Publicado: 07-21-2011 03:51 PM
My grandfather, also Italian, returned the shout: "Ah, you shut up! You're a damned fool!"
Grandma: "No, you're a damned fool!"
After the typical several minutes of sustained insults, my grandfather explained that, indeed, his family didn’t suffer during the depression. They noticed no difference whatsoever, even as America came apart at the seams.
Why not? Because they were farmers. They got everything from the land, from crops and animals they raised and hunted to fish they caught. They raised every animal possible, from cattle to rabbits. They ate everything from the pig, from head to feet. There were eggs from chickens and cheese and milk from goats and cows. There were wild plants.
I was captivated as my grandfather explained his family's method of refrigeration: During the winter, they broke ice from the creek and hauled it into the barn, where it was packed in sawdust for use through the summer. They didn’t over-eat. They preserved food, and there was always enough for the family of 12.
When their clothes ripped, they sewed them. When machines broke, they fixed them. They didn't over-spend. Home repairs weren’t contracted out. Heat came from wood they gathered.
And they didn't need 1,000 acres of land to do this.
They were totally self-sufficient—and far from alone. Back then, most Americans farmed, knew how to grow things, or provided for themselves to some significant degree.
That conversation with my grandparents came to mind as I read Zuckerman's piece and considered life under another Great Depression. I realized: The vast majority of Americans today would be incapable of providing for themselves. If you live in the city with no land, you'd be in big trouble. Even most Americans, who have a yard with soil, wouldn’t know what to do.
Isn’t it ironic that with all our scandalously expensive education—far more than our grandparents' schooling—we've learned so little? We can't fix our car let alone shoot, gut, skin, and butcher a deer.
Think about it: If you lacked income for food, or if prices skyrocketed, or your money was valueless, what would you do for yourself and your family?
Americans today are a lifetime from their grandparents and great grandparents. God help us if we ever face a calamity like the one they faced—and survived.
Publicado: 07-21-2011 10:21 PM
THE IDEOLOGUE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
President Obama is the one locked into rigid positions.
NRO July 20, 2011.
So - who said that? Karl Marx.
Who must obviously be thinking the exact same thing? B.H. Obama, the Kenyan-Manchurian candidate-turned-President.
‘I think increasingly the American people are going to say to themselves, ‘You know what? If a party or a politician is constantly taking the pposition my-way-or-the-highway, constantly being locked into ideologically rigid positions, that we’re going to remember at the polls,’” President Obama said at his Friday news conference.
I know everyone is sick of hearing about the debt-limit negotiations. Lord knows I am. When I turn on the news these days, I feel like one of the passengers seated next to Robert Hays in the movie Airplane! By the time we get to the phrase “in the out years,” I’m ready to pour a can of gasoline over my head.
Still, regardless of how things turn out with the negotiations, what we are witnessing is the rollout of the Obama reelection campaign’s theme: Obama is the pragmatic voice of reason holding the ideologues at bay.
So it’s worth asking, before this branding campaign gels into the conventional wisdom: Who is the real ideologue here?
The president, we are told, is a pragmatist for wanting a “fair and balanced” budget deal. What that means is tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Any significant spending cuts would be way in the future. The tax increases would begin right after Obama is reelected.
Now keep in mind that tax hikes (or what the administration calls “revenue increases”) are Obama’s idée fixe. He campaigned on raising taxes for millionaires and billionaires (defined in the small print as people making more than $200,000 a year or couples making more than $250,000).
During a primary debate, he was asked by ABC’s Charles Gibson if he would raise the capital-gains tax even if he knew that cutting it would generate more revenue for the government. The non-ideologue responded that raising the tax, even if doing so would lower revenue, might be warranted out of “fairness.” As he said to Joe the Plumber, things are better when you “spread the wealth around.”
Publicado: 07-21-2011 10:22 PM
Earlier last week, referring to the fact that he is rich, the president said: “I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing. In fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need.”
Leaving aside the fact that the man lives in public housing and has a government jet at his disposal — so his definition of “need” might be a bit out of whack — what is pragmatic about this pposition?
Obama says that Republicans are rigid ideologues because they won’t put “everything on the table.” Specifically, they won’t consider tax hikes, even though polls suggest Americans wouldn’t mind soaking “the rich,” “big oil,” and “corporate-jet owners.”
But Obama hasn’t put everything on the table either. He’s walled off “Obamacare” and the rest of his “winning the future” agenda.
If Obama believes the American people are the voice of reason when it comes to tax hikes, why does their opinion count for nothing when it comes to Obamacare, which has never been popular? (According to a RealClearPolitics average of polls, only 38.6 percent of voters favor the plan.) Why not look for some savings there?
Consider the frustration of the supposedly ideologically locked-in GOP Congress. In 2008, the national debt was 40 percent of GDP. Now it’s more than 60 percent, and it is projected to reach 75 percent next year, all thanks to a sour economy the GOP feels Obama made worse with incontinent spending.
Republicans won a historic election last November campaigning against the spending, borrowing, tax hikes, and Obamacare. Yet Obama’s pposition is that the Republicans are deranged dogmatists because they don’t want to raise taxes or borrow more money to pay for spending they opposed. And Obama is flexible because he refuses to revisit a program that has never been popular.
Meanwhile, the sole example of Obama’s pragmatism — that he has publicly acknowledged — is his openness to means-testing Medicare, which may not be a bad idea. But Obama’s support for it rests entirely on the fact that it would continue to tax upper-income people for benefits they will no longer receive. So, in addition to taxing the “rich” more, he also wants to give them less.
I know why liberals would support that, but for the life of me I can’t see how it’s non-ideological.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Publicado: 07-22-2011 02:22 AM
Amid all the prognostications of economic doom and gloom, double-dip recessions, hyperinflation, and rising gas prices, very little attention has been paid to the socioeconomic group the current economic strife has hit hardest: the young.............................................
MUCHAS GRACIAS JOYAFINA
you bet ya!!!!!! dqban22 !! :guinando: edos:
Publicado: 07-22-2011 11:51 AM
IMPEACH NOW! Obama Sells Weapons To Drug Cartels
Obama, Holder Busted in Gunwalker Cover-up
by Roger Hedgecock
U.S. agents shot to death in Mexico by narcos with american guns provided
by Obama administration
Kenneth Melson was supposed to be the fall guy, the sacrificial lamb, the guy thrown under the bus to protect President Obama. Melson was “expected” to resign. He refused.
Instead, Melson, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has turned whistle-blower and all hell is about to explode over the operation dubbed by Obama’s Justice Department “Fast and Furious” but now known as the Gunwalker scandal.
It looks like the Obama regime financed (partly with “stimulus” funds) an $80 million program to allow straw buyers to purchase hundreds of weapons from federally licensed gun shops in Southwest states, over the objection of the shop owners, and then allowed these weapons to “walk” across the Mexican border into the waiting arms of the murderous Mexican drug cartels.
At first, Justice Department spokesmen said it was a “sting gone wrong.” Then, when many pointed out that the ATF had no jurisdiction to follow the guns across the border to make arrests, the cover story fell apart.
These are the types of guns released by ATF into
Mexico source: today.msnbc.msn.com
Melson has told congressional investigators that there is a “smoking gun” internal memo withheld from Congress indicating that “political appointees” (Obama’s) in the Justice Department were involved. This memo and other documents are being withheld from Congress as part of a cover-up.
Melson has also told Congressional investigators that affidavits prepared by Justice Department lawyers to support wiretaps in the operation were “inconsistent” with public statements by Justice Department officials, meaning that the operation, it’s existence at first denied by the Justice Department, was detailed months before to a court in sworn statements by the same Justice Department.
Attorney General Eric Holder testified at a congressional hearing in March 2011 that he had just learned of the Fast and Furious operation “a few weeks ago.” However, Holder spoke at a joint Mexico-U.S. law enforcement conference in Mexico in April 2009, describing the operation and touting it as a way to combat the growing power of the Mexican drug cartels.
Publicado: 07-22-2011 11:51 AM
The explosive revelations continued. Melson told the investigators that during operation Fast and Furious, guns were bought by and sold to individuals connected with the Mexican cartels who were also paid informants for the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. American taxpayers are funding all sides of this war.
When the Mexican government captured the third-ranking leader of the Los Zetas cartel, Jesus Enrique Rejon Aguilar , he bragged that the cartel’s guns were bought in the U.S. and that all the cartels were buying guns from the U.S. government.
The Mexicans are furious about all this. The Mexican congress has opened an investigation under the assumption that Obama’s operation was an act of war on Mexico. More than 200 Mexican law enforcement and military personnel have been killed in the last year by guns traced back to Gunwalker.
These guns, traced by serial number, have tragically also turned up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata by cartel gunmen.
The Mexican cartels get weapons from Mexican Army deserters, from leftist guerrilla groups in South America, and from international gun smugglers. Under Obama, they also got weapons from U.S. gun shops. We now know how this was done, in a story first told by CBS News. The question is why?
The answer fits a pattern described by then-Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel of never letting a crisis go to waste if it can advance the agenda.
The crisis was the civil war between the Mexican government and the drug cartels, with violence spilling over into American cities. Obama, Janet Napolitano , and even Hillary Clinton, blamed this border violence on the easy availability of guns in U.S. gun shops and gun shows along the border. The agenda was gun control. Gun control laws needed to be strengthened to protect the lives of innocent Mexicans and Americans.
When statistics designed to show the cartels were armed primarily from American sources were proven false, the crisis had to be goosed a little. Operation Fast and Furious became the funnel for a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Despite all these revelations of Obama regime complicity in this gunrunning operation, the gun control agenda lives on.
Just last Monday, the Justice Department announced that all gun shops in four Southwest states will have to report to the ATF purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. With a straight face, a Justice Department spokesman described this as an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R.-Tex.) called this new requirement the “height of hypocrisy ... when the administration knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico.” Smith concluded, “Limiting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to solve the problem.” Thank you Congressman Smith.
Congratulations Ken Melson. Thank you for telling the truth. Without you, the American people might believe that more gun control is the answer. With your statements, we now know that controlling the corruption of the Justice Department is the answer.
Isn’t it time someone asked the age-old question, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”
Publicado: 07-22-2011 05:09 PM
Voters Prefer Republicans on Debt Crisis
Powerline ^ | July22,2011 | John H. Hinderaker
The Republicans’ failure to win clearly the messaging battle over federal spending and debt is frustrating, but the latest poll data–significant because they come from likely voters–indicate that the GOP is coming out on top so far, albeit not by a wide margin.
Today’s Rasmussen Reports headlines, “Most Voters Are Unhappy With Both Sides in the Debt Ceiling Debate.” No surprise there–many people are much too quick to adopt a “plague on both their houses” attitude. But the disapproval isn’t equal:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat disapprove of the way President Obama and congressional Democrats are handling the debate over the debt ceiling, with 38% who Strongly Disapprove. But 53% also disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling the debate, including 32% who Strongly Disapprove.
As often happens, the Republicans deserve to do better because most voters agree with their pposition. In a separate survey, Rasmussen finds that 62% of likely voters fear that a debt deal will raise taxes too much, while 56% worry that Congress and the President will cut spending too little in any such deal. This suggests that Republicans’ numbers have room for improvement as more voters understand the parties’ positions, especially in light of Harry Reid’s actions today.
Publicado: 07-22-2011 07:47 PM
Leader Cantor Statement On Debt Limit Negotiations
Majority Leader's Website ^ | 7/22/11 | Eric Cantor
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) issued the following statement on the debt limit negotiations:
"Tonight, months after we had begun negotiations with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Administration, Speaker Boehner and I are ending discussions with the White House and beginning conversations with Senate leaders in the hopes of finding a solution to the debt limit debate in order to avoid default. Throughout the months of discussions, we have worked to identify real spending cuts, binding budget reforms, structural changes to save our entitlement programs, and significant debt reduction. Unfortunately, time and again these talks have reached an impasse for one reason: the Democrats’ insistence on raising taxes on small businesses and working families. We must get Washington’s fiscal house in order, but with millions of Americans out of work, the worst thing Washington can do is to raise taxes on those we need to start hiring again. Washington has a spending problem, and until that is fixed, raising taxes is simply asking the American people to send more money to be spent inefficiently.
"In recent days, Speaker Boehner and I have engaged in discussions at the White House with the goal of doing something big to address our debt crisis, just as we did in the House Republican Budget. During these discussions, it became clear that the White House has a fundamental philosophical difference about how we stop spending, begin to get our fiscal house in order and manage down our debt. Contrary to news reports, a deal was never reached with the White House and a deal was never close with the White House – especially after the President insisted on more tax revenue after the Gang of Six plan was released. America will pay its bills and meet its obligations, and in coming days we will offer a path forward that meets the President’s request for a debt limit increase, manages down the debt, and achieves serious spending cuts."
Publicado: 07-22-2011 09:10 PM
An eye-opening article by John Merline appeared last night in Investor’s Business Daily. In his piece, Merline interviews a man who knows a thing or two about creating jobs: Home Depot’s co-founder, Bernie Marcus. As Merline notes, Marcus and his partners founded Home Depot during a period of economic malaise similar to today’s: 1978 at the height of the Carter years. Since taking the company public in 1981, Merline has literally created over a hundred thousand jobs and is certainly qualified to comment on President Obama’s economic policies and their effect on job creation. In Merline’s interview with Marcus, they discuss, among other things, the impact of the Obama Administration’s explosion of regulations on small business:
IBD: What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?
Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we’d tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.
Publicado: 07-23-2011 09:53 AM
OBAMA, PARE DE MENTIR AL PUEBLO!!!!
OBAMA INSULTO AL PODER LEGISLATIVO MENOSPRECIANDO AL LIDER DE LA CAMARA DE REPRESENTANTES MINTIENDO Y DESINFORMANDO AL PUEBLO SOBRE LAS SERIAS E IMPRESINDIBLES NEGOCIACIONES IMPULSADAS POR LOS REPUBLICANOS PARA TRATAR DE PONER UN COTO A SUS DESENFRENADOS GASTOS QUE ESTAN LLEVANDO EL PAIS A LA RUINA.
Obama,en todo un alarde de petulancia y arrogancia, ignora que los Estados Unidos es una república constitucional con tres ramas separadas e iguales en cuanto a sus poderes, el ejecutivo, el legislativo y el judicial. El desdén de Obama por la Constitución no es nada nuevo, Obama en su arrogancia dictatorial ya había humillado ante la nación y al mundo a los jueces de la Suprema Corte de Justicia durante su discurso anual ante el pleno del Congreso sobre el estado de la nación.
Ahora, Obama, demostrando una vez más su inmadurez e incapacidad para gobernar democráticamente, trató de manera irrespetuosa a los representantes del poder legislativo como si fueran sus simple lacayos, mintiendo y degradando a los republicanos que participan en las negociaciones, mientras de manera imperativa les ordenaba a acudir hoy domingo a la Casa Blanca, después de haber tratado de desacreditarlos y humillarlos ante la nación exhibiendo un ridículo y fingido enojo más propio de un teatro Kabuki que de quien en su persona mal representa al país más poderoso de la historia.
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY, MAYBE EVEN THE MILLENNIUM
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them, like this quote from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out - we have a lot of work to do.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."