BROWN TIMELINE

BROWN TIMELINE
The President and Crew put a lot of pressure on events in Ferguson, some would argue causing a boiling kettle to boil over. The following timeline draws heavily from Newsweek, however I have filled in the details from other sources. Feel free to share.


AUGUST 9th
While driving a police SUV, Wilson encounters Brown and a friend of Brown walking down the street about midday. Accounts differ but witnesses agree there was a confrontation and Wilson fired multiple shots at Brown, killing him. Autopsies found that Brown had been shot at least six times.

Aug. 12th
President Barack Obama calls for reflection and promises a U.S. Justice Department investigation. Brown's father urges an end to the violence.

Statement by the President on the Passing of Michael Brown:

"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time.  As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed.  I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding.  We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.  Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."

Aug. 14th
After complaints of heavy-handed police tactics, Governor Jay Nixon puts the Missouri Highway Patrol in charge of security, led by Captain Ron Johnson, an African-American from the area. Protests are boisterous but peaceful.

This is PRIOR to the release of the name of Officer Wilson...

Nixon says the security will be overseen by Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Johnson, who is black, said he grew up in the community and "it means a lot to me personally that we break this cycle of violence."

FROM KCTV-5:

"Johnson said the community, state and even the nation "are looking for law enforcement leadership that serves the citizens," and every interaction with citizens will be done with the utmost of respect. "I understand the anger and fear that the citizens of Ferguson are feeling, and our police officers will respect both of those," Johnson said. Nixon promised a "different tone" in dealing with protests and issues in the coming days than has been seen. "We need to dim that acceleration," he said.

He said one way toward doing that is to expeditiously release the name of the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown Jr., while ensuring the officer receives proper security protection.
"I would hope that the appropriate release of that name with the security around it to make sure thatthere is no additional of violence be done as expeditiously as possible," he said. "I think it would be an important milestone here to get that out as expeditiously as possible."

Aug. 15th
Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson identifies Wilson as the officer who shot Brown. Jackson releases security video of a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store minutes before the shooting that shows Brown shoving a store clerk. Jackson says later that Wilson's stop of Brown was unrelated to the robbery.

Aug. 16th 
Gov. Nixon declares a state of emergency and sets a curfew.

From Washington Times: 

"Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon pleaded for peaceful protests in Ferguson ahead of the grand jury’s announcement later this evening on whether Officer Darren Wilson will be indicted for the shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown. “Our shared hope and expatiation is that people on all sides show tolerance, mutual respect and restraint,” Mr. Nixon said. “Together we are all focused to make sure that the necessary resources are at hand to protect lives, to protect business and to protect free speech,” he said.

“As part of our ongoing efforts to plan and be prepared for any contingency, it is necessary to have these resources in place in advance of any announcement of the grand jury’s decision,” Mr. Nixon said in a press release last week. “We will protect your right to peacefully assemble and speak your mind … But turning violent and damaging property will not be tolerated,” Mr. Slay said."

Aug. 17th 
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder orders the Justice Department to conduct its own autopsy on Brown. Gunfire rings out during protests and police disperse demonstrators with tear gas.

From Reuters:

"The autopsy report, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and published on its website, suggested Brown sustained a gunshot wound to the hand from close range and came as a grand jury considered whether Wilson should face charges. "The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling," Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.

"Since the release of the convenience store footage there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case," Iverson added, referring to the Ferguson police department's release of video shortly after the shooting that showed a robbery at a nearby convenience store, although it did not specifically link Brown at the time to the footage.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed frustration with local officials investigating the incident as the Justice Department also conducts a federal investigation, according to a department official. In a meeting with Justice Department lawyers on Wednesday, Holder said he was "exasperated" by the "selective flow of information coming out of Missouri" and called the leaks "inappropriate and troubling," the official said."

Aug. 18th 
Nixon lifts the curfew and sends the National Guard to Ferguson. The Brown family releases results of a private autopsy

Aug. 20th 
A St. Louis County grand jury begins hearing evidence

Aug 23rdFerguson Protester Confronts Jesse Jackson: "When You Going To Stop Selling Us Out?"

In a video obtained by the website Western Journalism, Jesse Jackson is stopped and confronted by at least two protesters at a McDonalds in Ferguson, Missouri who criticize his lack of involvement on the ground and his position in the black community. The protesters were talking through the passenger window of a car as Jackson was being chauffeured around.

"You've been marching all day long? We haven’t seen you marching all day long. Are you going to pay the bond of those brothers that’s been locked up?" the man asked Jackson "Are you marching today with us, or are you just going to sit in the car?" another man said. "We ain't seen you," the first man said. "When you going to stop selling us out, Jesse? We don’t want you here in St. Louis. When you going to stop selling us out, Jesse?" Jackson remained silent throughout the ordeal.

Opportunist Jesse Jackson Asks For Donations In Ferguson, And Protesters Have None Of It

Whenever any race-related incident happens anywhere in America, you can be sure that The Reverend Jesse Jackson will soon show up.And show up he did in Ferguson, Missouri. The founder of Rainbow/PUSH coalition got on the bullhorn to speak with protesters… until they just about ran him out of town.According to reports and from witnesses on Twitter, Jackson asked protesters for donations for his church. This may be a new low for Jesse Jackson. Maybe he should save his pandering for a more appropriate setting."

Aug 26th
Michael Brown buried, Al Sharpton presides at funeral

From Talking Points Memo:

"Rev. Al Sharpton delivered a nuanced eulogy Monday at the funeral for Michael Brown, a fiery speech that was one part a critique of overzealous policing and one part a candid commentary on problems in the black community. Quick: Which part do you think Fox News played up?

Never mind that there was plenty in Sharpton's stemwinder that should have pleased Fox's biggest star, Bill O'Reilly, who for years has harangued black people to eradicate what he deems as social and cultural ills in their community.

"Blackness has never been about being a gangster or thug," Sharpton said in the eulogy for the 18-year-old who was killed by a white police officer earlier this month in Ferguson, Mo. "Blackness was no matter how low we was pushed down, we rose up anyhow." He continued with that theme, even denouncing what he described as "ghetto pity parties."

Sharpton:
Blackness was never surrendering our pursuit of excellence. It was when it was against the law to go to some schools, we built black colleges and learned anyhow. When we couldn't go downtown to church we built our own AME church, and our church of God and Christ. We never surrendered, we never gave up, and now we get to the 21st century, we get to where we got some positions of power. And you decide it ain't black no more to be successful. Now you wanna be a nigga and call your woman a ho, you lost where you come from.

We've got to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America! Rev. Al, you don't understand what they doin' to us. I understand. But I understand that nobody gonna help us if we don't help ourselves. Sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves won't solve our problems. Sitting around having ghetto pity parties rather than organizing and strategizing and putting our differences aside. Yes, we got young and old. Yes, we got things that we don't like about each other, but it's bigger than our egos. It's bigger than everybody. We need everybody because I'm gonna tell you, I don't care how much money you got, I don't care what position you hold. I don't care how much education you got. If we can't protect a child walking down the street in Ferguson, and protect him, and bring justice, all you got don't matter to nobody but you!

Some conservative commentators picked up on this. The Washington Examiner's Byron York noticed the rhetoric, writing about Sharpton's "serious moral hectoring of black people" in a column published Tuesday. Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, Sharpton's colleague at MSNBC, praised the eulogy, saying that the civil rights leader delivered a "strong statement" to the black community."

Sept. 3th
Nixon lifts the Ferguson state of emergency

Sept. 4th
U.S. Justice Department announces civil investigation of Ferguson police

From STL Today: 

"In a press conference at the Justice Department headquarters, Holder stressed how both his own experience with law enforcement, as well as interactions with Ferguson residents on the Aug. 20 visit, had weighed on the decision to launch the broader investigation. Holder was both praised and criticized for making the trip while tension ran high.

“I think the trip was invaluable for my own perspective to have obtained in a very personal way a sense of what the situation was there, by interacting with residents of Ferguson, by speaking to the investigators who were involved in the ongoing investigation,” Holder said. The Post-Dispatch reported in the wake of the Brown shooting that since 1997, 21 law enforcement agencies around the country — starting with Pittsburgh and ranging from East Haven, Conn., to Los Angeles — have signed consent agreements to improve policing after Justice Department investigations.

Holder has stepped up the pace of investigations of local police, with twice as many as any predecessor, according to the Washington Post. The Post has reported that at least 34 departments are now being investigated. Holder said he did not think Thursday’s announcement would influence St. Louis County’s investigation of the shooting, or the grand jury that has been hearing evidence on it. “One should not draw a connection between what we are doing today and … what the grand jury is considering,” Holder said. “These are separate matters.”

Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump issued a statement saying the family was “encouraged” by the broader, departmental investigation. “We believe that transparency in law enforcement is the only way to build trust in the community, not just in the killing of Michael Brown, but for others who have suffered as well,” the statement said. “That is why we are advocating for the use of body cameras for law enforcement around the country. We can’t have another young man’s life taken amid murky circumstances.”"

Oct 24th
Holder Justice Dept "exasperated" by local probe of shooting

From Reuters:

"The autopsy report, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and published on its website, suggested Brown sustained a gunshot wound to the hand from close range and came as a grand jury considered whether Wilson should face charges. "The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling," Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.

"Since the release of the convenience store footage there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case," Iverson added, referring to the Ferguson police department's release of video shortly after the shooting that showed a robbery at a nearby convenience store, although it did not specifically link Brown at the time to the footage.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed frustration with local officials investigating the incident as the Justice Department also conducts a federal investigation, according to a department official. In a meeting with Justice Department lawyers on Wednesday, Holder said he was "exasperated" by the "selective flow of information coming out of Missouri" and called the leaks "inappropriate and troubling," the official said."

Oct. 23rd
Amnesty International Releases New Ferguson Report Documenting Human Rights Abuses

"Following the initial protests in Ferguson, Missouri sparked by the shooting death of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, Amnesty International USA dispatched a human rights delegation which included observers to monitor the protests and police response.

Today, the human rights organization has released a new report, On the Streets of America: Human Rights Abuses in Ferguson, documenting the human rights concerns witnessed first-hand by Amnesty International while in Ferguson from August 14-22, 2014. The report also outlines a series of recommendations that need to be implemented with regards to the use of force by law enforcement officers and the policing of protests.

This weekend, human rights activists are gathering in St. Louis for Amnesty International USA’s 2014 Midwest Regional Conference.

“What Amnesty International witnessed in Missouri on the ground this summer underscored that human rights abuses do not just happen across borders and oceans,” said Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

“No matter where you live in the world, everyone is entitled to the same basic rights as a human being – and one of those rights is the freedom to peacefully protest. Standing on W. Florissant Avenue with my colleagues, I saw a police force, armed to the teeth, with military-grade weapons. I saw a crowd that included the elderly and young children fighting the effects of tear gas. There must be accountability and systemic change that follows this excessive force.”"

Nov. 11th

Nixon says violence will not be tolerated if demonstrations follow grand jury announcement in Brown shooting.

Nov. 17th

Nixon declares a state of emergency, allowing him to call up National Guard in advance of a grand jury announcement. President Obama tells protesters to "stay the course" 

From Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama told national civil rights leaders he wanted to see protests in Ferguson, Mo., “staying on course” in the lead-up to the highly anticipated grand jury ruling on the fate of police officer Darren Wilson. When Obama met with a group of civil rights activists including Rev. Al Sharpton at the White House on Nov. 5, the day after his party’s defeat in the midterm elections, he expressed his commitment to keeping the protests in Ferguson “on course.”

Sharpton said Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace,” according to the 21st paragraph of a New York Times article.

Ebola Czar: An Odd Choice

We are facing a crisis of epic proportions, and a danger unlike any we have ever seen before. A deadly disease that has never before been seen on American soil is spreading. Fear has consumed the American population, and we have more questions than answers. 

A good start is: where the hell is the Surgeon General? Well, the last one resigned. And right now, we have an ACTING Surgeon General, who also happens to be a career naval officer. His name is Rear Admiral (RADM) Boris D. Lushniak, M.D., M.P.H. Why is this not the man being presented as leading the nations fight against Ebola? Let's be honest here. He's a navy man. And this President and his Administration have been more than hostile to our men in uniform, firing generals who may disagree with administration policy. So it's no surprise the acting Surgeon General has been silenced.

So why hasn't the position been filled you might ask? Simple. Instead of a medical doctor, who has professional experience in educating people and professionals about health care, this President nominated a man who created an organization called "Doctors for Obama" (which later changed it's name to "Doctors for America") and showed signs he intended to turn gun ownership into some sort of mental deficiency, so his nomination was rightly blocked.

The man currently leading the fight against Ebola, CDC Director Tom Frieden, is another policy expert. Remember the fight in NYC over Big Gulp Sodas? Thank Tom Frieden. Tom is such a failure though, someone else has to step up to calm the nation, or whatever the hell it is they are actually trying to do, and the acting Surgeon General, being a loyal American, and a Navy Man, he's out... so what do we do now? An EBOLA Czar! Yes! Another Czar!

But that would be ok, right? As long as we get someone qualified! A doctor! There are tons of great medical professionals in America... this could be a major opportunity to protect our children and families....and....wait....he choose who?

A LAWYER? A FORMER LOBBYIST? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME?!?

Ron Klain has been announced as the Ebola Czar. Klain is as far into the inner Democratic circle as anyone even can be. Associate Council to Bill Clinton in Janet Reno's Justice Department, a Former Chief of Staff to Al Gore, Chief of staff to Joe Biden... He's also been linked to Gen Wesley Clark's campaign, and has been instrumental in the career of John Kerry. Oh, and he lobbied the Government on behalf of Fannie Mae, helping them overcome "regulatory issues"...

Is he a Doctor? Nope. You've heard of Solyndra right? From Wikipedia:

"Klain apparently signed off on President Obama's support of a $535 million loan guarantee for now-defunct solar-panel company Solyndra. Despite concerns about whether the company was viable, Klain approved an Obama visit, stating, 'The reality is that if POTUS visited 10 such places over the next 10 months, probably a few will be belly-up by election day 2012.'"

An odd choice. God help us all.

You don't end racism by becoming a racist...

Hank Aaron spoke to a reporter and said Obama's critics are like the KKK... This is some of the most racists garbage I have ever heard. Do you REALLY think MLK fought for equal rights for blacks so they could be used to stuff white people onto the plantation? 

You do understand that is EXACTLY where most of this comes from, don't you?

Equality is not enough for some. They don't recognize it, they won't acknowledge it. White or black, they simple choose to be identified by the color of their skin, for better or worse, and will use any means necessary to advance their own agenda. Hank's statements epitomize these kinds of people.

A man who spent his whole life fighting for equality as a professional African American athlete during some of the most divisive times the United States has the gall to label everyone who dislikes this President as a hood wearing, cross burning, member of some cracker backwood lynch mob! You're taking two steps back Hank! You don't END racism by becoming a racist.

In Hanks mind, nothing this President has done that qualifies him for criticism. Despite literally CRAMMING policy after policy, order after order, down the gullet of half this country, choking those who occupy the ever dwindling space called 'Middle America'... "just sit back and take it whitey, you've earned it" says Hank.

Let's be clear here. Hank says, "you oppose the President, you're a racist". So who might that be? Since the President is a Democrat, I guess he would be referring to Republicans? The GOP? Conservatives in General?

So just a couple of fun facts here which I hope might educate Hank who is not only a racist, but an ignorant one at that...

HANK, can you name the one member of Congress who was an ACTUAL KKK Member? Robert Bryd. Democrat.

What about Woodrow Wilson? He was a Progressive that showed the first movie in the White House, which was a pro KKK movie.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson gave a State of the Union Speech in which he and the Democrats, who had until that point done everything humanly possible to oppose any manner of civil rights for blacks, including the filibuster of the civil rights act by noted KKK member and long time democrat Robert Byrd... decided that it was time to stop oppressing blacks, and start "helping them"....

It was the birth of the Modern Progressive Movement, known as "The Great Society"... The speech, by Johnson, was lauded by so called 'liberal do-gooders' and marked the beginning of White Guilt... the individual or collective guilt often said to be felt by some white people for the racist treatment of people of color by whites both historically and presently. On this day, Johnson declared unconditional war on poverty in America.

The poverty level under Obama has broken a 50 year record. 50 years of Progressive social policies and we have MORE poor, not less. Progressive policies have done more to hurt the African American than anything the GOP has dreamed up...

Hank Aaron is an racist. And should be dismissed as such. Get your facts right you ignorant ass.

I'd kill for a good night's sleep...

I hope you will forgive my attempt at levity in the title of today's article/rant. What I have to tell you is deadly serious, and I feel the play on words might help you to remember what I am about to say.

There is nothing more important than a good nights sleep, and million's of Americans turn to prescription sleep aids, like Ambien, in order to accomplish this task.

Most users are aware of the common side effects: sleep walking, sleep driving, and even sleep eating. Some of the over the counter sleep aids can even make you itch and tingle and have the opposite intended effect. The more serious and rare side effects are hardly ever discussed, because if you knew about them you would probably find other ways to secure a peaceful slumber.

Meet 26-year-old Air Force veteran Derek Stansberry. On April 27, 2010, Stansberry boarded Delta Flight 273 from Paris to Atlanta. According to press reports, he passed a note to flight attendants that said, "Forgiveme, I fu***d up, I am sorry... My passports and identity are fake... Please let my family know the truth." CNN reports that he wrote he had brought dynamite aboard in his boots and laptop.

He was taken down by Air Marshall's, the plane diverted to Bangor Maine where, fortunately, no explosives were actually found. Stansberry, an Iraq vet, had just moved to Texas with his wife and baby. Mr. Stansberry was acutely psychotic when he was taken into custody. He told FBI agents that he believed that the passengers were talking about him and that he was being followed. He also told the agents that he had taken Ambien.

In 2006, Rhode Island representative Patrick Kennedy drove to Capitol Hill under Ambien's influence to “vote” at 2:45 a.m. He crashed his car. By 2007, such blackouts were becoming so common the FDA issued warnings about the potential of “complex sleep-related behaviors".

Kerry Kennedy, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and former wife of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo suffered a "partial seizure" and swerved into a tractor-trailer, then kept driving. Kennedy told police when she was stopped that she may have confused the Ambien with her daily thyroid med.

The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders recently reported Ambien-associated homicides. "This Brief Report presents 2 cases in which concomitant zolpidem [Ambien] and paroxetine [Paxil] use was associated with uncharacteristic, complex acts of violence for which the individuals in question claimed total or partial amnesia. Neither individual had a history of aggressive behavior before killing his or her spouse; both most likely took more than 5 mg of zolpidem on the nights of their offenses."

So it should come as no surprise to you that the gunmen involved in yesterday's shooting at Ft Hood was diagnosed with PTSD, and was prescribed the prescription sleep aid Ambien. And again I ask you, when are we going to have a serious conversation in this country about how medicated we are, and the damage it is doing?

The side effects of Ambien, listed on WebMD, include: severe Depression, severe confusion, strange and unsettling dreams, hallucination, aggressive behavior, extreme sense of 'well being', nervous, anxious, easily annoyed, loss of ones sense of reality.

Are you LISTENING TO ME!?! We are feeding this to people who are already traumatized by WAR! And we stand by shocked when something bad happens.

The pharmaceutical industry served up more than $250 billion worth of sales last year. Do we need all these drugs? Some of them will absolutely yank you back from the brink of certain death. The rest?

 Well I guess you have to ask, what price are you willing to pay for a good nights sleep? Are you ready to kill for it?

End The Ban

We live in a world where Soldiers, trained in armed combat, are prohibited from carrying a firearm on post. Notice, I didn't say "are not required" as if they have an option. I said "prohibited" as in, not even if they want to. 

One of Bill Clinton's first acts as President after taking office in 1993 was to disarm American servicemen on US Military bases... he then proceeded to GUT the US military (by the way)... closing base after base, forcing senior servicemen into retirement in droves.... no wonder he wanted those bases disarmed.

But this was 20 years ago and the world has changed DRAMATICALLY. Our military installations are now targets for terrorism, and still, our soldiers are disarmed at home.

There are two possible reasons for this. One, the military and government are hiding the truth. A decade of war has left our armed forces filled with people who are mentally damaged and pose a danger to themselves or others. I don't believe that by the way. I think our fighting men and women are still some of the most steel nerved and honorable people on the planet. 'Love the solider' even if you 'hate the war' has always been my motto.

The second possible reason our military installations have remained gun free zones? Perhaps something more sinister... destroying morale and readiness or even opening our military bases up to attack from the inside, something we have in fact seen more and more frequently.

MAYBE the pressure of forcing women into combat roles, allowing serious breaks in unit uniformity like turbans, and corn rows, attacks on Christianity on base, gay and lesbian servicemen, maybe all of that is geared toward increasing the pressure within the ranks, at highlighting differences instead of concentrating on unit cohesion... creating the gas filled room only waiting for a spark... and then, in the gun free zone... everyone becomes a target.

I'm not, by the way, saying gays and women and people who wear turbans SHOULDN'T serve. I'm saying that a time tested tradition in the military is the concept of 'unit cohesion' or 'fighting as one'. When the military becomes a hodge podge of personal differences, you destroy unit cohesion and weaken our fighting forces.

In 2009 Muslim Major Nidal Hassan ambushed his fellow soldiers at Ft Hood, killing 13 and wounding 30 others. As a result, the restrictions on carrying a weapon on base were expanded, and still the base has seen a rash of suicides, and now, another attack.

Ask a solider about his or her rifle. What it means to them, what it symbolizes. And now realize we've got troops at Ft Hood who consider that base to be a COMBAT zone, and we have disarmed them. And we wonder why they are struggling. Mass killings where defenseless soldiers had to stand by and watch their friends murdered.

Time after time after TIME murder sprees occur in GUN FREE ZONES, be it movie theater, public malls, or military base.

So right here. Right now. I issue the call: President Obama, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, if you are true Americans, concerned about the safety and security of the men and women who defend this Nation from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic... end this ban.

Allow our men and women who serve to defend themselves at home. Since we very clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we can do is allow them the tools to protect themselves.

Crimea: Russian Language, Russian Heroes, and Russian Culture

Thousands of ethnic Russians in Crimea are protesting against the new Government in Kiev, pulling that nation towards the West. A lot of Russians still live in Crimea, but they aren't alone. Ethnic Ukrainians live in the north, Russians in the south, and a third group called Tatars in the middle. Historians still aren't exactly clear why Russia gave Crimea away in 1954.

Both Russia and the Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union at the time, and it supposedly had something to do with "strengthening brotherly ties"... but one thing is clear: Russian President Vladimir Putin has no intention of letting that "gift" slip too far from his hands. Russia has staged military drills in districts that border Ukraine, a reminder of Russia's armed power, and interest in the region.

Russian Language, Russian Heroes, and Russian Culture

Parts of Crimea including Sevastopol are described as 'little Russia' and activists there have vowed it will remain so, no matter what happens with the rest of Ukraine.

The demonstrations in Crimea serve to display the broad divide in that region, as well as the rest of Ukraine, as part of the country reaches towards the West, with the other group staunchly Pro-Russian. During protests this week, one group waved Ukrainian flags and shouted "Crimea is not Russia," while the other held Russian flags aloft and shouted "Crimea is Russia".

If for no other reason than pride alone, Putin will not let Ukraine slip from the Russian sphere of influence. In 2005 Putin called the fall of the Soviet Union the "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century". To allow Ukraine to turn to the West would make him no better than Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the Soviet empire’s dissolution in 1991.

Further fueling what can only be called a cultural and political divide in Crimea, when the Soviet Union dissolved, there was a desire by locals for the region to rejoin Russia, but ultimately Ukrainian and Crimean lawmakers intervened and voted to stay in Ukraine.

And don't forget Yalta. In 1945 U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchil (the Allied leaders), and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, met to divide up Europe. That meeting, which laid the groundwork for the Cold War, took place in the Crimean resort of Yalta.

In addition to the historical concerns, there is also the practical issue of the Russian Black Sea Fleet which has called Crimea home for 230 years...Ships and subs based there are just north of Turkey and can reach the Mediterranean to influence the Middle East and the Balkans. 

Sevastopol, the city where the fleet is based, clearly remains significant for Russia. In 2010, Moscow gave Ukraine a good deal on natural gas, partly in exchange for Kiev extending the Russian Navy lease on the base in Ukraine.

But there is another more sinister element to this whole story. The Tatar portion of the Ukrainian population is driving this divide. The Tatar's have an ax to grind with Russia since Stalin ejected them in the 1950's. The Tatar's are of Muslim decent, and as far as the people of Crimea are concerned, this group is seeking a Crimean Muslim state.

This is one dispute that we must stay out of. We cannot destroy US military assets and readiness, as we've allowed Barack Obama to do, and then try and be the World's police. And no one can say with any certainty that we have the right, the will, or the means to do anything other than stay quiet.

Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!

BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.

JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.

AL GORE: I invented the chicken.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?

1/4 Americans unaware Earth circles the Sun. Here's why:

(Source: Yahoo News, AFP)
Americans are enthusiastic about the promise of science but lack basic knowledge of it, with one in four unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun, said a poll out Friday.

The survey included more than 2,200 people in the United States and was conducted by the National Science Foundation. Nine questions about physical and biological science were on the quiz, and the average score -- 6.5 correct -- was barely a passing grade.

Just 74 percent of respondents knew that the Earth revolved around the Sun, according to the results released at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.
===

It's not an accident that Americas education system is in serious decline, adept at nothing more than breeding fools who can either carry a gun or flip a whopper. The dumbing down of America is a sinister plot based on control. Your first mistake is assuming the Education system serves to actually educate. It doesn't. It serves to create good members of the "state".

The US experimented with "Mass Education" after Sputnik but the kids who profited from one of the most expensive education systems on the planet (in that time), took up against Jim Crow and Vietnam.

Our Rulers aren't the most clever bunch, even they can learn. And learn they did, that a education leads to dissent. So who is the Father of this decline? None other than John Dewey. Dewey not only subverted the education system as a whole, he even managed to subvert the LANGUAGE of education with purposefully vague sentiments and philosophies.

From Henry Makow:

John Dewey and his friend, the influential Jewish Marxist propagandist, Sidney Hook, saw the American school system as the thin end of the wedge in their deceitful game to slowly build a secular society with no moral absolutes.

Using Rockefeller money to establish the Teachers College in New York (1922), their goal was to create a new generation not quite as bright as their parents; and with every succeeding generation, a copy, the actual content of which -- facts, data, objective truth -- faded and became less clear and comprehensible.

Replacing mathematics, geography, history and science with cooking, sewing, household management and manual training skills necessary to run machinery. And make no mistake: that dumbing down has been both damnable and deliberate.

John Dewey: 'The mere absorption of facts and truths is so exclusively an individual affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is not obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.'

Educators were now indoctrinated to accept the viewpoint, based on nothing more than Dewey's belief, that "what" they taught was irrelevant; how and why they taught were the main considerations. Eventually Communist "agents of influence" took over where Dewey and company left off.

Nothing in American Education works well.  None of it is intended to work well.

Frankly, you shouldn't expect the American Education system to EVER rise again above what it is now. The entire system would have to be violently disassembled, every administrator and most of the educators with in it would have to be cut out like a cancer.

The architects of such a system must be acknowledged for who and what they are (American subversives) and dealt with accordingly.

If we don't act soon, these subversives will complete their work in destroying the foundations of a modern functioning society, and then education will be the last thing on anyone's mind...


Henry Mencken, The American Mercury, April 1924
"The aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim . . . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States. . . . "

Screaming from the Mountain Top

Paul Revere rode at night and proclaimed: "The British Are Coming! The British Are Coming!" With this vocal pronouncement we knew for certain that our ideas as American's were under attack. Our sovereignty was now in great peril, our right to exist as free men was in doubt.

Unfortunately, no great pronouncement was made when the Socialists arrived, though the threat is just as dangerous, if not more so. Mark my words friends, Socialism is here.

Perhaps though, it is more accurate to say that Socialism never left. And since this group of Socialists have a lot of experience with our country and system of government in particular, many of them Americans themselves, born here, they are particularly skilled at working within our system to both attack with greatest impact, while causing the smallest amount of alarm, indeed slowly boiling the frog alive.

Rep. Allan Grayson has called this phenomenon "Stealth Socialism", a Progressive darling, Grayson welcomes the change.

How does one come to believe in a Socialist ideology, and what is the ultimate outcome? Two main factors draw people into a Socialsm, which essentially means a planned economy and state control of production for (supposedly) the equal benefit of the people. 

Those who favor "State control" LOVE Socialism. Why not? The State has all the power, which is of course administered by a Ruling Class. Others are attracted to Socialism because they have been poor or powerless, and seek to take power from others by force.

This concept is actually Greek in origin. Plato had the idea there should be "guardians" or "watchers" of the State to regulate and improve the welfare of all citizens, and the State should control all the wealth in order to regulate and benefit all citizens equally.

But is it wise to grant absolute power to those who would seek it? From this idea comes the phrase, who watches the Watchers...

The inherent problem with Socialism (which was synonymous with Communism until the early 1900's) is it assumes Men can be trusted in the affairs of other Men. That, given the opportunity, absolute power won't be used to further one's own interests.

Those who seek this kind of power will stop at nothing to attain it. They will force change down onto your head if you let them. Adolf Hitler famously said: "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think..." and "...our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within, to conquer him through himself..." Socialism always ALWAYS devolves into Fascism and death.

George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it..." So the question should be, if Socialists were really making an effort to destroy the American system and put in place a socialist system, where would you look for those signs?

How about another one from Hitler, "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens..."

Today we read stories about the State of Oregon attempting to change gun laws in order to accomplish what some have called gun registration, a precursor gun confiscation. The National Guard in Ohio is training to combat "anti government protesters" and "conservative right wing terrorists"... A DHS Memo even went so far as to say that domestic terrorists may recite their Constitutional rights, as an example of "extremism".

Throughout modern history, groups and individuals associated with left-wing causes have proven far more likely to commit acts of domestic terror because, as has been put on display time and time again, Left Wing Progressives will resort to any means necessary to get their way... and demonizing the enemy is usually the last step before the fighting begins.

NBC gets PINKO-eye

What you think and what you say depends on what you know and what you believe. The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games on Friday, broadcast and produced by NBC, contained what can only be called a complete rewrite of Russian History.

But is it any surprise that a Communist news organization like NBC would favorably cover its heroes?

Its as if NBC got everything they know about Russian history from an all night binge session of doobies, Cheetos, and Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons...

NBC anchor Meredith Vieira called the end of the Soviet Union a "bitter sweet moment". Did Putin have one of his goons in the broadcast booth at the time controlling her words? Is she serious? This may in fact be the dumbest statement EVER muttered on TV...

She is suggesting there was something sad about the retreat of one of the greatest oppression's in modern history! Bittersweet, saluting the oppressor and lamenting its departure.

Vieira misspoke for sure, but now how you think. She should have just called the end of the "Evil" empire a "bitter moment" because that is what the end of the USSR was for the Left in America, their spiritual homeland tossed into the ash heap of history, just as Ronald Reagan said it would be.

No one should be surprised that Russia is making every effort to white wash its history, trying to persuade themselves that the years of the A-bomb, the Korean War, Soviet troops crushing the uprising in Hungary never happened.

We expect the Russians to offer up all manner of political propaganda during the games. That DOESN'T mean you should sit, agree, and nod along. And you certainly don't endeavor to deliver that propaganda back to your countrymen at home.

Someone should call NBC and remind them what the "N" in their name stands for. National.

As in our Nation. Not there's. 

No one should die with a needle in their arm...

The late Philip Seymour Hoffman was undoubtedly one of the greatest actors of his generation. His work will resonate forever. Hoffman died alone, in his apartment, with a heroine needle hanging from his arm.

The product of a single mother, he left behind 3 children. And once again the conversation about what went so terribly wrong in this mans life to have it end in such an undignified manner will undoubtedly cover everything but the topics it should cover.

Addiction and Mental Health are tied at the hip. Both exist in the mental and physical realms simultaneously, and both have a lovely relationship with drugs. Both are greatly misunderstood, and hardly treated at all. And in a lot of cases, those who suffer from life long mental health issues that go unrecognized or untreated turn to drugs to cope.

I say the phrase "mental health system" and I'm sure it brings to mind gleaming white exam rooms, and coordinated information flow...all the benefits of the most advanced health care system in the world. But that is far from the case. Instead we have too few beds, dwindling outpatient care, and many of the mentally ill simply land in jail cells.

Despite claims by the pharmaceutical companies, real mental health doesn't come in pill form, and it's not an instant cure. It takes years of practice and patience to master the art of quieting ones inner demons, and as much as we'd like...they don't ever go away for good. Our system simply isn't set up to handle this kind of long term intimate care.

Nope. Its easier to sell a pill as a cure. As anyone who has taken one of these meds will tell you, it simply masks the symptoms at best. At worst, it will create much more extreme problems. We've already discussed the number of school shootings which have as companion some sort of Anxiety or Depression medications.

Too often we inject morality into this conversations in a way that doesn't serve to help anyone. The stigma surrounding mental health issues force some to go untreated or diagnosed, others turn to drugs, both legal and illegal, and many more suffer in silence, the walking wounded. Hardly anyone learns the physical and mental skill to manage themselves.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of money in both the legal and illegal drug game...manufacturing, selling, regulating, policing, and mental health has no serious advocates. It is my fear we are continuing down a path of destruction and denying people any real chance at hope, in favor of the Almighty Dollar.

You ask, why do these school shootings keep happening? Why did those kids get killed at the mall? Why do these people who have everything destroy themselves with drugs? I have the answer to all these questions, my friends. But you aren't going to like it. This isn't going to be easy, and good mental health isn't a product I can sell you... but I do know this for sure:

No one should have to die alone with a needle in their arm. Inner demons should never be allowed to take control, we have to start teaching people another way. And we all need to agree this isn't an issue of morality...we can either judge each other, or we can help each other. Your call. 

The Executive Order

Every President since George Washington has issued what we have come to know as an "Executive Order". There is a loose basis for the legality of the Executive Order in the Constitution, giving the President the power to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed"; being used to guide the Executive branch of the Government in carrying out its duties...

According to USA.gov, the federal government’s official portal, “presidents use executive orders to direct and manage how the federal government operates.”

Until the 1900's most Executive Orders went unpublished and unseen by anyone other than the agency the Order was intended for. Some were used to acquire public land, some to regulate industry and trade. Others have had far greater impact.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order. So was the New Deal. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War; President Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II; The Desegregation of the Armed Forces in 1948 are all examples of Executive Orders.

Then there's Woodrow Wilson and his fascination with the Panama Canal. Back when men were men, they would hunt, at night, by torch. This was so widespread in the Canal zone that Wilson E.O. 1884 made the use of hunting with a "lantern, torch, bonfire, or other artificial light" a misdemeanor.

Bill Clinton took the United States to Kosovo with an Executive Order. In fact, the issue of how much military power a President may exercise by EO remains unresolved.

But don't think a President may use the Executive Order freely. In 1952 Harry Truman issued Executive Order 10340, putting steel mills with striking workers under federal control. The Order was challenged, and the Supreme Court ruled it invalid in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co V Saywer because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.

It was Roosevelt who issued the most executive orders, according to records at the National Archives. He issued 3,728 orders between 1933 and1945, as the country dealt with the Great Depression and World War II. President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.Barack Obama, as of Jan 14, 2014 has issued 167.

These have included everything from Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change and Establishment of the Presidential Commission of Election Administration to a much more controversial subject... an update to an Executive Order created in 1994, on “National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness”.

This order gives the president the power to take control of all domestic energy supplies for the purpose of protecting national security, as well as, delegating greater power to each cabinet member to achieve this.

Fox News points out:

The President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific sections of the order make it clear that the President can take complete command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as well.

President Obama has promised to use more of these Orders in the final two years of his Presidency with advisers telling the press he's warmed up to the idea, but thus far this President seems to be on track to issue the least amount of orders of any two term President, though still landing in the Top 10.

Fear the Order

So now that we have a good handle on what the lay of the land is in the United States regarding Executive Orders, what exactly is everyone so afraid of? Why does a Presidents use of this tool provoke such fear?

The great experiment that is the United States of America functions because power has been restrained, broken apart, and then weaved back together with a system of carefully crafted checks and balance. This system was put in place to protect against the oppression of the "American society" by its ruling class.

The very definition of tyranny is the concentration of Executive, Legislative and Judicial power in one branch of the government or one individual. Rule by Executive Order, instead of by the Will of the People.

Executive actions on guns, switching off the internet at will, putting people in FEMA camps, Marshall Law... these are all fears stoked when the President uses an Executive Order to make law.

Nation rise and nations fall. People become free, and then fall into slavery again. Many of the worlds most significant civilizations have died not from outside assault, but rather from internal deterioration.

Can a President use Executive Order to manipulate society? Yes. And with no clear opposition it would be very hard for anyone to alter that decision. A bigger and more important question is, should he?

America CAN die and disappear from the Earth, and today we are in far greater danger of straying from our founding principles than ever before. Unless this course is corrected, unless our founding principles are honored, we may end up but a footnote in history...

IMMIGRATION REFORM WILL DESTROY THE GOP

I agree with most that our current Immigration system is inadequate, but I disagree adamantly with the current fix as proposed by the President, and now seemingly embraced by the GOP. There are many downsides to granting citizenship to 11 million people, after paying some taxes and a fine.

Immigration reform will fundamentally change the long term economic makeup of the the United States of America. Any allusions to 11 million new "tax-payers" post immigration reform is laughable. None of these new "citizens" will have enough income to actually be SUBJECTED to taxes in America.

Most will pay no tax at all, and worse, a portion of these new citizens will immediately begin collecting Child Tax Credits, Earned Income Credits, and other refundable tax credits.

Who will pay for all of this additional spending post Immigration reform? You will. And we've already seen what happens when you offer Amnesty. Did the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 actually SOLVE the problem of illegal immigration? Of course not. So why are we proposing this again? And more importantly do America's actually give a damn about this debate?

According to a new Quinnipiac poll released this weekend, 99 percent of Americans do not consider Immigration issues a priority. 17 percent of the US population is Hispanic or Latino and still only 1 percent would call this a priority. Even the community this legislation would benefit the most aren't interested in the fight... so why do we continue to have it?

Because American's aren't pushing this topic at all. At least not American's like you and I.

You see, we don't personally benefit from cheap labor, foreign visas, and loosened regulations which is after all, what this fight is about. Lobbyist in Washington for companies like Google and Microsoft want this deal done.

If you think Immigration is not big business to the Tech Industry you have obviously never met Christine Doyle. She was profiled recently in the New York Times, the 'Immigration Fixer' at Google. Her job is to deal with the United States byzantine immigration processes.

Google spend 4.5 million dollars a year on 'visa administration'. The tech industry as a whole spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get these workers into the country, and even more on foreign offices and infrastructure when they can't.

So what you have in reality are a group of lobbyists playing the system. The Democrats are being told you have to do Immigration reform, if you don't the GOP will on their terms, and will regain a foothold with Hispanic voters. Democrats also like this plan because it also assists them in the fight over income redistribution, plus added benefit of a win on this issue equating to the end of the GOP.

The GOP has fought to maintain ground on Immigration reform for years now, and unfortunately they seem to be losing the fight. The messaging from the Left controlled media has been consistent, pervasive, and devastating to the morale of anyone still trying to stem the tide on Immigration, and Lobbyist have nearly ensnared everyone else with big piles of money.

I warn the GOP if they push Immigration reform through this year as some have been signaling, the Grand Old Party will never recover. You are being fed the lie that bending on the issue will make you popular with Latinos. It won't. They could care less, and many are even against this plan. They had to wait in line... why should someone else just waltz in?

If you let Immigration reform happen you will lose the House, you won't gain back the Senate, and all those 'new Americans' will never vote for you, so you can kiss the White House goodbye as well.

Republicans. You cannot cave on this issue. This REALLY matters, and 99 percent of America is with you no matter what the media says. This is a last ditch effort by a failed President to grab a win on an issue no one cares about. Don't be intimidated. You have everything to lose.

The Pope Doubles Down on Liberation Theology

Pope Francis has signaled several times that he is a believer in Liberation Theology, and indicated he would like the Church to act as a spearhead for economic change in the world. People who think like the Pope believe that unfettered global capitalism is unjust, and leads to social, political, and economic oppression of the poor. And they want to punish the successful, which (by their logic) will create equalized opportunity for those less fortunate...think "Christianized Marxism"....

The Pope has said indirectly his desire is to 'hold capitalism accountable' for the problems of the world... to punish the 'haves' simply for having...which according to this line of thinking, is a sin. 

"While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by the happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation," Pope Francis says.

The Catholic Church all but eradicated this ideology nearly a quarter century ago (under Pope John Paul II), which originated mainly in Latin American countries in the 60's and 70's. But Pope Francis, originally from Argentina, never practiced Liberation Theology, though he was certainly shaped by it.

This weekend, the Pope named 19 new Cardinals, 16 of which are considered "Cardinal Electors" or under 80 years old, and therefore eligible to elect the next Pope after Francis either retires or expires. So why is this so significant to the resurgence of Liberation Theology in the Catholic Church?

These new Cardinals are from predominately poor countries, including Nicaragua, Ivory Coast, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Burkina Faso, the Philippines and Haiti...It signals yet ANOTHER move by this Pope to reduce the influence of wealth and money on the Church.

But there is another more long term impact of this move... the ability of these Cardinals to elect the NEXT Pope should serve to ensure the continuation of this Liberation Theology, which has nearly become official Church policy.

As the redistribution of wealth crowd (like Occupy) has been mainly fractured and rudderless, this emergence of the Church as a leader of in kind of thinking is a new and dangerous trend... Papal sponsored Marxism. The economic struggle has mass appeal, and will soon be (if not already) co-opted by those who seek to destroy the world.

Transitional Living Fund

I find myself in a strange place this morning, philosophically speaking. I don't blame most people for struggling in this economy. Unemployment continues to fall, as people stop looking for work. 91.8 Million Americans have fallen OUT of the labor force, a new record. 

Those who find work are typically downgraded into a much lower standard of living, because most of the jobs created have been low wage positions.

Democrats would like to trade the term "Welfare" for "Transitional Living Fund" which signals to me that I am expected to, as a taxpayer, provide for more of the basics for longer, for a variety of reasons. When it's all said and done my effective tax rate is already something like 45 percent... and I am contributing member of society! I help others make money!

Sorry, I don't intend on supporting anything else that digs into my pocket.

Both sides want to blame the other for the problem. Labor says employers don't pay enough. Employers say the government is strangling them and they don't make enough. Who do I blame? Everyone but me, quite frankly.

The manufacturing base in the United States has all but dried up. Government initiatives intended to create jobs, like Cleantech and green energies, have fallen completely flat, and the rush of American jobs leaving the country hasn't abated much in the last decade.

We've seen workers at Fast Food restaurants strike for higher wages. Why, because they are greedy? Some maybe. Mostly it's because at 7 dollars an hour its hard to buy a tank of gas at $4 a gallon, and have money for food, rent, utilities, and any other basics.

But why should we pay them more? If your only marketable skill is flipping a burger, are you worth more than 7 dollars an hour? The truth is, I don't have that answer.

Here's what I do know...the guy who OWNS the McDonald's probably owns a BUNCH of them. And he doesn't worry too much about buying gas or food or anything else. Should I take from him to give to the burger flipper? After all, the owner creates jobs... shouldn't he keep his reward for all that effort? Anyone who owns or runs a business will be glad to tell you how much work is really involved...

Now you understand the basic question at hand: Do businesses have a duty to provide good paying jobs, or is the minimum enough...? Something else to be considered here? If you DON'T provide for the basics, as a business, do we as a society have the duty to fill the gap? Because we are. 

Do you have any idea how many Wal-Mart employees are also on some form of public assistance? Not all of them, but enough to notice and measure. Do you think Wal-Mart employees are the only ones? I don't.

I have always made an effort to better myself as a human, and with that, I have seen my ability to earn a living increase. I am not a big fan of "giving" people anything. I don't think it makes for better humans. As I have stated previously, the amazing thing about America is that you don't have to finish in the same place you start. YOU get to decide the path to individual success and achievement yourself. So yeah, it sucks, but if you want to make more than the minimum, you should probably do something to help yourself.

And fortunately for me, I don't have to decide what the minimum a business should provide an employee is. While I would love for everything to be fair and equal, it isn't, and will never be. The only reason I discuss it is so you understand I am not callous and blind to the situation. But unlike some, I reject the idea that Government can make it fair, and I know for certain that bad things happen when Government plays the equalizer.

So, while I don't think the Government should regulate what employers pay, I reject the idea that families like the Walton's should be permitted such enormous profits while a significant portion of their work force is on some form of public assistance.

The only legislation aimed at business I would be in favor of is something that would end that particular practice forever... as for the striking burger flipper? Sorry man, I can't force anyone to give you more. You have to go get it for yourself. Is it a lot of work to pull yourself up? Absolutely. But when is anything worth doing ever easy?

A bridge too far...

You've heard a lot about "Bridge Gate" today. Someone in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's office shuts down a few highway lanes on the George Washington Bridge, and it becomes a "National Scandal". I would like to remind you of a few other scandals that have fallen off the front page, that we SHOULD be discussing instead:

Benghazi. Investigation of General Patreus. Fast and Furious. Seized phone records of the Associate Press. IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups. Obamacare Website Scandal. NSA Spying on Foreign Leaders. NSA Spying at Home.

What the hell happened to my country? Do you realize we impeached an entire Presidency because Richard Nixon bugged two buildings? This President has bugged THE WORLD, and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize... and on top of it all, we IGNORE the Presidents scandals in favor of a story about a BRIDGE?

Why is "Bridge Gate" a scandal and the others are not? Do you understand yet how the media REALLY works? Christie may run for the Presidency in 2016, so the liberal controlled media will use ANY excuse to tear him down.

Hillary Clinton and Oprah WInfrey popped the bubbly this morning, giggling like school girls, as Christie twisted in the wind today. And what an ego on this guy... an hour long press conference, as if we have NOTHING else to talk about but him??

If he had come out, made his statement, took a question or two, and then beat feet, I would have been impressed. But it seemed that every minute he stayed in front of the cameras, he looked weaker and weaker... guiltier and guiltier...

I've already explained that Christie's moderate approach will ultimately doom him, and so maybe this scandal is a good thing in a way. The GOP will have to see Christie as tainted goods, and run an ACTUAL conservative. Or not... and it will be the end of the GOP and the Country.


So the only question I have left, is Chris Christie our type of guy?

LBJ, Obama, and 50 years of Progressive White Guilt

50 years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson gave a State of the Union Speech in which he and the Democrats, who had until that point done everything humanly possible to oppose any manner of civil rights for blacks, including the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act by noted KKK member (a Grand Wizard) and long time Democrat Robert Byrd...  decided that it was time to stop oppressing blacks, and start "helping them"....

It was the birth of the Modern Progressive Movement, known as "The Great Society"... The speech, by Johnson, was lauded by so called 'liberal do-gooders' and marked the beginning of White Guilt...  the individual or collective guilt often said to be felt by some white people for the racist treatment of people of color by whites both historically and presently. On this day, Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty in America. 

Sounds good right? Some white people did own slaves, and helping the poorest among us is never a bad thing, is it? Let me explain to you why this is so wrong. 

Sure SOME white folks owned slaves and stood on the backs of the poor to earn their fortunes. Did we all? No we didn't. Should we all be made to pay for those crimes? Should I feel guilty of my success because of the "sins of my Fathers"? Of course not...

Just like you, I am forced to compete in the world the way it is now. I treat people fairly and am responsible for my own actions. I cannot and will not be responsible for the lot of others in life, in the same way they are not responsible for mine.

More importantly, I am an American, just like you. Being an American means I can transcend my starting point and arrive at whatever height of success I choose and strive for. No one gets to DECIDE for me what I will be in life. And they can't decide for you either, unless you allow it... 

Until 1965, 82% of black households had both a mother and a father in the home -- a statistic on par with or even slightly higher than white families. 

After 1965 the presence of black fathers in the home began a precipitous decline; today, the American black out-of-wedlock birthrate is at 69%.

The policies instituted 50 years ago today have done incalculable damage to black families...

How about that whole "helping the poor" angle? Has to be some good there right? 

President Obama, who has continued the Liberal Progressive policies of LBJ, basically giving people free stuff, extending unemployment again and again for people who don't even look for work anymore. Has that lifted people out of poverty? No way. 

In fact, the poverty level under Obama has broken a 50 year record. 50 years of Progressive Social Policies and we have MORE poor, not less. 

Johnson promised that his Progressive Administration would be efficient, honest, and frugal... Has that happened? 

Efficient, Honest, and Frugal. Do I even need to discuss this? To call the Obama Administration ANY of these things is to insult the English language. Words would have no meaning anymore.... 

Iif this sounds to you like a racist rant, you're dead wrong. You're also a progressive, you can't be helped, and you should move along. Liberalism, after all, is a mental disorder... 

But if this topic is something you think we should have an debate on, then you are not Republican or a Democrat, you're not a liberal or a progressive, you're an independent thinker... And I have one simple question: Is social programming ruining America?