(Back) Maria, Alexandra
Nicolas II and his entire family were brutally murdered. A sad anniversary to remember, but one that I always do. May they rest in peace. Take care, Anthony
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.
Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.Â
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?
If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you’d say yes, indeed. It’s China’s fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Further, if this is true, then (as is usual in climate-world), “it’s worse than we thought.” After all, China will eventually reduce their sulfate emissions as their population becomes affluent enough to demand something better than miasmic air. Indeed, they are already beginning to clean things up, and when they finally do, all the cooling particles will be gone and the earth will warm substantially.
Reality may be a bit simpler, or much more complicated. But the reason this is all so important is that if there is no good explanation for the lack of warming, then an increasingly viable alternative is that we have overestimated the gross sensitivity of temperature to carbon dioxide in our computer models.
In the July 4, 2011, issue of TIME magazine, Managing Editor Richard Stengel, calls the Constitution “elastic” and even goes so far as to claim that was exactly what the Founders intended to do; make the Constitution flexible and mutable. To follow this “logic” and revisionist philosophy, TIME would have us all believe that the Framers of our Constitution were merely forming a new government based on generalities and ideas of relativity, certain only of one thing, that future generations would hammer out something that might preserve some semblance of the “democracy” the Founding Fathers were leaving us. It was actually a Republic. The word ‘Democracy’ is never mentioned in the Constitution, but how would we expect TIME’s Managing Editor to know that? TIME stays deeply within its own mainstream culture to convince us all that everything going on in government today is exactly as it was intended. The Constitution has no absolutes, it was not written as a limitation, it contains no real law based on principles, it’s merely a record of suggestions by some well-meaning colonists who could have never known what we really need today.
In fact, Stengel makes two very startling, if not downright bewildering claims. First, and I quote, “Politicians ask all the time, What would the Framers say?” Wow! Really? Today’s politicians ask all the time, “What would the Framers say?” Please show me one time! I watch the news every day. I have never heard Barak Obama say such a thing. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi asked, “What would the Framers say?” How about John McCain, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Mayor Bloomberg, Chris Christie, any of these politicians who are in the news daily; when did any of them ask about the Framers? Second, and even more astonishing, the Managing Editor of a major international publication, informs us all that we can never know what the Framers said; they’re gone, we can no longer use their wisdom to prove anyone wrong!
So, according to TIME and Stengel, we cannot look at the intent of the Founding Fathers nor learn from their wisdom because “…they’re not around to prove anyone wrong.” I guess we should all ignore the Federalist Papers, and all the other journals and writings of the Framers. We should ignore the warnings of Patrick Henry in his fiery “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” speech, or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense booklet or the biography of John Adams which quotes many of his beliefs in letters he wrote to his wife Abigail. Perhaps when we all walk through the Jefferson Memorial, we should ignore the quotes on the walls about freedom and Jefferson’s passion for American idealism. We can’t know what the Framers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights and what on earth they could have meant when they proclaimed, “Congress shall make no law…”
How convenient for our “leaders” that they interpret such ambiguity for all of us! What would we do without them? Could the Founders have actually thought that these rules should be obeyed instead of interpreted? Was the Bill of Rights written to protect inviolable principles? Nah! The Bill of Rights did nothing to limit Government. Why? Because TIME said the Framers knew nothing about airplanes, computers, or Lady Gaga! You got me there Mr. Stengel; who could argue with such profound brilliance?
Therefore, when the Founders fought for freedom and subsequent to the Revolution, wrote the Constitution, and required within the Constitution (Art VI last paragraph) that each soldier, each Judge, all legislators, all peace officers, and even specified the President himself, to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, they meant only as far as they agreed with its elasticity. When they said the Constitution would be the chains by which all leaders would be bound, they meant only sort of bound, with elastic chains, perhaps even less confining than rubber bands, but certainly not chains!
Yes, Mr. Stengel, you and TIME are demonstrating once again that you have earned the title of “Lamestream Media.” You attempt to rationalize away our sacred Constitution and thereby assist with the mainstream destruction of what the FRAMERS, yes, the FRAMERS, established in the first place.
The one valid point TIME magazine made in this 4th of July issue, was showing the Constitution in shreds. And nothing is more evident of this shredding than TIME’s/Stengel’s idiotic explanation as to why politicians no longer follow the Constitution. No, I don’t know what the Framers would have said about Lady Gaga nor do I care one iota. But I do know what they would have said about forced socialistic health care, a $15 trillion national debt, and a bunch of Weiners in DC. And about your article, I’ll let Thomas Jefferson tell you what he thought of your article and your magazine, and I quote, “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” It’s amazing how much the Framers knew!
This is kinda like if one is a 2nd year corp fin analyst, and just as the 300 tab excel model showing the massive synergies from the pitched M&A deal is supposed to be presented to the client, the whole thing #Refs out... And hasn't been saved for days. According to Bloomberg, in the last week the ratio of insider selling to buying on the S&P was 3,700x.... 3,700x!!!!!
Republicans have a golden opportunity to break Barack Obama’s presidency, ensuring he will be a one-termer. Mr. Obama has backed himself into a corner on the debt-limit talks; the GOP can smash his re-election prospectsif they have the will - and intelligence - to do it.
Mr. Obama has asked that the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling be raised, and he knows that cannot be done without support from House Republicans. Moreover, along with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Mr. Obama warns that fiscal Armageddon is coming unless the ceiling is lifted before Aug. 2 - the date Mr. Geithner claims the United States begins defaulting to its debtors.
Mr. Obama seeks a “grand bargain”: a debt-reduction package that includes $1 trillion in tax increases to accompany entitlement spending cuts, including Social Security and Medicare. He wants to go big. His target is to slash $4 trillion over 10 years. He has repeatedly vowed to veto any “small” debt-limit increase - one that allows America to keep paying its bills until a more comprehensive agreement is ratified. In other words, Mr. Obama has issued an ultimatum to congressional Republicans: Either break your 2010 campaign pledge not to raise taxes or else be blamed for the debt-limit debacle. As he put it, it’s time to “eat our peas.” The president is playing Russian roulette with the economy and our nation’s future.
Yet he has badly played his weak hand. Like the dictator Napoleon Bonaparte, who sought to spread the radical French Revolution across Europe, Mr. Obama has committed a fatal mistake: overreach. The president has issued a public ultimatum that either must be upheld or he must back down from. Either way, it is Mr. Obama’s political credibility that threatens to be shattered.
Abolitionist leaders of the North looked South and saw nothing but the evil of slavery. Virginians, saddled with an economic system inherited from the British and perpetuated by Eli Whitney’s invention and gold-grasping New England cotton mills, saw a puzzle without a solution. After the murderous rampage of Nat Turner in 1831 -- encouraged by those they thought were fellow Americans – Virginians also sensed a Saxon race to the north intent on their destruction.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Cultural Differences Between the Upper South and North:
“The cultural consciousness of Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky – as it evolved during the antebellum years – was a consciousness of Southernism differentiated as to standards and ideals from the intellectual climate of the north. It lacked the drive for seeking positive solutions but possessed a feeling of kinship with other areas of Dixie where such a drive was developing. In the Upper South the cult of chivalry was intense; here the demand for a distinctly Southern literature was sustained; here the belief that local ideals contrasted sharply with the gold-grasping North was cherished.
Once during the Civil War, the Albany (New York) Evening Journal taunted the refusal of General [John B.] Hood to accept money raised for him by popular subscription, with the comment, “Hood can’t be of the full-blooded chivalry…[This] is the first instance we have ever seen recorded of a “Southern Gentleman” too proud or too self-reliant to accept filthy lucre, come from what source it may.”
To this the Petersburg (Virginia) Index replied with heat, “Then you are extremely ignorant of contemporary history – that’s all. Hood has only done what Lee did a dozen times, what Beauregard did, what Magruder did, what Longstreet did, and what no Federal General has done.
Virginia and Kentucky newspapers are rich sources for evidence of the conviction that the people of those States were descendants of noble Normans, possessed of finer sensibilities than the progeny of the Saxons who lived in New England. The Southern Literary Messenger of June, 1860, carried a full-length monograph on this subject under the title, “The Differences of Race Between the Northern People and the Southern People.”
This cultural consciousness, this sense of Southernism as something apart from the civilization of the North, marked the Upper South as a region susceptible to any movement toward Southern nationalism which might come from elsewhere below the Mason and Dixon line. It was the raw material from which participation in a confederacy could be developed. To the south lay the Cotton Kingdom, ever expanding, volatile, energetic, smarting under the attack on its “peculiar institution.” And leading the Cotton Kingdom was the State of South Carolina.”
(Romanticism in the Old South , Rollin G. Osterweis, LSU Press, 1949, pp. 109-110)
Cultural Differences Between the Upper South and North