of the most monumental efforts in decades.  They not only stopped Aaron Rodgers from scoring a touchdown (no easy task there), they sacked him 9 times in the game (officially, that is... I'm really only counting 8) with a four-man rush!  For as long as they keep records, those players will have this game, which should be one celebrated as a real, lasting achievement, be over-shadowed by the end-of-game call (multiple calls, actually) that spoiled an otherwise epic effort.

League Commissioner Roger Goodell has made it his mission to make the NFL the unquestionable pinnacle of athletic excellence, and anything or anyone that puts that mission at risk, be it bounties or PEDs or criminal activity by the players outside the game, is attacked by him like it was the Black Plague returned... yet he seems content to stand by and watch the game's integrity, and the subsequent efforts of all the players and coaches within the game, be systematically destroyed by the inept and incompetent officiating during the games... of which, each Team only has 16 a year, so each and every one counts for far more than the average fan can imagine.  19% of this year's games have already slipped by, and the bad officiating has effected nearly all of them... none more so than the two teams last night.

Yes, my Packers got robbed last night... but so did Russell Wilson and the Seahawks.  That is a crying shame, and that shame rests squarely on the shoulders of the man who has promised to keep football "pure"... Roger Goodell.  Shame on you, Mr. Goodell.

I hate to say this...

... but F. Ryan is right.  There is no other way to describe what is happening as "falling apart".

I won't... can't is probably more accurate... argue the indefensible ideology that the President and his Cabinet have embraced from the start.  All I can say is that America is still, well... America.  We are a "center-right" nation, at worst... and we are a nation of principles as defined in the Constitution at best.  The vast majority of us want a balance between what the President sees as "rule of law" (larger, more intrusive and influential government) and the personal freedoms and liberties that so many Americans have died to preserve and protect... like the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and justice fair and swift.  The individual freedoms that the nation was founded on, balanced with the needs of the greater society and how those needs will be met.

I can't imagine how someone could NOT see the hypocrisy of the "left"... but it is plain that millions do not.  That is NOT Obama's fault, nor is it the fault of the "Liberal Left" or the Democratic Party.  It IS the fault of the conservative movement, the GOP and the conservative leadership in Washington (such as it is).  As we here at the Bund have known for more than a decade... the truth is plainly seen.  It simply isn't being presented as well as the lies and distortions that the Left are throwing out there.

The liberal agenda will end once the majority of Americans see, feel and experience the sort of intrusive failures that pseudo-Marxist ideology inevitably bring to any society they are applied to:  all facets of society and the standards by which they are experienced are reduced to the lowest common denominator.  This is the greatest fallacy of the Marxist promise... we are NOT going to be "equal" in the manner that we live/work/play/learn, but instead we are going to be reduced to the lowest possible strata of standards we could hope to impose.  That is the "promise" of socialism:  the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so the weakest link will measure our "standard".

We seem to have forgotten that the nation our grandparents, parents, and even some of us here, were raised in said that the "standard" by which we measure our society is the highest it could be... the sky being the limit.  Children dreamed of becoming astronauts, scientists, Presidents, rock stars... and followed those dreams as far as their abilities and drive would take them.  The President himself, being the the same generation as myself, was of African descent, raised in Indonesia, went to the finest schools, and has reached the pinnacle of political power... all under that same "sky is the limit" society.  The very society he insists needs to change, be reformed, or transformed, or whatever.

I'm making my bed now... I don't have a good feeling about Romney's chances in November unless something rather drastic happens or is found out in the interim.  I'd be ecstatic if we could hope for an honest investigation by Congress... but let's not hold our breath for that.  I'm just rather worried that, once again, the GOP has dropped the ball and failed to pick it up.

Things fall apart...

Congressional hearings are starting today. SoS Clinton, NID Katleen Sabyllis and various other high ranking officials are testifying behind closed doors to top members of congress. The story (that even I bought into initially) that a video caused a "spontaneous" protest in Benghazi, Libya is unraveling quicker than my prom date's formal wear.

The original story was simple - a movie degrading the Prophet Mohammad sparked protests outside the embassies in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya. In the following days the knowledge of this movie spread, causing protests at US embassies from the Sudan to London.

On the morning of 9/11/12 the US embassy itself put out a statement condemning the You Tube video. A statement that reads almost like a pre-apology. That afternoon the attacks in Cairo began. That night the attacks in Benghazi occurred. On 9/12/12 White House spokesman Jay Carney explicitly described the attacks as not a response or protest to US policy, but a reprehensible, disgusting video. In the days immediately after the attacks the Secretary of State reiterated the fault of this video, also noting that it was the source of the spontaneous violence. She also described it as demeaning to Islam, horrible, and even cut commercials, now playing in Pakistan, reiterating that the US government had nothing to do with the video. National Intelligence Director Sabyllius followed suit, describing the video as "haneous" and identifying it as the source of unrest. UN Ambassador Susan Rice added that the video was "egregious", and made the rounds on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows asserting the administration line: "[the Benghazi incident] was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video," and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, "those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons." Even the President of the United States weighed in several times on this story line, " ...the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants." Just today the President was asked by a reporter at a Spanish language forum on Univision whether or not the attacks were linked to Al Qeada. He responded, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose over the video were used by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident - the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks - was simply a coincidence, a senior U.S. official said Monday "It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events."

What's been clear the last 8 days is that the administration has had a storyline as their response that always includes three aspects.1) the video caused spontaneous protests/attacks. 2) the video was "despicable, haneous, and egregious." 3) the video is no excuse for the violence. And in that order.

There's a problem. Fox News (where I pulled the following), CNN, NBC, and CBS are now reporting various versions of the following:

"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the [consulate] source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie." The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, and consisted of two waves. The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack. "There wasn't a single ant outside," said the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital.

These were organised, planned attacks my friends. And there was no protest that preceeded them. Some believe the point was to kidnap the ambassador, perhaps to trade for an imprisoned militant. What is know now he was tortured the moments before his death.

It gets worse for the administration. On the very CBS show "Face the Nation" that UN Ambassador Rice adamantly pushed the administration line, that the attacks were a spontaneous result of protests over the video, the Libyan President said the government in Tripoli harbors "no doubt" that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "preplanned, predetermined." That bastion of Right Wing propaganda, CBS, later went on to report: Witnesses of last week’s deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya have told CBS News that the alleged anti-American protest that U.S. officials say morphed into the assault never actually took place.

Wait, it gets worse.

In 2011, the New York Times reported that Sufyan Ben Qumu, who had helped finance the September 11, 2001 attacks was released from detention in 2007.  He was described by the New York Times as an “ally of sorts” of the US backed Libyan coalition during their April, 2011 push to overthrow Qaddafi. Reports are now surfacing that he helped plan and led the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi.

As early as Wednsday Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committe on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs, “I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack." Furthermore, reports are indicating that the embassy Intel had warned for days that a 9/11 anniversary attack was in the works.

It's now been revealed that out of the 4 Americans killed (which of course included the US Ambassador) there were 2 Navy SEALS. Naturally most people, including me, concluded that they were part of the Ambassasdor's security detail. They were not. In fact they were ex SEALS, hired through a private security firm, charged with protecting the data services within the embassy. When the attacks happened they did what SEALS do - they fought back and attempted to get the ambassador clear of the building. This raises what is at the core of the controversy in my opinion - why did two private citizens feel compelled to protect the ambassador? Why was there not beefed up security on the anniversary of 9/11, especially personal security for the ambassador who was known to be on an Al Qeada hit list? Why was the embassy itself simply a convereted civilian home and not a fortress? Various anonymous Intel officials have intamated that the politics of having beefed up American boots on the ground didn't sit well with the president and his administration. What's becoming clear to me is that this You Tube video - 3 months old - served as a convenient way of explaining away how under protected the administration left our embassies due to political considerations. It was "spontaneous"after all, a surprise, how could we prepare for a movie igniting a sudden protest?

Allow me a conspiratorial moment. The administration makes the decision that they will not beef up security so as not to upset the political situation on the ground in these countries where an increased US military presence may cause offense. They know the attacks are possible though, so they have the embassy put out a statement condemning this You Tube video, before any attacks occur. Now, if the attacks come, they have a scape goat as to the cause - nothing's their fault.

Before I close this post I want to address something somewhat more fundamental. I have concluded the video was a scape goat, however, lets say the protests following Benghazi - after the little known video was made famous by the administration - were in fact because of the video, which is entirely possible. I noticed, perhaps you did too, that the statements from the highest levels of our government all included explicit adjectives of condemnation of the video. Not nearly as strong were their condemnations of the violence. Their statements essentially went, This is a haneous, awful, disgusting movie created by a "shadowy character" (the POTUS' words) ... but it doesn't excuse the violence.  In fact, the LA Times op-ed piece today likened any disparaging remarks, video, etc of the Prophet Muhammad to shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. And that since it can lead to direct incitement of violence that perhaps it should be as illegal as the fire euphemism. Now just take a moment and think about this dynamic - these are presumably card carrying members of the ACLU, advocating suppression of the First Amendment because of religious considerations. Hillary Clinton gave a standing ovation at the conclusion of the Broadway play "The Book of Mormon", which takes searing shots at Latter Day Saints. There are countless movies that portray nuns, priests, and even the Pope as sadistic power hungry sociopaths, not to mention "art" displays of the Virgin Mary smeared in feces and the crucifix soaked in urine. Can you imagine if there were any violence, even a single window broken, by Mormons or Catholics? How would the LA Times op-ed read then?

The bottom line is no matter how awful this obscure movie is, it can be defended under the First Amendment, but the murder of four Americans can not be defended under any circumstance. So the fundamental question I want to ask is why the American Left (and by extension the Western Left) feel the need to coddle and excuse Muslim religious extremism?

I have a theory (of course).

Everything I know of what informed the President's formative years tells me that he came to office believing that America had a lot to apologize for. "For the tension between the U.S. and the Muslim world has been fed by colonialism and the Cold War.", he said in his June 2009  "New Beginning" speech in Cairo. This was his first big communication to the world as  the US President. There, he implicitly contrasted George W. Bush's emphasis on universal human rights by admitting that "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone." I believe that a man weened on Jeremiah Wright (listening to tapes on his headphones late into the night); a man influenced by Cass Sunstein and  Bill Ayres; a man mentored by avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis; a man who's father was a member of the communist party of Kenya; a man who's book is entitled Dreams From (not of ) My Father - implying they were dreams passed in to his ideology; that a man who readily stated in 2000 that the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties; a man whom has routinely proved he sees our founding document as an obstacle to overcome not adhered to; that this man feels the West in general, and the United States in specific, gained its' position in the world illegitimately. And that quite frankly those whom we have oppressed - in this case the Muslim world - have a legitimate beef. We've been "takers", oppressors, exploiters, gluttons on the world stage and now we're simply getting our much deserved, long over due "come up-ins." That our chickens are coming home to roost. And I believe this notion permeates the entire hard Left of this nation. They find some odd connection with Muslim rage because they share a common disdain for American preeminence. 

And in the President's view he is not about to defend the indefensible - America.

I have my pencil...

The litany of why I (or anyone here) thinks Obama should not get another four years is long... very long.  Save your brother the hassle and simply send him the link to this page.  Jeez... why make the boy work for it?

Now, would it be rude of me to ask for a response to my earlier post?

I ask (again) for this response because it is still pertinent to the subject.  Today, while picking up my son from school, I listened to Ingraham on the radio.  She had nearly an hour of discussion (far more rational than Levin's) about why Romney is avoiding the topic of reduced taxes should he win the White House.  The example her and her guests kept using was Reagan's reduction of taxes once he won in 1980.

My question (should you have missed it) is:  Reagan only lowered taxes in 1981/82... he raised them again in 1983, and by 1987, they were back to 88% of what they were for everyone earning less than $200,000 under Carter, while those earning more than $200k were paying only 33% of what they were under Carter.  If Reagan's paradigm WORKED (and I maintain it did), then why wouldn't we follow it WITHOUT the empty promise of lower taxes for EVERYONE?  WHY is there this blatant false understanding of exactly what Reagan did and didn't do?  Why this insistence on making it seem like he slashed taxes and never raised them again?  There is NO empirical evidence that shows that government revenues went UP in 1981/82 (that I can find anyway)... the revenues went UP after 1985... once taxes were raised (for the second time) and the capital gains tax was back in place.  Yes, ALL taxes were lowered, especially initially in 1981... and he did deliver on his promise with that reduction... but by 1984, they were up again and would rise two more times before he left office.

The genius of Reagan's plans was that he had finally figured out what J. M. Keynes had been saying since the 1920s... finding a balanced budget doesn't depend on the percentage of taxes levied by the government, but by the number of taxpayers contributing to the bill.  More people paying in, the less each individual has to contribute to meet the same revenue threshold.  I readily admit that NO PRESIDENT prior to Reagan had this understanding, especially FDR.  No President after Reagan managed it either... which is worse, since they had his example to follow.

So, Reagan lowered taxes to jump-start the economy.  Nothing happened, and Fed revenues took a nosedive.  Deficits were through the roof... literally.  Then, he raised taxes (slowly) over six years, while also reducing spending by the government.  By the end of his second term, spending was down more than 12% and the rate at which government grew was reduced to the lowest it had been since before Teddy Roosevelt.  There were still deficits... he never managed to balance the budget... but they were a far smaller percentage of our GNP than anything we had seen in the forty years prior to his terms.

Could it be that Romney is avoiding the topic of tax reductions because he and Ryan finally understand this as well?  Could we finally see real "Reagan Republicans" running for office?  If that is true, then they need to sing it from the highest mountain tops because THAT is what is going to get them elected.

"I should have brought a pencil."

So my brother comes by the other day and was looking for some rhetorical ammo to fire at his debate adversary from work. It would seem that the Obama supporting colleague was enamored with the president's decision to kill Bin Laden, and wanted to know what exactly Obama has done that's "so bad."  My brother was caught off guard as to an off the top of his head run down. This is a byproduct of being surrounded by my family - one rarely has to justify his disapproval of Obama.

In an effort to aide my brother, I gave him a quick run down - off  the top of my head - including a stat that I very recently heard which was so staggering to me I felt compelled to repeat it here, along with the short list I gave my brother.

The national average for a gallon of gasoline in January of 2008 was $1.86. It's now $3.45, more than double. The POTUS signed an executive order closing GITMO his first day in office, it's still open. For the first time in US history America's credit rating was down graded from AAA to AA. For the second time in US history America's credit rating was downgraded, this time from AA to -AA. Under Obama's confused foreign policy America has lost Egypt as an ally while Iran has gained uranium. The president's own words just two days ago were, "...Egypt is neither an ally nor an enemy." Setting aside my opinion that there is no neutral in North Africa, I'd say this is a man attempting to walk back his support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is nearing 20% enrichment of uranium - the red line number at which no one can stop them from achieving weaponizing - with no clear policy objective from Washington on how to stop them. Unemployment has never dropped below 8%, something he assured Americans would happen after QE1. We're now on QE3 (that's Quantitative Easing, or put plainly, printing money to give banks in the hopes that they will loan it out to business and business will hire you and me. And here I thought Leftists didn't believe in trickle down economics). The yearly cost of health insurance premiums has risen on average by $2,500, per family. A record 98 million Americans now receive some form of federal or state benefit, that's nearly 1 in 3. When Dubya left office 17 million Americans were on food stamps. That number under Obama has reached 47 million. He has spent more money in 3 1/2 years than the adjusted dollars spent by President George Washington to President George H. Bush, combined. George W set a debt accumulation record of 4.9 Trillion in 8 years. Obama is at 4.4 Trillion, in just over 3 years. And this spending figure does not account for implementation of the benefit portion of Obamacare, scheduled for 2014. It should be noted, Obama promised to cut the national debt in half by the end of his first term. It was at 12 Trillion when he assumed office. It stands now at 16.4 Trillion. The man whom promised to improve America's image around the world, in particular the Muslim world, has seen no les than 4 embassies attacked this week, two overrun, and one US Ambassador murdered - the first such assassination in 30+ years. And most damning of all, the number you will never hear reported even though Bush was routinely crucified for it - according to DoD records 70% of all US military casualties in the Afghanistan war occurred within the last 3 1/2 years. 80% of all those wounded were wounded in the last 3 1/2 years (source). Where have you heard that reported? Thinking of it in that context I almost don't blame my brother's coworker for not knowing. If he simply watches the nightly news or reads the occasional online headline, how could he?

By the way,  the title quotes my brother as I paused to catch my breath. I hope he has a better day at work tomorrow. But hey, in this economy, at least he's employed.

On the end of the Arab Spring...

Since these embassy attacks began on 9/11, I can't help but notice something very disturbing...

The rumors and accusations associated with where the responsibility rests for the attacks are many and varied beyond belief.  Did the President know of the danger?  Did the Department of State ignore intelligence that said the attacks might happen?  What were the circumstances of the death of Ambassador Stevens, and how is the death effecting State Dept. efforts in the region?

It is exactly this sort of firestorm that can result from a foreign policy agenda that is too concerned with international perception and not concerned enough with US interests abroad.  While I am not typically a fan of calls for Congressional investigations, I'm beginning to feel this situation might warrant one rather badly.

When the leaders of nations such as Libya, Egypt, India, Sudan, et al, fail to see the danger in allowing mob violence to dominate their foreign relations efforts and obligations, and refuse to recognize the difference between a society that embraces "free speech" from one that endorses and supports ethnic and racial hatred... all the while retaining and exercising the right to protest America by burning flags or effigies whenever the urge hits them... certainly do not seem like the sorts of leaders, or even societies, that the US should be investing tens of billions of dollars in on an annual basis.  In short, if these places can't see where their bread is getting buttered (or even who is giving them the bread in the first place!), then the tap needs to be cut off.  I heard both the SoS and the President talk about how important it was to continue to support the "new democratic" governments in places like Libya and Egypt, and that "knee-jerk" reactions will do more harm than good... but not reacting at all would be the WORST alternative I can imagine.

F. Ryan's initial reaction to the news was to see it as a declaration of war... and justly so... but I think it would be a more effective reaction to simply see it for what it is:  a declaration of an end to diplomatic relations, since all diplomatic relations between nations flow through the embassies and consulates that the mobs are attacking.  If the mobs want to burn the embassies, I say pull our people out and let them burn the places to the ground.  When those same mobs are looking for money/food/medicine/aid/whatever... let them turn to the ash and rubble that was their avenue of assistance and ask.  If the new leadership of those same nations want to ask for help or support, they can turn to the same ash heaps and ponder on the obligations expected as a "host nation" and learn to implement better security measures in the future.

And if there are any "liberals" out there asking why it would be okay for the US to ignore the cries and pleas from starving Libyan or Egyptian children who need US aide while this diplomatic "vacuum" was sorted out... I'd have them discuss the issue with the family of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Embassy staff members who died at the hands of the mobs.

And now, for something completely different...

I love this kind of thing...

I read this today.  Imagine, finding Richard III after more than 500 years... and confirming what tradition (and Bill Shakespeare) have told us for centuries... that he was a hunchback.

I'd even go so far as to compare this with the finding of Tutankhamen... for the English.  A king, killed in battle at the end of an important dynastic age, revered by as many as reviled him, lost to the ages after the destruction of the monasteries by Henry VIII, found again under a parking lot.  If the DNA tests come back positive, we will see the first royal burial in England since 1951... for a king that has been dead more than half a millennia.

To think we could live to see the last Plantagenet king of England buried again... that's friggin' cool.