Breaking News – the 14 Fleebagging AWOL Wisconsin Dems. to be taken into custody

breaking news, being reported now…

Wisconsin Senate approves measure to have 14 Fleebagging AWOL democrat senators who have defected to IL to be taken into custody.

The measure that was just passed says the fleebaggers have been determined to be in contempt and disorderly content.  It instructs the Sergeant At Arms of the State Senate the to use his authority to take ‘any and all steps with or without force to force the senators to return to their duties’.
This is not the same as an arrest, but it is definitely not hand-wringing either.  

I bet Reagan is smiling down kindly on the Scott Walker and the Wisconsin Senators who voted for this measure.  This is what I said needed to happen a week or so ago in my previous post.

The next steps after this would likely be to actually press charges against them leading to their removal.

-kook

WWRD(What Would Reagan Do) about Wisconsin?

We will get to that, but first some background on what has happened in Wisconsin.

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has proposed rolling back state workers’ benefits and their right to collective bargaining to help bridge Wisconsin’s budget deficits. But Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate have fled the state, leaving that chamber short of a quorum, and the state Capitol in Madison has become the site of protests against Walker’s plans. Over 40% of Madison WI public school teachers staged a “Sick Out” day in protest. 

State law prohibits public school teachers from striking. So did Wednesday's "sick-out" by Madison School District teachers constitute an illegal strike?

No, said John Matthews, Madison Teachers Inc. executive director, who called the event "a political action," not a strike.

"They're not protesting against their employers," he said. "The employer had nothing to do with this. This is trying to save public education in Wisconsin."

Madison school officials didn't respond immediately Wednesday to requests for comment.

Peter Davis, legal counsel with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, which administers the state's collective bargaining laws, declined to say whether the action — in which 40 percent of the Madison union's 2,600 members called in sick as of late Tuesday — amounted to a strike since his organization could be called on to make that judgment in any complaint against MTI.

But in general, Davis said, a strike includes any concerted work stoppage by municipal employees, any concerted interruption of operation of services, or any concerted refusal to work or perform normal duties for the purpose of enforcing demands on a municipal employer.

 

So the head of the bloodsucking union says it is not a strike But the law would seem to suggest differently.  Well as I have always said History has the answers:

On August 3, 1981 nearly 13,000 of the 17,500 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) walked off the job, hoping to disrupt the nation's transportation system to the extent that the federal government would accede to its demands for higher wages, a shorter work week, and better retirement benefits.  At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden that same day, President Reagan responded with a stern ultimatum: The strikers were to return to work within 48 hours or face termination.  As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts.  In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration -- a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971.  Nevertheless, 22 unauthorized strikes had occurred in recent years -- by postal workers, Government Printing Office and Library of Congress employees, and by air traffic controllers who staged "sick-outs" in 1969 and 1970.

Negotiations between PATCO and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began in February 1981.  PATCO president Robert Poli demanded an across-the-board wage increase of $10,000/yr for controllers whose pay ranged from $20,462 to $49,229; the reduction of a five-day, 40-hour work week to a four-day, 32-hour work week; and full retirement after 20 years service -- a package with a $770 million price tag. The FAA began work on a contingency plan that would go into effect if a strike occurred.

There wasn't much support for the PATCO strikers.  The public sided with the government and exhibited little sympathy for individuals whose earnings were already well above the national average.   PATCO leaders were hauled off to jail for ignoring court injunctions against a strike.  The Justice Department proceeded with indictments against 75 controllers.  Federal judges levied fines amounting to $1 million a day against the union while the strike lasted. Over 11,000 strikers received their pink slips, while 1,200 went back to work within a week's time.  Morale among the strikers was shaky. "I thought Reagan was bluffing," lamented one controller.  In October the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO.

According to journalist Haynes Johnson, the decisive manner in which Reagan handled the PATCO strike convinced many Americans that he was "the kind of leader the country longed for and thought it had lost: a strong president" -- in sharp contrast to the widely-held view that Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had been too indecisive.  Reagan stressed that he derived no satisfaction from sacking the controllers.  He pointed out that he was the first president to be a lifetime member of the AFL-CIO.  And he was aware that PATCO had been one of the few unions to support his presidential bid.  "I supported unions and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively," he wrote in his memoirs, " but no president could tolerate an illegal strike by Federal employees."

SO…

I think Walker is doing the right thing, and likely not being tough enough.  I am not a lawyer, but what about passing a temporary executive order allowing vouchers so parents could send their children to private schools?  Take the money from the school system and let the parents use it to educate their kids elsewhere. 

This has nothing to do with “Saving Public Education”  this is simple union thuggery.  As for the lawmakers who refuse to return, subpoena’s should be issued and they should be forcibly brought back to the capitol.  Not sure about Wisconsin but that is legal at the federal level.

-KOOK

Weimar Republic 2.0: The Obama Version. The Rentenmark, Glenn Beck, and The Future.

  This is a repost of a post I wrote almost exactly a year ago.  Glenn brought this up again a day or so ago, and I agree that this is all very likely.   Here is what he said on his radio show:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/46725/ 

“PAT: And they seem to be setting up exactly what happened in the Weimar Republic to finally turn that situation around.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: And that's after the hyperinflation, what saved Germany? They valued land. They went to a land standard and that's what -- they burned the rest of the money and they based it all on land and what is the Federal Government doing here now? But taking over all our property.

GLENN: They're taking the property. They're --

PAT: 98% of all new mortgages.

GLENN: They've got all -- 98% of all new mortgages are underwritten by the Federal Government. You will become a renter to the Federal Government. If there's any way you can pay off your house, you should pay off your house. And I know people will say that's nuts, but I'm telling you, you've got to own things, because that is what they did in Weimar. They just took it. I don't know if you're going to be able to keep it. We've never been in this situation before. Very few countries have and none of them have come out the other side. That's how dire this situation is.”

 Who Owns The Land in the United States, what is the Rentenmark?

The United States Government owns 30% of all land in the United States right off of the top (see map).  But more than that, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own half of all outstanding mortgage debt or about $6 Trillion worth.  Harder to get a handle one is how much of the still remaining mortgage debt is owned by banks that by virtue of receiving TARP money are run by the Government.  If the bank that you owe your mortgage payment to is run by the government then your mortgage is basically government owned.   The States also own land, one of the guvernator’s ideas in Caulifornya was to sell State parks to the Fed.  As State budgets get worse there may be more who start to think that is a good idea. I think it would be safe to say that very near 50% of land in this nation is owned by the Feral Government. So? In 1914 Germany abandoned Gold as the backing for their currency (we did it in steps finally abandoning it completely in the seventies) and began printing money based on “Trust” in the Federal Government (like the dollar) this was called the Papeiermark.    After WWI Germany was forced to pay reparations to the rest of Europe.  To pay their debt they printed money…well like we are.  This caused inflation to be so horribly bad… well here was the joke: “Grandma put her money in her grocery basket to go to the store, a mugger stole the basket and left the money.”   Soon this currency was totally worthless (this is what happens when you put your trust in the government). Along came Hjalmar Schacht.  He was basically the Hank Paulson/Tim Geithner  of Germany.  What the Germans did to get their currency under control was to create a new currency, the Rentenmark.  The new Rentenmark currency was based on Real Estate.  Horace Schacht mortgaged all the land owned by Germany and created money with the mortgaged land. He sold the German land.  He mortgaged the house.  He sold the farm.  My personal opinion of Schacht was that he did what he felt he had to do given the situation he was placed in.  It did work, but at what price? So…Germany owned a lot of foreign countries a lot of money…and they printed money as fast as they could…to pay their debt…causing their money to be worthless…so then…because they already owned a lot of the land in the country…they mortgaged all the land they owned…and made new money. Hey wait a minute… we are printing money fast enough to make ink worth more than oil…and we owe foreign countries a lot of money…and our country owns nearly half of land and homes in the country… hmmm Beck mentioned this whole scenario on his show one day a month or so ago and I have read up on it since then. My previous theory was that he would run our debt up so much we would go into a world bankruptcy court and and as a condition of accepting a world currency and losing stature in the world our debt would be written off. Obama would sell a Global Currency and Global Government to the American people by saying that we are so screwed we HAVE to accept the global currency, .  But this is even more plausible. Using this idea it also begins to make sense why we have laws preventing oil drilling even though there is a lot of oil left in our country we are just sitting on.  Ditto for coal mining, and many other resources.  IT MAKES THE LAND WORTH MORE. It has to be something similar to this, because no group of even marginally sane individuals could spend the kind of money they are spending without any thought to what will happen. Not that our politicians are sane. So what is the worst that could happen.  Zimbabwe could happen that is what.  All of the information is readily available so here is what happened in a nutshell. In the 80’s and 90’s despite droughts Zimbabwe had a decent economy.  It was largely agricultural but the country also had large mineral deposits which were lucrative.  They had adequate electricity and transportation was good.  Then the new ruler of the country decided to “spread the wealth around” and take all the land from the producers and give it to local “oppressed” people and the agricultural output fell over 50%. To help the problem the Government created they began to regulate, well, everything. As a result “Atlas Shrugged”  Now they have to buy electricity because they cannot fix their equipment.  Foreign investment is gone.  Interest rates are well north of 200% (fantastic but true) and unemployment is around 80%.  It is the Obama model.  It is the change I believe they believe in.

-Kook

Postal Service Death Throes

So just heard that postage stamps are to go up AGAIN to 46 cents. So tell me, who corresponds via letter anymore? How many still pay bills by mail? I realize many of us receive bills by mail; but is that necessary? All I get in the mail any more are sale bills and credit card offers. Hell, people don't even get their welfare checks anymore they get it on their "benefits card". I have said it before and I will say it again. There is a reason we do not use the pony express: we have the telegraph. There is a reason we do not use the telegraph: Bell invented the telephone. There is a reason we more and more do not use land lines: motorola invented the cell phone. There is a reason we don't light our homes with kerosene: electricity. There is a reason that we don't do wagon trains: passenger trains. There is a reason the government subsidizes amtrac: planes and cars and unions. And there is a reason we keep dragging this dead carcass of a post office behind us: government type unionized jobs. It is not because it is efficient, profitable, well loved, or necessary. It is 18th century technology. Lets put it out of it's misery.



One last thing to think about, in my earliest memory of canned soda they cost 50 cents and a stamp was 22. A can of soda in a machine can still be found for 50 cents.




When I was in high school you could get a double cheese burger fries and a large drink at Mickey D's for $3.16 and a stamp was 28 cents. Two days ago I got a mcdouble small fries and large ice tea for $3.22; stamps cost 44 cents and soon to be 46.

Just something to think about.

UPDATE:  at least one other person agrees with us...http://ladydi-quickwit.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-offices-slow-and-inefficient.html

-Kook
via iPhone

Rahm: The Dead Fish may leave, but his stench will remain

Rahm Emanuel is not going to go anywhere.  Oh, you may not see him, but he will just do a Van Jones. These people never leave, they don’t even go into remission like normal cancerous carbuncles.  They are a much worse malignancy, some sort of mutant festering abscess on the posterior of humanity.  Rest assured there is already a cushy spot somewhere in AcornTidesApolloSorosDNC; in a climate that hates big shot executives who are utter assclown failures using golden parachutes, Rahmbo, Toes, Deadfish, Emanuel will have a Platinum Parachute with a nice cushy landing spot.  He will be leaving the public eye and taking his dead fish and ballet slippers with him somewhere where he can practice his nefarious deeds out of the eyes of men. His Stink, however,  will still be plenty noticeable on many of Obama’s moves and decisions. This will be a PR campaign to suggest that Obama is moving to the center.  A move that will surely piss off the far left looney base even more than the complete failure of their messiah to turn Oil into Seawater.  Nonetheless, when the ship is sinking most times those who can’t perform, throw other dead weight overboard. 
Just my opinion

Update:  apparently they are casting this the other way, that Rahmbo is the level headed one. IF so we just went from The Wizard of Oz to Alice in Wonderland.  If Emanuel was what was providing the sanity around that joint we are going to have a bumpy two more years.  But a glorious 2012.

-KOOK

So what is with Israel anyway?

Israel has figured prominently in the news as of late and I thought it might be a good idea for a bit of a refresher course on why Israel exists, where it is, the ramifications of that, why we should (continue) to support it and also just how small of a place we are talking about.  Suffice it to say that this area has been in turmoil since the beginning of recorded history.

First let’s get some scale on the area we are talking about. 

Here is a map of the Middle East as the borders currently stand.

Saudi Arabia is the big yellow part of the map, is just above that in pink, to the left of Iraq in brown is Syria and below that is Jordan. The little strip in orange to the left of Jordan…That is Israel.

 

 

Israel is a small country. How small?  This should put it in Perspective:   

 

 

 

 

 

To put it as bluntly as possible, Israel is the only philosophical ally the United States has in the region.  The U.S. has economic interests in oil and gas deposits in many of the Muslim countries, and we have to keep a wary eye on the more radical of the Muslim nations for our National Security interests, but Israel is truly a friend to the United States or any western society.  Strategically it is an island of freedom in a vast sea of varying levels of tyranny.  But how did it get there?

Even if you do not believe in the bible as a religious document some weight must be given to it as a historical document so this is what we know:  Jews around the world descended from the ancient Hebrew people of Israel who settled in the land of Canaan, located between the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River about 1451 BC.

The Israelites left the land of Canaan (the land we would most commonly call Israel) during a severe famine and settled in northern Egypt where they were eventually enslaved by the Egyptians. After 400 years of slavery,the Israelites (miraculously) emigrated out of Egypt and returned to their ancestral homeland in Canaan. This

event marks the formation of Israel as a political nation in Canaan, in 1400 BCE.  During the time of King David, Jerusalem became the national and spiritual capital of Israel.  Upon King Solomon’s death a civil war erupted between the ten northern Israelite tribes (creating the Kingdom of Israel), and the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (from which we get the word “Jew”), creating the kingdom of Judah. Together the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were quite a bit larger than modern day Israel. 

The Babylonians (Iraq), Persian (Iran) and Greeks each took turns ruling the area from 586 BC—140 BC.  The Babylonians Conquered Israel and Judah, the Persians conquered the Babylonians and then the Greeks defeated the Persians.  Later,the Greek empire began to crumble and they ceased to control Israel. The Jews actually ruled themselves from 140 BC—64 BC, and were then taken over by the Roman Empire.  Jews were a part of the Roman Slave trade, that, and the all-encompassing nature of the Roman Empire led to the dispersal of the Jews out of Israel and throughout the Roman empire which stretched into northern Europe. 

In the fourth century  Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and it eventually split into a Western Empire and an Eastern Empire. The Eastern Empire, known as the Byzantine Empire, was dominated by the (Greek) Orthodox Church and ruled Palestine/Israel.  In 631, the Arabs defeated Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and conquered the area. Over the next several centuries, Islam became the dominant religion in the region and Various Arab factions ruled it from 636—1099 AD.

During the Crusades, (1099-1291) Christians from Europe invaded the Middle East and  Jews in Israel were massacred and/or sold into slavery. From 1260 to 1291 Israel became the frontier between Mongol invaders and the Egyptians.  Egypt eventually expelled the Mongols and eliminated the last Crusader Kingdom in 1291, thereby ending the Crusades.  In 1453 the Byzantine capital fell to the Ottomans (Turks), signifying the end of Christian rule in the Middle-East.  The Turks ruled the region until the outbreak of WWI.  

By the 19th century, the Land of Israel was populated mostly by Muslim and  Christian Arabs, as well as Jews, Greeks, and other minorities. In 1844 (while still part of Syria and controlled by the Turks), Jews constituted the largest population group in Jerusalem and by 1890 an absolute majority in the city, although as a whole the Jewish population made up far less than 10% of the region

During World War I, the British sought Jewish support in the fight against Germany. This led foreign minister, Lord Balfour creating the Balfour Declaration of 1917, stating that the British Government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"..."it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

When the British conquered the Middle-East in 1917, they created two states, the first called "Palestine" (biblical Philistines) was in an area including modern Israel, the West-Bank and Gaza and Jordan. The second state called "Mesopotamia" was made out of several Ottoman regions around Baghdad. It was later renamed "Iraq".

After World War I, the League of Nations formally assigned the Palestine mandate to the United Kingdom; endorsing the terms of the Balfour Declaration and additionally requiring the creation of an independent Jewish Agency that would administer Jewish affairs in Palestine.  Britain signed an additional treaty with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the mandate.  Following Arab rioting in 1921, the British mandatory authorities enacted a system of immigration quotas to ensure that Jewish immigration did not disrupt Palestine's economy.

Arab attacks on isolated Jewish settlements and British failure to protect the Jews, led to the creation of the Haganah (Defense) a Jewish militia dedicated to defending Jewish settlements. Jewish immigration grew slowly in the 1920s. However, the increased persecution of European Jews by the European Fascist powers (such as the Third Reich) resulted in a marked increase in Jewish immigration. This led to a large-scale Arab rebellion in Palestine from 1936-1939. 

In 1939, fear of massive Jewish migration and a desire for Arab goodwill led Britain to try and end Jewish immigration. The result was the 1939 White Paper which limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next five years and a promise to establish an independent Palestine under Arab majority rule within ten years. Both the Jewish and the Palestinian-Arab leadership rejected the White Paper.

The Second World War left the surviving remnant of Jews in central Europe as refugees; a survey of their ambitions found that 97% wanted to migrate to Palestine.  In September 1947, the UN (UNSCOP) recommended partition in Palestine, a suggestion ratified by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. The result envisaged the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with the city of Jerusalem to be under the direct administration of the United Nations.

Fighting between the Arab and Jewish communities of Palestine began in November 1947, immediately after the UN decision to create a Jewish state. The Arab States declared they would greet any attempt to form a Jewish state with war.  Arab League members Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq declared war and announced their rejection of the UN partition decision. They claimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs of Palestine over the whole of Palestine. Saudi-Arabia and Sudan also sent forces. When the fighting resumed, Israel gained the upper hand.

 

In March 1949, after many months of battle, a permanent ceasefire went into effect and Israel's interim borders, later known as the Green Line, were established. At the end of the war, Egypt remained in occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed the "West Bank" and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City. Jordan and Egypt did not establish an independent state for Palestinian Arabs and made no effort to facilitate the establishment of Palestine. In 1950 the Knesset passed the Law of Return which granted all Jews and those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses, the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship. From 1948 to 1958, the population rose from 800,000 to two million.

In 1956 Egypt blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, and closed the Suez canal to Israeli shipping. The canal was then nationalized, to the dismay of its British and French shareholders. In response, France and the United Kingdom entered into a secret agreement with Israel to take back the canal by force.

In accordance with this agreement Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula in October 1956. Israeli forces reached the Suez canal and then French and British forces stepped in on the pretext of restoring order.

On June 5, 1967, the Israeli air force launched pre-emptive attacks defeating(almost successively) Egypt, Jordan and Syria. By June 11 the Arab forces were routed and all parties had accepted the cease-fire called for by UN Security Council Resolutions 235 and 236.  Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the formerly Jordanian-controlled West Bank of the Jordan River. East Jerusalem was immediately annexed by Israel and its population granted Israeli citizenship.

On November 22, 1967, the Security Council adopted Resolution 242, the "land for peace" formula, which called for the establishment of a “just and lasting” peace based on Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 in return for the end of all states of belligerency, respect for the sovereignty of all states in the area, and the right to live in peace within secure, recognized boundaries. The resolution was accepted by both sides, though with different interpretations, and eventually provided the basis for peace negotiations.

In September 1970  the King of Jordan drove the Palestine Liberation Organization out of his country. On 18 September 1970 Syrian tanks invaded Jordan, intending to aid the PLO. At the request of the USA, Israel moved troops to the border and threatened Syria, causing the Syrians to withdraw.  The center of PLO activity then shifted to Lebanon, where the 1969 Cairo agreement gave the Palestinians autonomy within the south of the country.

The Yom Kippur War (also known as the October War) began on October 6, 1973 (the Jewish Day of Atonement), the holiest day in the Jewish calendar and a day when adult Jews are required to fast. The Syrian and Egyptian armies launched a well-planned surprise attack against the unprepared Israeli Defense Forces. For the first few days there was a great deal of uncertainty about Israel's capacity to repel the invaders, however the Syrians were repulsed and, although the Egyptians captured a strip of territory in Sinai, Israeli forces had in turn crossed the Suez Canal and were 100 kilometers from Cairo.

Following the war, both Israelis and Egyptians showed greater willingness to negotiate. On January 18, 1974, a peace agreement was signed with the Egyptian government, and on May 31 with the Syrian government.

On the international scene, the war led the Saudi Government to initiate the infamous oil embargo of the 1970’s, in conjunction with OPEC, against countries trading with Israel. In November 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat broke 30 years of hostility with Israel by visiting Jerusalem at the invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. This created a new  era of good feelings in the Middle East making peace seem possible. Sadat recognized Israel's right to exist and established the basis for direct negotiations between Egypt and Israel.

In September 1978, Jimmy Carter invited President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin to meet with him at Camp David, and they agreed on a framework for comprehensive peace in the Middle East.  Sadat was then assassinated in 1981 by Islamic fundamentalist members of the Egyptian army who opposed peace with Israel.

On September 13, 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed a Declaration of Principles to begin the establishment of a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on September 28, 1995. The agreement was opposed by Hamas and other Palestinian factions which launched suicide bomber attacks at Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu continued their implementation, but the Peace Process began to bog down.  In January 1997 Netanyahu signed the Hebron Protocol with the Palestinian Authority, resulting in the turnover of civilian authority in much of the area to the Palestinian Authority.

In the Fall of 2000, talks were held at Camp David to reach a final agreement on the Israel/Palestine conflict. The Israeli faction agreed to most of the Palestinian points; however, Arafat abandoned the talks without making a counterproposal.  The failure of the peace process, increased Palestinian terrorist activity, and occasional attacks by Hezbollah from Lebanon led much of the Israeli public and political leadership to lose confidence in the Palestinian Authority as a peace partner. Most felt that many Palestinians viewed the peace treaty with Israel as a temporary measure only. Many Israelis were thus anxious to disengage from the Palestinians.

In December 2003, Ariel Sharon announced he would consider a unilateral withdrawal from parts of the occupied territories creating a plan for total withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.  In 2005, all Jewish settlers were removed from Gaza. Following the withdrawal, Israeli communities near the frontier became subject to constant rocket and bomb attacks from Gaza. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was interpreted by the Palestinians as a Hamas victory and the January Palestinian legislative election, 2006 was won by Hamas, which rejected all agreements signed with Israel, refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, and claimed the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy.

In 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president of Iran; since then, Iranian policy towards Israel has grown more confrontational. It is believed that Ahmadinejad has worked to undermine the peace process with arms supplies and aid to Hezbollah in South Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and is developing nuclear weapons, possibly for use against Israel. Iranian support for Hezbollah and its nuclear arms program are in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1747. Iran also encourages Holocaust denial.

Following the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah had mounted periodic attacks on Israel which did not lead to Israeli retaliation. Similarly, the withdrawal from Gaza led to incessant shelling of towns around the Gaza area with only minimal Israeli response.

Which brings us to the Blockade by Israel of the Palestinians in Gaza.  Israel is blockading Gaza to prevent Turkey, Iran, Syria, and others from shipping weapons to the Palestinians, which would enable them to continue to fire rockets and missiles into Sovereign Israeli territory not currently in any dispute.  Israel has agreed to allow Egypt to inspect aid shipments to Gaza to ensure that there are no weapons on board.  Egypt does not want to support the Palestinians.  This peace flotilla is a bunch of nonsense.  IF they were only supplying aid then they would consent to either Israeli or Egyptian searches.  But they are using this as a PR stunt to force Israel’s hand.

-KOOK

Puerto Rico, Estado Numero Cincuenta Uno, Segunda Parte

  Like that title? I am just practicing, trying to remember my Espanol.

So, Following up on Yesterday’s Post,  Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters, the House voted In Favor, including 50 of our closest allies  (Distance is relative, remember, Mars is the next closest planet to earth but still a long long… long way from us) the Republicans, to ‘reaffirm’ Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  A right they have had for six decades now. Let me be clear® I am not against Puerto Rico becoming a State, not if that is really what the People IN –IN-Puerto Rico want.  Heck, it looks like it would be just an abs-o-lutely fantastic place to visit: The article below is actually from a LeftStreamMedia Source and it almost tells the whole story, of course without any outrage over the bills most ridiculous affront to common sense and ethics to come out of Washington, well in at least the last 24 hours:

Bitter debate ensues as House approves bill that could move Puerto Rico to statehood

  The House on Thursday approved a bill that could move Puerto Rico to statehood - exposing a rare and bitter rift between New York members from the island territory.

Bronx Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano ( THIS GUY is one of the worst, he is the one that always pushes the bill to remove presidential term limits) backed the measure, calling it a vital step to ending colonial rule, even as his usual ally, Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Brooklyn) blasted it as a "disgrace," "shameful" and "appalling." (thank you for that, Nydia)

The measure offers Puerto Rico - a U.S. territory for 112 years - a two-step vote.

The first would ask whether Puerto Ricans -

including those living in the States - like the current territorial commonwealth status or if they want change.

If the vote is for change, a second vote would ask what change they want.

"For the first time in 112 years, the Congress of the United States will ask the 4 million American citizens (A huge Liberal Voting Bloc) in Puerto Rico what they wish their relationship to the United States to be," said Serrano.

Velazquez and Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel, whose father was Puerto Rican, said the measure was a backdoor move to a statehood vote on the island that has failed three times in the past. –OH MY GOD, Charlie Rangel said something bordering on common sensical…  I expect to see unicorns any moment now…

"It is baffling that the statehood option, which lost in 1967, in 1993 and again in 1998, is now allowed to scheme its way to victory," Velazquez said.

Before the debate, the bill had offered three options for change: statehood, independence or an independent "free association" like three other former U.S. territories.

Velazquez argued that if keeping the current status was no longer on the ballot, statehood - always the second choice in the past - would win by default.

She favors a Puerto Rican constitutional convention.

Velazquez managed to win an amendment to add keeping the status quo to the choices.

"We restored some fairness to a badly flawed process," she said.

Still, Serrano was so pleased he wielded the final gavel, hammering it down with a wide smile.

mmcauliff@nydailynews.com

 

Arriba La Raza! Viva La Reconquesta!

-KOOK

Women to Start Serving on Submarines.

FOXNews.com - Women to Start Serving on Submarines, but Not Everyone's On Board

Read the whole article here.  I am not a misogynist, or a bigoted sexist.  Women can and do perform 99% of all jobs in the world as well as men, and the opposite is true as well.  But I feel this is a severely ill conceived, bad, idea, below are some excerpts from the article.

Another exclusive "men's club" is about to go coed: The U.S. Navy will soon allow women to serve on submarines…

Quotas and basically Affirmative action, which I am always against.

…But now, with the introduction of its new Trident guided missile submarines -- subs as large as the defensive ballistic missile submarines but outfitted to carry out offensive missions -- the Navy says it finally will be able to offer women both privacy and a viable career path.  (-because the Navy is here for you, not the other way around)

85 Mk VII Mod 0 Torpedoes …Check

5000 rounds ammo ball type .30 Ca….check

128 MkII Mod 3 Life Preserver Orange….check

3 Officer, Junior Grade, Female…check

Just one more piece of standard equipment.  “Well captain we have almost all of the staff figured out, but we still need to fill the ship’s  standard complement of women”  And once those three are on board, If I were a woman I think I would always wonder ‘am I here because I was good, or because they needed three females per boat?’

Because a junior officer's room was designed to bunk three people, the Navy plans to admit three women -- two junior officers and a senior officer -- onto each of its eight Trident submarine crews by January 2012.

They will have to share a bathroom with nine men, but the Navy says the crew will use a simple reversible sign to indicate who is using the facilities, enabling both sexes to get the privacy they demand. No modifications required.

…The Navy hopes the penalties for "fraternizing" -- ranging from fines to dismissal and two years' confinement – will ease some of those concerns.

…One issue [the navy] is dealing with is whether the policy will carry over to the enlisted ranks, where more than 80 sailors, some as young as 17, sleep nine to a room and share two bathrooms.

"To bring women enlisted on board we'd actually have to make modifications to the ship," he said. "I can't tell you exactly what they would be, because although we're beginning to look at this, we really haven't gone far enough down the road to determine which submarines we're going to put them on and how we're going to make sure they have privacy."

The Navy says it isn't having a problem meeting its recruitment goals for enlisted sailors, so it has time to explore the issue. And it sees no better starting point than admitting female officers…

It is just simply not a smart idea.  Who does it really benefit? 24 women in the entire Navy?  Does it really increase the Navy’s capacity? I smell a rat, there is a politician at the bottom of this somewhere.

Ladies, I love you, and I value your contributions, and I am prepared to be yelled at for this… So go ahead

-KOOK

Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters

Ok, here is the quick and dirty History of Puerto Rico.  Puerto Rico lies nestled right between Haiti/Dominican Republic and the British Virgin Islands.  It is in the same island chain as Cuba.  To get it in your mind right, Cuba is closest, then then Haiti/Dominican and then Puerto Rico.

 

Christopher Columbus landed on the island, which was inhabited by Amerindian Natives, in 1493 on his second voyage and claimed it for Spain.  Spain had it as a colony until the Spanish American war, in 1898 the United States invaded.  The US got Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris.  They began their relationship with the US as a territory governed my Martial Law, two years later moved to mostly self governed using systems virtually identical to a State’s, In 1917 all the inhabitants became citizens of the US, they began having popular elections of representatives and gained a US style Judicial system, Under Truman they got a regularly elected governor and other trappings of statehood including non voting representatives in DC, this had the effect of changing its’ status from Territory to Commonwealth or “Free Associated State”.  All of this was paving the way for a vote for statehood, currently three different plebiscites or votes have been taken by the people and all three have failed to win enough votes to make Puerto Rico our 51st state.

Why?

Well it probably has a lot to do with getting something for nothing.  To put it another way, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?  They have all of the benefits of statehood, with fewer taxes. 

Enter The Zero Regime…

There is a bill up for vote today to support Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  This is on the face of it, nonsense.  Puerto Rico already has that right and has expressed itself three times to remain as it is.  BUT, just like Yesterday’s post on Amnesty and Illegal Immigration, granting Puerto Rico Statehood would win many many Liberal Progressive voters.

You doubt it?

The UN is heavily involved in the push for a change in Puerto Rico’s status.     From 1952 to 2007, Puerto Rico had three political parties which stood for three distinct future political scenarios. The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) seeks to maintain the island's "association" status as a commonwealth, and has won in referendums on the island's status held over six decades since coming under U.S. control.  The New Progressive Party (PNP) (catchy isn’t it?) seeks statehood. The Puerto Rican Independence Party seeks independence.

The real clincher on this one is this:  apparently in the bills that will follow this “nonbinding” vote today is a provision to allow people born in Puerto Rico but currently living in the continental US to vote on Puerto Rico’s status.  Read it again, a US citizen, born in Puerto Rico but currently living in, say, Illinois, will be able to vote in the self determination vote for Puerto Rico.

According to the latest estimates 70%  of Puerto Ricans cannot speak English passably, and many many of the recent immigrants TO Puerto Rico have been from Central America including Venezuela and Colombia and also from Cuba. 

Now ask yourself, in a Liberal House and Senate do you think, for an instant that if Nasty Pelotox and Dingy Harry and Chairman Zero thought that the people of Puerto Rico would:

a) Vote for statehood on their own without stacking the deck and;

b) vote in any way Conservative Republican or Libertarian after gaining statehood

They would a) stack the deck and b) want there to be a vote?

So here is what I think they are up to regarding Puerto Rico, it all seems to make some sense, They have this vote to affirm Puerto Rico’s right to Self Determination.  Puerto Rico already has a constitution, a popularly elected government, follows all federal regulations, and its’ populace are all citizens.

The Current Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,  and Governor are all members of this “New Progressive Party” (although actually claim to align themselves with Republicans, lending more credence to the crazy notion that Parties really do not matter), once this sham vote takes place in congress, they will call another referendum, although this time allow anyone born in Puerto Rico no matter where they reside (or actually probably no matter if they were born in Puerto Rico or not) to vote.  Then, because there are already delegates in Congress, they will immediately ask to be seated and BLAMMO we have a 51st state.  Then these so called republicans will decide they will caucus with the Liberals and Bingo, we are back to a filibuster proof super majority. 

Heck- they might just do it without resorting to a vote.  Congress votes in a nonbinding agreement that Puerto Rico has the right to self determination, and bang the delegates are seated as senators and representatives.  Sew another star on the flag boys and girls…

So take Amnesty for Illegals, throw in Puerto Rico, and what do you have…the re-election of the most rapidly unpopular president in history to a second term.

Puerto Rico: One Step Closer to 57.  next up, Guam, American Samoa, and the  US Virgin Islands …no really…click the link.

There is a bill pending Senate approval in the United States Congress that would authorize the United States Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa

ISNT THAT NICE?

Viva La Reconquesta! Arriba La Raza!

-KOOK

History Channel's "The Story of Us" and Irony

I watched the first episode of this great documentary series on the history channel tonight. It covered events leading up to the revolutionary war and it dovetails nicely with a couple of books I recently read. I find it very ironic that an otherwise entertaining and excellent series covering information that should be required material for every citizen of this country was introduced/prefaced by a man that apparently has little understanding of, or reverence for, the material itself. The series was introduced by none other than his one-ness, The pResident, chairman zero.

Secondly, does anyone else find it odd that a sitting president is endorsing a History channel documentary like Marlin Perkins hawking Mutual of Omaha insurance? What is next, selling an energy drink or some sportswear?

Maybe he should watch it instead of reading a TelePrompTer script of what one of his handlers thought a true blue USA loving American would say... You know what a good President would have actually felt and thought...

-Kook
via iPhone

Andy Stern to Resign as SEIU Head

  

Via and with a big H/T to: Reaganite Republican  I don’t visit the Reaganite often enough.  Was perusing this morning and caught this: 

The disturbingly influential head of the Purple People Beaters is planning to step-down (in 2012), according to Politico- this of course comes as a surprise, right at the peak for this power-hungry rabble-rouser .  Strange it is... so what's he up to?- best to keep an eye on this one

Reaganite Republican: Andy Stern to Resign as SEIU Head

Left this as a comment, and it sums up my opinion.

  It is not likely that Stern is going to be given a MORE high profile position. The reason he is probably moving/changing is because he has been shown to be too HIGH profile already. These people do their work in the weeds under the cover of darkness, A la Van Jones.  They cannot stand the sunlight. He has been caught out in the sun and widely reported as being the most frequent visitor to Chairman Zero's throne room. He is just going to go back underground. He may be moved to a liberal policy think thank, or may be called back to the mother ship at the Soros Foundation, or create a new evil organization.  That is what they do. Old Hippie Rabble Rousers never die they just create new organizations and rebrand themselves. That is what they have done since the sixties.

-KOOK

Eric Holder: Obama’s deranged Idiot cousin.

Via FOX News, H/T to Musings of a Vast Right-Winger

Usama bin Laden (I don’t know why but it irritates me when they spell it Usama.  Usama/Osama who cares?  Spelling it with a “U” seems to be the “friendlier” thing to do or something) will never be captured alive, Attorney General Eric Holder told lawmakers on Tuesday. "The possibility of capturing him alive is infinitesimal," Holder said. "He will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. ... The possibility simply does not exist."

[SNIP] Republicans … suggested he intends to treat terrorism suspects as "common criminals." Holder said such suggestions tend to "get my blood boiling," calling them "anything but the truth."

He said the "apt" comparison is to mass murderers like Charles Manson, …Trying to  explain the analogy, Holder said mass murderers like Manson still reserve the right to go before a jury and have the charges against them proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "In some ways I think they're comparable people, in some ways," Holder said.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Tex., called that response "incredible." "This is where the disconnect between this administration in your mindset is so completely opposite that of where the vast majority of the American people are," Culberson said. "This is war, and in a time of war we as a nation have never given Constitutional rights to foreign nationals, enemy soldiers, certainly captured overseas."

[snip] As for the Charles Manson analogy, Holder said he was simply trying to think of a mass murderer. [Snip] "The comparison is between people who have committed the most heinous acts and have been charged in [civilian] courts."

  Still, Culberson found the Charles Manson analogy ill-advised. "By granting Usama bin Laden the right to appear in a U.S. courtroom, you are clothing Usama bin Laden with the protections of the U.S. Constitution," he said.

[Snip] Holder may be the first U.S. official to say unequivocally that bin Laden will never be captured alive, but he is not the first to raise such a possibility. In October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said bin Laden may never be captured, adding that capturing or killing the Al Qaeda leader would be "very difficult." "It's a big world," he told USA Today. "There are lots of countries. He's got a lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him and I just don't know whether we'll be successful. Clearly, it would be highly desirable to find him."

The biggest reason he will not be taken alive they left unsaid.  We are not really looking for him and he will die of old age, someday. For heaven’s sake it's been 9 years and you're telling me that if the United States really, really, wanted this guy we would not have found him?

Holder is effin delusional, just like the pResident, and it speaks to Obama's mindset as well. This obvious moonbat would have probably tried to prosecute the Japanese for Pearl Harbor- AT LEAST they attacked a Military Base, not Civilians in offices.  Charlie Manson, an apt comparison?  Manson was responsible for 8 murders, not thousands, and not acts of war. Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on The WTC, The Pentagon, and just where do you think the other plane was going? (hint) 

  No, an apt comparison between Osama and someone else would be Hitler, or one of the top people of the SS, rounding up and killing people for being Jewish.  No wonder they don’t see the Hamas or Hezbollah as big deals, they are just firing rockets into civilian homes, that is kinda like what Billy Ayers did isn’t it?

I used to believe Osama was dead, now I am open to the possibility that he is still alive, but we are not looking for him.  And to quote Rumsfield...that pisses me off as well, We HAD HIM (here is another better account) and he let turf warfare and political considerations get in the way.

If I had my way we would capture his skinny ass, take him to ground zero and give him to a pack of wild starving hogs....

or better yet just simply shoot him where we find him so dickheads like Holder can't sing effin Kum Ba Ya with him.

-KOOK

D.C. Hell on Earth. DemonPass in; Constitution out.

Nuff' said.


-Kook
via iPhone

Voices from the past, speaking to our present

"Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In full enjoyment of the gifts of heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law. But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions...to make the rich
richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of our society -the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time or the means of securing political favors to themselves have the right to complain of the injustices of their government.

There are no necessary evils of government.

Its evils exist only in its abuses."

Those are the words 'ol Hickory, Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States, spoke during his veto of the charter of the Second National Bank, which came back bigger and worse as our current Federal Reserve.

Two quick points:

1. Jackson knew that a bank that was basically above the laws of the land would only work to serve the interests of the captains of industry and more importantly and ominously the nuveau aristocracy of the political class. It, the 2nd National Bank, was heavily in the business of buying off congressmen and using it's extreme special interest influence to pick winners and losers. This should sound eerily familiar.

2. These words also have a broader implication. They speak to the injustice of a government that attempts social engineering. In this case it was to tilt the playing field towards the new aristocracy of the government and the big businesses. In our current situatuon it is to destroy any semblence of wealth to give entitlements out as bribes and payoffs...to tilt the playing field towards the aristocracy of the political class in government.

Same deal, been going on for over two hundred two thousand years.



-Kook
via iPhone

This is a story nearly as old as time itself

It really all comes down to who knows better.  It is the same story that most of you are familiar with as being told by Braveheart.  The Scots-Irish is the culture that more than any other begat the USA.   It goes way, way back to the time of the Romans several years before Christ’s birth, but really takes off not long after his death.  The Roman army conquered the south end of England but was never able to really take the north because there were crazy people up there who fought like madmen and painted themselves blue, they were called Picts.  They refused to bend a knee to a far away authority.  Their culture was based on family ties, personal honor, and leadership was only accepted after it had been earned.  Allegiance was to the most local level.  In AD 122 Hadrian began construction of a wall between the ‘civilized’ part of the island and the wild north. Kings tried again and again for literally hundreds of years to bring these ‘savages’ into line.  They burned whole towns, slaughtered them in droves but never, eva, eva, won.  These people had freedom hard wired into their DNA.  The Scottish ‘nobles’ eventually were bought off and became ‘civilized’ to the British way of thinking, but still the people themselves never submitted.  They did not view allegiance the same way as the Brits. The British view was of wealth and property, poor people owed their allegiance to their rich ‘betters’.  Scotsmen knew in their hearts every man, prince or pauper, was free, and as stated before their allegiance was to their Kin, then their Clan, then their neighbor clan. They were not isolationists like the gypsies, did not have a class caste system like the rest of Europe, and they freely intermarried with other groups, who then became Scots.  This is what we think of as  a “grassroots” organization now. Their religious affiliation was Protestant and they were some of the first.  The Brits had always also had difficulty with the Irish, for differing but similar reasons.  They decided getting the Scots to move into Ireland would allow them to take both Ireland and Scotland in time.  Bad plan.  Many Scots moved to Ireland in the Ulster Plantation under a colonization plan dreamt up by the Brits.  Soon the Irish and the Scots were fighting each other…when they weren’t both killing the English.  The Irish and the Scots had similar views on Freedom, but differing views on Religion.  Then the first colonization of North America began.  Some Scots-Irish left Ulster to come to the “new world”  with the Puritans thinking they too could have religious freedom, and to their way of thinking they were protestants just like the Puritans.  Not true.  The Puritans idea of religious freedom was that everyone should be ‘free’ to worship as the Puritans did (Everyone was entitled to their opinion, as long as it was the Puritan opinion).



  Scots again refused to be assimilated, and were pushed further west into the Appalachian mountains, which was similar to throwing Brer Rabbit into the Briar Patch.  More Scots came and they stayed in the Mountains, moving South all the while. They intermarried and had lots and lots of little Scots-Irish babies (up to 40% higher birthrates than other immigrants at the time).  Ohio was opened for settlement and by this time the Native Americans or “Indians” were wise to this tide of white men and so began killing of the more gentrified of the English settlers…  The aristocracy in Britain thought they knew just the people to send over to make the Indians lives rough…the Scots.  They sent Scotsmen literally by the boatload to cheap land on the wild western frontiers as as a buffer between “Civilization”  and the “Indians”.  The Scots did as predicted and more.  The Scots kept coming, causing at least one wealthy landowner in England to lament (paraphrasing) “why are we letting them move if it is only so that they can have a better life, how does that profit us?” because he was losing too many tenants on his vast landholdings. The Scots kept pushing the Indians, and still managed to cause problems with their more ‘enlightened, wealthy, and civilized betters’  When the American Revolution began many in England saw it as nothing more than just one more Scottish rebellion, some called it exactly that.  The vast majority of the Scots stayed out of the fray until the English using their typical bullying tactics that had so enraged Scotsmen for eons, really went too far.  Then buckskin Scots came down out of the hills near Kings Mountain and destroyed an entire British Loyalist force 10 to 1.  Then they did it again at Cowpens, which the Brits never recovered from, ending in their defeat at Yorktown.  The Scots refused to bend a knee, and the USA was born. Down through the ages, the Scots-Irish CULTURE, meaning not only those people descended from the Scots, but also those who became culturally inseparable from the Scots,  have fought in more battles and done more to defend Freedom than any other group of people.  They have given us most of our  presidents (61%), many of our founding fathers were Scotsmen by birth or culture.

 
   The battle is the same today in the 21st century. The Puritans, the Elite, Our Betters, the Democrats, the proponents of European Socialism believe they know better than us.  Us, of the Mountains of Appalachia, the Carolinas, descendents of the first settlers of Ky, TN, TX, AR, and the Missouri Ozarks and all points West.  Our ancestors were at the forefront of the frontier and settled the West because no one else was tough enough, crazy enough restless enough to do it.  They were always fighting and moving to try to keep their individual freedoms, to be LEFT ALONE.  Today we are called Hillbillies, Rednecks, Rubes, Hicks, Uneducated and Unenlightened.  We are the faceless ignorant electorate, “those People” in the “Flyover”.  What we really are is the Poor but Proud, the  Entrepreneurs, The self made men and women  who frickin run this country, just like our ancestors.

You. Are. Not. Our. Rulers.

-KOOK