What answer do YOU come up with?
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
EU the New USSR
The European Union is the current Soviet Union? Well, in many ways it is! A quick Google search shows this is not a novel suggestion, others have been speculating on this already, From 2002:
1. Anyone who opposes or deviates from the socialist system will be ostracized. For example, when the Austrian people had the temerity to elect `the wrong sort of Government' (it was considered too nationalistic and right wing by the EU) the EU pronounced the new Government unacceptable. With apparent magnanimity, the EU announced that it would `accept' an Italian President elected by the Italian people. All sorts of tricks are used to isolate and marginalize those who opposed the EU. Those questioning the EU are often portrayed as insular and parochial.
2. Like the USSR, the EU is governed by a group of people who appoint one another, are unaccountable to the public, enjoy generous salaries, massive perks and huge pensions, are pretty much above the law and cannot be sacked. The EU, like any committed socialist government, operates without any real feedback from the people, and certainly without any concern for what the people think. The state must always come first. The only people who benefit (as with all socialist and fascist organizations - and the two are, of course, interchangeable) are those who have put themselves and their friends in charge. The workers never really benefit from socialism. The profits of the hard working, the creative and the thrifty are redistributed to the bureaucracy: the lazy, the unthinking and the wasteful.
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/whytheeuisliketheold.htm
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
What's Wrong With Ted Cruz?
What is it that a lot of Republicans don’t like about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)? First and foremost, to many in the GOP, Cruz embodies the debacles that have damaged the GOP brand in the last few years, from the government shutdown to filibusters to a dogmatic style and harsh tone that seems to focus on narrow, unachievable objectives rather than proper governance.Actually, these ideals which Cruz has embraced are precisely what has been SUCCESSFUL in the Republican party in the not-too-distant past! When Republicans talk-the-talk of conservatism, they get elected - but when they don't walk-the-walk, as most have NOT done - we end up in the mess we're in now. That "mess" is the fact that Republicans hold the majority of BOTH houses right now, and yet are still "governed" by the bully tactics of the Democrats.
In 2016, more than anything else, Republicans want to win. The purest in the party are louder and more celebrated in the media, but they are outnumbered by those who think a solid conservative who can appeal to the center has an easier time winning than someone like Cruz, who is associated with the angry, self-righteous right wing of the party.The FACT is, Ted Cruz IS a "solid conservative" who IS appealing to the center AND to Independents and even some Democrats! THIS is what has "the establishment" scared - HE is, virtually single-handedly, taking BACK the Republican Party in Reagan-esque form. As much as "the establishment" hates Donald Trump (and they do) they hate Cruz more, because they fear they will lose their "power." Um, wake up folks! What "power" have you been yielding or in control of lately? While holding the majority in both the Senate AND the House, Republicans should be pushing through legislation left and right - and then let the Democrats be the ones who "shut down government" as they try to stop the Republican juggernaut!
It isn’t clear whether Cruz particularly cares about how he is viewed or whether he thinks he needs to soften his image, if not modify some of his positions, in his campaign for president. At times, it seems that Cruz wants to wear his lack of support from the Republican Party “establishment” as a badge of honor. But if he defines the “establishment” as just about anyone who has ever won an election, well, he may need to rethink his approach. One bad sign for Cruz is that he doesn’t appear to have many elected officials supporting his candidacy at this stage. That’s a red light flashing on the dashboard of any campaign. It says something when others who have “run for sheriff” are not willing to associate themselves with your campaign.Not having many elected officials supporting you IS A PLUS! It is "the establishment" which has gotten us into the mess we're in now - it's going to take someone bold enough and strong enough to stand up against "the establishment" to "fix" things. Of those left in the race now, only Trump and Cruz are bold and strong enough to do that.
If Cruz overplays the role of a courageous, persecuted martyr, the act will grow tiresome quickly.Well, he hasn't! In fact, the only two candidates who are REALLY playing this "role" happen to be the two front-runners in the race, one year after this article from The Washington Post was written.
Maybe the problem is Cruz and not the ideological backsliding of others or the wishy-washyness of the seasoned Republicans who have been around longer than him. Maybe Cruz is just too half-cocked for his own good. His vigor and volume and intensity have gotten him here, but right now he only has a narrow foothold in the party, not a firm position with a lot of growth potential.The growth potential is there, just not so much in the "establishment" camp. Where the potential is and has been seen is in the grass roots of the Party - AND - among independents.
So as Cruz launches his campaign today, he has to decide whether he wants to be a Pat Buchanan figure, shaking his fist and sticking with a marginal appeal, or if he wants to embrace the Republican Party as a big tent.So, nearly a year after this article was posted - Cruz is running a strong number two, to Trump - who is even more radical or "angry" (if you will) in his campaign demeanor. I'd say asking The Washington Post, or at least Ed Rogers, for political advice for Conservative Republicans is like asking the wolf to watch the sheep.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/23/the-insiders-whats-wrong-with-ted-cruz/
@EdRogersDC
Friday, November 27, 2015
To The Shores of Tripoli
I was sent the following in email and am passing it on here...
Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse "To the Shores of Tripoli" A very interesting bit of American history.
Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the United States had declared war on Islamic states and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!
At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic.
They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.
These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic.
Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.
Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.
In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed everything. Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having watched his nation becowed by Islamic thugery for long enough, decided that is was finally time to meet force with force.
He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.
When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.
Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.
This should bother every American. That Muslims have brought about women only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians,Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their menus; on and on and on and on….
It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamic extremists adapt to our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamic extremist agenda. Sadly, it appears that today’s America's leaders would rather be politically correct than victorious!
Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse "To the Shores of Tripoli" A very interesting bit of American history.
Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the United States had declared war on Islamic states and Thomas Jefferson led the charge!
At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic.
They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.
These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic.
Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.
Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.
In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed everything. Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having watched his nation becowed by Islamic thugery for long enough, decided that is was finally time to meet force with force.
He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.
When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.
Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.
This should bother every American. That Muslims have brought about women only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians,Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their menus; on and on and on and on….
It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamic extremists adapt to our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamic extremist agenda. Sadly, it appears that today’s America's leaders would rather be politically correct than victorious!
Friday, April 3, 2015
Attacks on Believers and Homosexual Rights
So says the latest cover of TIME Magazine:
It will be interesting to see what's on the inside of TIME this week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Did the Biden Administration cut the debt by 1.7 trillion dollars?
Um, no! Facts: On Jan. 20, 2021, the day Biden was inaugurated, the debt was $27,751,896,236,414.70, according to the official numbers poste...
