“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
It is a citizen’s job to challenge the government and not return a snappy salute and do as you are told.ReplyDelete
Challenge the government to do what?ReplyDelete
Win the War on terror?
The point of containment is not to engage in a war.ReplyDelete
Once you engage in a war, you only have one option and that is to win. You better have the resources and the will. The US has not been able to do that since WWII. The hot wars with Islamic countries have been a spectacular failure. The hippies were right, war is not the answer.ReplyDelete
Did you listen to the testimony today about Obama and his activities during Benghazi? He got us involved in a war in Libya, without congressional approval and went to sleep.
I added additional videos on Panetta’s testimony.ReplyDelete
Repent, the warning is given -ReplyDelete
Asteroid to Traverse Earth’s Satellite Zone, NASA Says
By Jim Snyder - Feb 7, 2013 4:00 PM PT
An asteroid half the size of a U.S. football field will pass between Earth and orbiting satellites next week, sparing the human race from the fate suffered by dinosaurs, NASA said.
The 150-foot diameter asteroid, named 2012 DA14, will pass about 17,000 miles above Earth on Feb. 15 -- lower than the orbits of some satellites -- in the closest recorded approach of an object of its size. It will travel at 7.8 kilometers a second (17,400 miles an hour), or about eight times the speed of a rifle shot, NASA scientists said yesterday.
“No Earth impact is possible,” Donald Yeomans, who manages the Near-Earth-Object office at Pasadena, California- based Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said yesterday in a press conference.
from House of Sunny -ReplyDelete
Topic is we need less civility -
An example of what we need -
Democratic insults against Abraham Lincoln:
Salem (Illinois) Advocate, 1861 — “The illustrious Honest Old Abe has continued during the last week to make a fool of himself and to mortify and shame the intelligent people of this great nation. His speeches have demonstrated the fact that although originally a Herculean rail splitter and more lately a whimsical story teller and side splitter, he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion. People now marvel how it came to pass that Mr. Lincoln should have been selected as the representative man of any party. His weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world. The European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President. The truth is, Lincoln is only a moderate lawyer and in the larger cities of the Union could pass for no more than a facetious pettifogger. Take him from his vocation and he loses even these small characteristics and indulges in simple twaddle which would disgrace a well bred school boy.”
PETTIFOGGER= An inferior legal practitioner, esp. one who deals with petty cases or employs dubious practices.
Poor Sunny, she hasn't seen real Lincoln criticism, the very thing itself. But, she is still young yet.
Not a mention of lavender in the whole indictment.Delete
Fred Kaplan’s reply: “The fact that Brennan has been President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism these past four years, and yet found material in the Senate report that he had not known before, material that makes him now think he might have been wrong—this in itself is rather disturbing.” Well, no, not unless you think Brennan was telling the truth when he said he was newly ambivalent about EITs. If you assume that he’s patronizing Democrats by telling them what they wanted to hear, it’s perfectly sensible. Another fun moment: Brennan is eager to move command and control over drone strikes from the CIA to the Pentagon since blowing up terrorists is really more of a military job. Which means the man in charge of preventing terror attacks by liquidating the people who are planning them will soon be … this guy.ReplyDelete
'This guy' is: Fudd.
Dem senator to CIA nominee: Should you give American citizens a chance to surrender before you kill them?
posted at 8:31 pm on February 7, 2013 by Allahpundit
Here is the link to 'this guy': Fudd in the above referenced article -Delete
Unless Hagel starts drooling on himself, which at this point is within the realm of possibility, I can’t believe there’s any critical mass of Democrats willing to kneecap Obama so soon into his term by voting with the GOP. If he’d doubled down on the “Israel lobby” invective, that’d be one thing, but the Party Of Ideas isn’t going to torpedo The One’s preferred candidate for something as minor as being glaringly unfit for the job.
Always here to help.
Think of it this way, folks. During the next crisis, just like in Benghazi, Barky will be asleep, John Kerry will be AWOL, and Fudd, who admits he doesn't know a thing, will be in control.ReplyDelete
Almost makes one want to root for the asteroid, doesn't it?
Is there anything you are unwilling to give up? Or, do you have an ultimate concern?ReplyDelete
A reference there to Paul Tillich, Lutheran theologian of past days -
So that's why I've decided: my bottom line is my hair. No matter how many shariah enforcers roam the streets, I'm going to keep right on publicly exposing my naked, gleaming tresses whenever and wherever I want. And, yes, I may even flounce and flaunt them, too. So there.
Oh, and here's another thing I'm not giving up: free speech. Recently, the man who's supposed to be our president proclaimed to the United Nations, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." To which I say: Speak for yourself, pal. I'll slander the prophet of Islam anytime I like. For instance, right now. Mohammed stinks.
See? I'm not giving up.
(I think our writer here is a little tongue in cheek and has more concerns than her hair)
To put it nicely, this is a crock. As an allegorical tale, "Atlas Shrugged" has its place in literature. But its more than 1,000 pages of turgid prose makes it nearly unreadable - even if you agree with the concepts laid out in the book. John Galt can be a compelling figure but the characters are secondary to the philosophy Rand is trying to teach. It is poor literature and undeserving of being a requirement for graduation.ReplyDelete
February 7, 2013
Bill introduced in Idaho that makes reading 'Atlas Shrugged' a requirement for graduation
Reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" may become a requirement for high school graduation in Idaho if Coeur d'Alene Senator John Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate's Education Committee, decides to pursue the matter.
Goedde introduced a bill with the requirement but doesn't appear serious about pushing it.
Better Atlas Shrugged than Das Capital, but not by much.
It is a big deal, deciding what the kids should be reading. In the pre - civil war south, in those glorious days, the slaves weren't to read at all, mostly, but ended up having a great attachment to the story of the Exodus. They were able to 'read' the Bible in a more authentic way than their white masters, who got it mostly all wrong. In this way the blacks agreed with the abolitionists of New England. And so I still maintain my novel idea that the Civil War was a literary dispute, with the poets being the unacknowledged legislators of mankind.
Rand Paul says he doesn't want a nuclear Iran, but can't bring himself to say force is the only way to get there, so he hasn't said much. Better on Benghazi though.ReplyDelete
John Brennen is a fool -ReplyDelete
Obama's CIA nominee John Brennan aids, abets jihadists and Islamic supremacists
Making it a quadfecta of Barky, Reporting For Duty, Fudd and Jester.
FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
Breitbart.com told that Chuck Hagel took money from “Friends of Hamas.”
By: Moe Lane (Diary) | February 7th, 2013 at 04:30 PM | 5
On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.”
That is quite the accusation, and it gives the Left a rare opportunity to go after the Breitbart constellation of websites. All they have to do to debunk it is to have Hagel reveal his foreign donors. I mean, how likely is it that the White house could have messed up vetting Chuck Hagel that badly…
Called for comment and reached via telephone, Associate Communications Director at the White House Eric Schultz identified himself, heard the question, was silent for several seconds, and then hung up the phone immediately without comment.
Paul didn’t kneel and worship Israel, promising every drop of American blood and every dime of American tax money to support Israel. In the last 45 years our “preemptive wars” have done more harm than good.ReplyDelete
Radical islam cannot be “beaten" by any strategy, it is a creature of a religion that states that it will dominate the globe. Its adherents themselves are unworthy of such domination.
If Paul is wrong anywhere, it’s attributing too much credit to Islamic "patience." Put another way, a peaceful Muslim believes the globe will someday be entirely Muslim - and if we simply work on our OWN religious perfection it will come to pass. That's patience. Radical Islam, less patient, believes the issue must be forced aggressively.
Paul’s speech makes far more sense than your deeply confused hysteria and constant Israeli apologies based on your “Christian” obsession with the Bible and your own death cult.
Good luck with your wish to see Israel attack Iran with the same impunity that she does bombing Palestinian farmers and a country already in civil war.
Just in, Palestinian "farmers" harvesting a new crop of suicide vests....Delete
Also this year at the Palestinian Farmers Market
A special on mentally handicapped youths ready for martyrdom, just 200 dollars each!
Jenny: promising every drop of American blood and every dime of American tax money to support Israel.Delete
Please provide ONE statement of proof that America has ever promised Israel
Either: "every drop of American blood" or "every dime of American tax money to support Israel"
If you can't? we expect a full apology for your vicious and lying statement proving how you slander and distort the issue.
Jenny: Good luck with your wish to see Israel attack Iran with the same impunity that she does bombing Palestinian farmers and a country already in civil war.Delete
Jenny, did you forget that Israel attacked Syria's illegal nuke reactor when it didnt have a civil war?
did you forget how Israel alone, took at Saddam Hussein's nuke reactor?
did you forget how Israel fought off the combined armies of the arab world in 1948? 1967? 1973?
did you forget how Israel destroyed a hundred Syrian MIGs in lebanon without losing a plane?
Infact, Iran has been killing American and Israelis both directly and thru Hezbollah and Hamas for years and yes Israel most likely has been fighting back..
in the last year?
The chief of Iran’s nuclear program says the power lines to his nuclear facilities were sabotaged.
Fereydoun Abbasi, Iran’s vice president and the chief of its nuclear-energy agency, disclosed that power lines between the holy city of Qom and the underground Fordow nuclear centrifuge facility were blown up with explosives on Aug. 17. He also said the power lines leading to Iran’s Natanz facilities were blown up as well.
A week ago, something went seriously wrong in the underground tunnels beneath the Iranian nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz. I don’t know if it was an explosion, on-site sabotage, an accident, or a cyber attack, but eight people were killed, and several others are being treated for irradiation. The tunnel leading to the damaged sector has been walled off. And another disaster, several days earlier, took place at the heavy-water facility at Arak, whose existence has been public knowledge since the mid-nineties.
Along with the explosion in a gas line leading to a new, secret, nuclear facility in a mountain near Fordow, this makes three setbacks to the Iranian regime’s nuclear program.
Sounds like Israel is in fact facing Iran without to much worrying.
Jack tells US why there need be no redline drawn by US with regard Iran' nuclear program.Delete
I hope Iran gets the bomb. After all it will not be Israel it will target. It will be the Arabs.Delete
Then in the new world of islamic insanity Israel will be able to sell it's newly discovered shale oil reserves.
It's estimated that Israel has as much oil as Arabia. Let the games begin. Who cares if 200 million arabs and 150 million iranians glow in the dark. Maybe Iran will target Europe while we are at it? Or maybe Iran will target India?
It will be interesting
Rand Paul is distancing himself from neocons, a totally discredited bunch of shadowy warmongers with their heavy zionist / Israel agenda. The cockroaches are running out of places to hide.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Did you say "cockroaches"?Delete
You must be talking about palestinians of course.
They are cockroaches.
Now if Jenny can call Americans of a strong national defense position "cockroaches", should we not call those that are the reason some need to be "right wing" cockroaches in the 1st place?
Or is that an insult to cockroaches to call Palestinians that?
If only we left Saddam Hussein in power. He was a great man, after all he was single largest killer of arabs and moslems in the history of the world.Delete
and the neocons got rid of him.
I’m not so sure. Rand Paul is no Ron Paul. He seems to be taking a political shift towards the US Israeli lobby. We will see.ReplyDelete
Maybe he is simply not as crazy as his father.Delete
He's not as crazy as Jenny.Delete
and you of course are the best judge of who is crazy or not.Delete
I agree. Glad to see you do, too.Delete
Where was Barky, then?ReplyDelete
February 8, 2013
The Twisted Truth on Obama's Benghazi Response
According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, as reported at The Weekly Standard, President Obama was completely aloof from the events in Libya on September 11. He neither asked nor ordered anything. He did not respond to information sent to the White House. He was not involved at all, during the seven-plus-hour attack that resulted in the deaths of four American government employees, including an ambassador.
The responses cover the waterfront, as you might expect.
But remember, Barky has promised us a full report. I remember that from the closing days of the campaign. All we can do is wait.
It was just a month ago that bob told us THAT obama was watching the live feed. Now he tells us Obama was in bed. Bob doesn't know shit from shinola about LiiibyaDelete
And neither does anyone else except the people involved and they weren't talking. National security don't you know. Needed a commisssion to explain to them the meaning of all the requests for help they received before and during the incident, the live feed from ground zero, the videos, their part in doing or not doing anything, whether they were concerned or just went to bed.
Benghazi was about five months ago now and the only credible statements we got out of the administration was Hillary's opinion, "What does it matter?"
Now, under oath, some of the truth seems to be coming out. Not surprising Panetta would fold. I pegged him as the worst liar of the lot.
The left/right political divide is mostly smoke and mirrors designed to give the people the illusion of choice. Ron Paul was never ambiguous about this. Rand Paul is less so.ReplyDelete
The entire current debate about drones is about the silence of the left about them, at least up till now. Recently, it was more about winning than conviction. That seems to have changed.ReplyDelete
I don't think our political language was actually designed by anyone here to give the people an illusion of choice. Some of it got imported from Europe. Some of it is homegrown. Since we have two major political parties you get a this/that kind of language. And there are certainly real choices. If government control over you health care isn't one of them, I don't know what is.ReplyDelete
The left is extremely hypocritical.ReplyDelete
Look at the track record of Islam. The evidence.ReplyDelete
first muslims are peaceful because there are not enough in the majority to make a difference.
Then, like a "blanket party" the true darkness of the religion strips away freedom one by one until you women must cover your heads. Then, your whole bodies. Then along comes the Taliban to make everyone conform to a stricter form of the "We love death" cult. And that doesn't even mention the gangs roaming around within Islam like Al-queda/the base.
I'll never stop fighting against this, ever.
That's the way muzzies roll.Delete
the right does not know what they want to conserve.ReplyDelete
They continue to lie about Social Security, Medicare and Obamcare.
Both sides know that they want to be our rulers and masters.Delete
"SEN. GRAHAM: Are you surprised that the president of the United States never called you, Secretary Panetta, and say, ‘how’s it going?’ReplyDelete
SEC. PANETTA: I — you know, normally in these situations –
SEN. GRAHAM: Did he know the level of threat that –
SEC. PANETTA: Let — well, let me finish the answer. We were deploying the forces. He knew we were deploying the forces. He was being kept updated –
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I hate to interrupt you, but I got limited time. We didn’t deploy any forces. Did you call him back — wait a minute –
SEC. PANETTA: No, but the event — the event was over by the time we got –
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, you didn’t know how long the attack would last. Did you ever call him and say, Mr. President, it looks like we don’t have anything to get there anytime soon?
SEC. PANETTA: The event was over before we could move any assets.
SEN. GRAHAM: It lasted almost eight hours. And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them? We have a second round, and we’ll take it up then."
Graham just demolished the entire White House defense on Benghazi in less than ten minutes of cross-examination.
The Anti-Lincoln TraditionReplyDelete
DON E. FEHRENBACHER
Lincoln lives in the hearts of the people -
Yet, in spite of all adverse influences, Lincoln retains the admiration of most Americans and his place of pre-eminence in the national pantheon. Perhaps a kind of historical inertia holds him there now; perhaps the twenty-first century will view him much differently. But in the polls he still ranks first. One recent presidential poll merits special attention. Of 41 historians, 39 labeled him "great," one called him a "near great," none classified him as "average" or "below average," but one branded him a "failure." Thus the anti-Lincoln tradition persists in lonely splendor, and the study of that tradition does tell us something, though far from everything, about Lincoln's unique hold upon the memory and imagination of his countrymen. In a word, he matters. He has never settled quietly into his historical niche. For anyone trying to understand America's past or shape its future, he is a force to be reckoned with—an ineluctable presence. In the words of an Englishwoman, Barbara Ward, "he is one of the very few of the world's leaders who stay alive."
In all this criticism of Lincoln, the lavender critique is extremely hard to find. Interesting long article for those that hate or love Lincoln.
Santa Claus lives on in the heart of the people.ReplyDelete
Ho, ho, ho!Delete
Everyone wants to defeat radical Islam. The debate is as to how.ReplyDelete
Destroy the Rock of Mecca.Delete
LEAST violent way.
Or have it your way and cause mass genocide
destroy/vaporize the rock AND destroy OPEC.Delete
Maybe Israel and America will lead the future with oil as exporters as stable nations?
Give the very worst among them nuclear bombs for self defense, obviously.Delete
Just as I said some time back, the President said "handle it" and went back to prepping for his Las Vegas appearance.ReplyDelete
Now, it appears that SecState was nowhere to be found.
It could be that they were clueless when they sent Ambassador Rice out to the Sunday morning talk shows. Fools, one and all.
Has anyone considered who would be in control of America had the European settlers NOT been here to build a nation?
The Soviet Union?
Top 10 Holes In OneReplyDelete
I wouldn't have to manage my anger if people could learn to manage their fuckin' stupidity.ReplyDelete
I'm working on it Sam, geezus.Delete
Obama is confronted with a crisis he created for himself. I wish Rufus were here to see that the 'party of stupid' might finally have done something right.
On March 1, budget cuts associated with sequestration kick in and now Obama is whining about the trap he set for himself.
White House Sounds the Alarm on Non-Defense Budget Cuts
And why is Obama in this box? In his inaugural address, he claimed a mandate. He outlined every liberal wet dream imaginable and then declared he would push them through, on his own if required, by-passing Congress and taking his arguments directly to the people. In his arrogance, he assured us that he would interpret the Constitution as he saw fit and ignore it altogether if that was needed. Whatever it took to achieve his vision for America.
In December, he started out with the debt-ceiling, taxation and sequestration issues and he forced the GOP to back down, the debt-ceiling debate was pushed back, taxes on the rich were pushed through. Obama's allies claimed that he had won. There was joy in Mudville. But did he win? Or, was it merely a gambit by the GOP?
The GOP gave in on the debt-ceiling fight, really a fight they had no chance of winning. They pushed that argument off to a later date, late enough that it couldn't be used as a wedge issue by Obama in the upcoming sequestration battle.
Likewise, the GOP gave in on taxes for the rich, but not to the extent Obama and his allies wanted. And because of the continuation of major tax cuts for the rich which were not intended to be included in the deal but which Obama insisted on, the tax savings given up by the GOP netted out to zero. The only real revenues Obama got out of the deal were the middle-class FICA increases.
So now, entering the sequestration talks Obama wants to match any spending cuts with offsetting revenue. However, since Obama insisted on no spending cuts in the last go round in December, the GOP says there will be no new tax increases, we have already given at the office.
Sequestration was concocted in the Obama White House and was based on the idea that the military cuts that were included in the package would be so onerous to the GOP that they would give the Dems whatever they wanted in order to avoid them. But perhaps they misjudged. We have seen on some of the recent votes (2nd engine for F-35) that the younger members of the GOP as well as libertarians and the Tea Party are perfectly willing to cut military spending.
So now Obama's arrogance could very well have given him only pyrrhic victories. He got the GOP to move back the debt-ceiling debate but now he doesn't have that club to beating them over the head with in the sequestration fight. He brow-beat the GOP into giving him the tax increases on the rich while refusing to talk about any spending cuts at all thus cementing the emnity between himself and the GOP leadership, and also guaranteeing that getting further concessions
out of them on taxes will be nearly impossible. And now, as sequestration approahes, he is reduced to whining about the negative effects of spending cuts.
Even dicks like Krugman seem to recognize the best he can achieve is kicking the can further down the road.
Hoisted on his own petard. Poetic justice. Some might even say Cosmic Justice.
I once won an argument with a woman...ReplyDelete
in this dream I had.
The sad thing, Sam, is that it will always be a dream.ReplyDelete
President Obama proposed the sequester in 2011. Reid and Schumer both praised and pushed for it. Now that cuts may become a reality, as the President proposed, the Democrats are worried that implementing the President’ plan will be disastrous. It's like the hypocrisy of drones, rendition, and warrantless wiretapping. The administration talks out of both sides of its mouth with vague platitudes and shifts to blame-games when it becomes evident they don’t have a clue as to what is going on.ReplyDelete
That said, Reagan tripled the national debt with HIS tax rates. Look at who has actually reduced the deficit in the last century (or this one) and there is only one...Eisenhower.