Saturday, January 18, 2014

Carlin Quotes


If you have sex with a prostitute against her will, is it considered rape or shoplifting?

Can you cry under water?

How important does a person have to be
before they are considered
assassinated instead of just murdered?

Why do you have to 'put your two cents worth
in'.....but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?

Once you're in heaven, do you get stuck
wearing the clothes you were buried in
for eternity?

Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
What disease did cured ham actually have?
How is it that we put man on the moon
before we figured out it would be a
good idea to put wheels on luggage?

Why is it that people say they
'slept like a baby' when babies
wake up like every two hours?

If a deaf person has to go to court,
is it still called a hearing?

Why are you IN a movie, but you're ON TV?
Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars
to look at things on the ground?

Why do doctors leave the room while you change?
They're going to see you naked anyway.
Why is 'bra' singular and 'panties' plural?
Why do toasters always have a setting
that burns the toast to a horrible crisp
which no decent human being would eat?

If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares,
why is there a stupid song about him?

If the professor on Gilligan's Island
can make a radio out of a coconut,
why can't he fix a hole in a boat?

Why does Goofy stand erect
while Pluto remains on all fours?

They're both dogs!
If Wile E. Coyote had enough
money to buy all that ACME crap,
why didn't he just buy dinner?

If corn oil is made from corn and
vegetable oil is made from vegetables,
what is baby oil made from?

If electricity comes from electrons,
does morality come from morons?

Do the Alphabet Song and Twinkle,
Twinkle, Little Star have the same tune?

Why did you just try singing
the two songs above?

Why do they call it an asteroid when
it's outside the hemisphere, but call
it a hemorrhoid when it's in your butt?

Did you ever notice that when you blow
in a dog's face, he gets mad at you;
but when you take him for a car ride,
he sticks his head out the window?

Why, Why, Why?

Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are going dead?
Why do banks charge a fee on
'insufficient funds' when they know
there is not enough money?

Why does someone believe you
when you say there are four billion stars,
but check when you say the paint is wet?

Why do they use sterilized needles
for death by lethal injection?

Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
Why does Superman stop bullets
with his chest, but duck when you
throw a revolver at him?

Why do Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Whose idea was it to put an 's'
in the word 'lisp'?

If people evolved from apes,
why are there still apes?

Why is it that no matter what color
bubble bath you use,
the bubbles are always white?

Is there ever a day that
are not on sale?
Why do people constantly return to the refrigerator in the hope that something
new to eat will have materialized?

Why do people keep running over a
string a dozen times with their vacuum cleaner, then reach down, pick it up,
and examine it; then put it down to
give the vacuum one more chance?

Why is it that no plastic bag will
open from the end on your first try?

How do those dead bugs get into
those enclosed light fixtures?

Why is it that whenever you attempt
to catch something that's falling
off the table, you always manage
to knock something else over?

In winter why do we try to keep
the house as warm as it was in summer when we complained about the heat?

How come you never hear
father-in-law jokes?

And my FAVORITE.....
A statistic on sanity is that one out of
every four persons is suffering
from some sort of mental illness.
Think of your three best friends --
if they're okay, it's you.

Have you ever wondered why you gave
me your e-mail address in the first place?

Obama’s promise zones violate both the intent and letter of law!

1-18-14 | johnwk 

We are told that Obama’s “promise zones” do not violate our Constitution. But no evidence is offered to substantiate that claim. So, let us look at some historical facts which indicate there is a long standing rule which applies to federal spending and it establishes Obama’s “promise zones” are absolutely contrary to the legislative intent and letter of our Constitution.

Under Obama’s “promise zones” a number of cities would receive “comprehensive federal assistance” and receive preferential treatment to deal with the financial effects cause by the recession ___ a recession which has cause economic pain in each of the various United States. In fact, under Obama’s proposal taxpayers in every city across the United States will be tax to lessen the economic misery felt in cities chosen by Obama.

How does this violate the legislative intent and letter of our Constitution? Well, let us start by refreshing our memory by reading part of the New England Confederation of 1643 ___ an agreement among a number of the first English Colonies on America soil.

It is by these Confederates agreed that the charge of all just wars, whether offensive or defensive, upon what part or member of this Confederation soever they fall, shall both in men, provisions and all other disbursements be borne by all the parts of this Confederation in different proportions according to their different ability in the manner following, namely, that the Commissioners for each Jurisdiction from time to time, as there shall be occasion, bring a true account and number of all their males in every Plantation, or any way belonging to or under their several Jurisdictions, of what quality or condition soever they be, from sixteen years old to threescore, being inhabitants there. And that according to the different numbers which from time to time shall be found in each Jurisdiction upon a true and just account, the service of men and all charges of the war be borne by the poll: each Jurisdiction or Plantation being left to their own just course and custom of rating themselves and people according to their different estates with due respects to their qualities and exemptions amongst themselves though the Confederation take no notice of any such privilege: and that according to their different charge of each Jurisdiction and Plantation the whole advantage of the war (if it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or persons, shall be proportionately divided among the said Confederates.

Please note a specific rule is established among the members of the Confederacy under which a common treasury is filled by each member supplying “men, provisions and all other disbursements“. There is no allowance for the financial burden being selectively placed upon one member at the expense of the others.

Now, let us review the Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781


All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

Again we find a specific rule by which the member States each agree to contribute into a common treasury, by the same rule and without exemption or preference.

Now, looking at the Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787

Art. 4. .

The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other States;

Again we see a specific rule for financial contributions being applied equally within the territory as is applied to all other States and without exception or preference!

And now we get to our existing Constitution and we find a specific rule by which each member state agrees to carry an apportioned share of any financial burden which is levied among the States.

Article 1, Section 2 Clause 3.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the Several States…


State`s Pop.
___________ X size of Congress (435) = State`s number of Representatives
Pop. of U.S.

State`s Pop.
U.S. Pop.

In addition to the above formulas, we also find in our Constitution a specific intention expressed to forbid federal force being used to create unequal burdens by any “Regulation of Commerce”:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

And so, it is an irrefutable fact that the rule of apportionment was adopted to insure federal power could not be used to place a disproportionate burden upon one state or several states to the advantage of another state or states, which is exactly what would happen under Obama’s “promise zones”.

In fact the Founder’s intentions for tax equality were eloquently stated by Representative John Page on February 7th 1792 while speaking before the House of Representatives:

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative John Page

It should also be noted our Founders applied the same rule of apportionment in the disbursement of federal revenue from the treasury to the States, and is documented in an Act of Congress passed in June of 1836 when all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and the rule of apportionment was strictly applied.

And what has the Supreme Court stated in regard to this rule of apportionment?

The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made___ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601

The irrefutable fact is, Obama’s “promise zones” violate the rule of apportionment, and both the intent and letter of law, and would create a number of privileged communities who would receive preferential treatment, rather than equal treatment because of the recession, a recession which is felt in each and every one of the United States


"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals, and now his “promise zones”] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

Devastating Benghazi Timeline Reveals Obama MIA ^ | 16 January 2014 | Wynton Hall 

The government watchdog group that revealed that President Barack Obama failed to attend over half of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) released a devastating Benghazi timeline Wednesday.
It reveals Obama’s schedule in the week leading up to the terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Release of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) Benghazi timeline comes as a new Senate report published Wednesday concluded that “the attacks were preventable.”
As the GAI timeline reveals, Obama failed to attend his daily intelligence briefing for the five consecutive days leading up to the September 11, 2012 attack of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Power play: Federal ruling forbids states from checking voters’ citizenship!

The Washington Times ^ | January 18, 2014 | Stephen Dinan 

A federal commission rejected three states’ requests to ask voters for proof of citizenship, issuing a complex decision Friday that said it’s up to the national government, not the states, to decide what to include on registration forms.
Under the motor-voter law, federal officials distribute voter-registration forms in all of the states. Arizona, Kansas and Georgia all asked that those forms request proof of citizenship, but the federal Election Assistance Commission rejected that in a 46-page ruling.
The EAC said states can check driver’s license databases or ask federal immigration authorities for information, but they cannot tell the federal government what to include on federal forms.
“The EAC finds that granting the States’ requests would likely hinder eligible citizens from registering to vote in federal elections, undermining a core purpose of the NVRA,” the commission said in its ruling, referring to the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law.
The EAC’s decision is almost certain to end up back before the federal courts and could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Indeed, the states’ request to the EAC was in part spurred by a Supreme Court ruling last year. In that case, the justices said Arizona couldn’t refuse to accept the federal registration forms.
But Justice Antonin Scalia also specifically said Arizona could ask the EAC to include the request on forms distributed in that state, and said if the EAC refused, the state could come back to the courts.
Friday’s decision is the latest skirmish in the push for voter identification and proof of citizenship as some states seek to crack down on what they fear is fraudulent registration and, in some cases, fraudulent voting.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We are in a police state now!

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-18-14 | DrJohn 

A totally biased and unqualified Obama donor is set to investigate the IRS, so why not a Soros dependent to investigate the NSA? Remember when investigators were supposed to have the appearance of balance and propriety?
On Friday Barack Obama held a press conference to announce once again that he knows absolutely nothing about what his government is doing. DrJohn's Law say that whatever Obama says is a lie and the opposite is almost always the truth. Obama denied knowing how invasive the NSA has become and claimed that the NSA has never abused anyone's privacy. That, naturally, is a lie:

For years, as new data came into the NSA's database containing virtually every phone call record in the United States, analysts would search over 17,000 phone numbers in it every day. It turns out only about 1,800 of those numbers – 11% – met the legal requirement that the NSA have "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the number was involved in terrorism.What were the other 89% of the numbers being searched for? We're not exactly sure. But we do know that five years after the metadata program was brought under a legal framework, the Fisa court concluded it had been "so frequently and systematically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall … regime has never functioned effectively".
Then Obama let us know who would lead an investigation into something he claimed wasn't being abused.
John Podesta

President Barack Obama announced Friday that John Podesta, his new "counselor" and the political operative responsible for creating the institutional left in Washington, will be the appointed "to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy" in the aftermath of revelations about the National Security Agency's electronic spying programs. When he joined the White House last month, Podesta's focus was said to be "climate change."The president's speech contained little news. It was a classic Obama set-piece, designed to demonstrate that he understands both sides of a complex argument, while delegating responsibility to third parties and taking steps that reinforce the interests and goals of the hard left. In this instance, Obama left final decisions about where to store NSA data to Congress, while making sure that Podesta is in charge of the consultative process as a whole.
John Podesta is a George Soros dependent.

What he didn't mention was that Podesta is the founder of the liberal Center for American Progress. CAP has gotten $7.3 million from liberal billionaire George Soros since 2000 and was one of the keystone liberal think tanks founded after the Democrats lost the 2004 election.Podesta was to have focused on the health care law and climate change issues, according to a Dec. 9, New York Times article.
According to Obama, Podesta will work with a group of government officials and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, as well as reaching out to "privacy experts, technologists and business leaders," to "look at how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors." Podesta will also examine how government can "continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security." This will be done to address the ongoing NSA spying scandal that came to light in June 2013.
Podesta has a long history with Democrats. He co-chaired the transition team when Obama first came into office. He was also White House chief of staff under Clinton. Neera Tanden, who has worked for both Obama and Hillary Clinton, currently runs CAP.
CAP is an influential liberal policy writing and advocacy organization, complete with its own media outlet. Not only has CAP received more than $7.3 million from George Soros, it also has a membership program for corporations to be part of the discussion. Recently, CAP partnered with NBC Special anchor (and former wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger) Maria Shriver on a report which NBC News promoted without qualification.
CAP was part of coalition of liberal groups in March of 2012 who targeted the pro-free market American Legislative Exchange Council for having corporate donors and promoting policy initiatives not in line with liberal goals. This attack resulted in several of ALEC's corporate members pulling out. A similar attack was launched by some of the same groups against the State Policy Network.
Podesta is a hyper-partisan bully who made an interesting comment last month when he was brought in by Obama:
(Excerpt)

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Drops Crusade Against Obamacare ^ | JANUARY 14, 2014 | ELLIOT M. KASS 

In a striking about face, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will no longer seek the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, working instead to correct what it sees as its flaws.
It was three years ago this month, during his annual State of American Business address, that the Chamber’s president and CEO, Tom Donahue, labeled the ACA “unworkable” and called for its repeal. During last week’s address he softened his views, calling instead for business-friendly adjustments to the new law.
“The administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place, so the chamber has been working pragmatically to fix those parts of Obamacare that can be fixed -- while doing everything we can to make regulations and mandates as manageable as possible for businesses,” Donohue said during the speech. “In 2014, we will work to repeal onerous healthcare taxes; repeal, delay or change the employer mandate; and give companies and their employees more flexibility in the choice of health insurance plans.”
Acknowledging that outright repeal of the employer mandate -- already delayed until January 2015 -- is unlikely, the Chamber’s executive director, Katie Mahoney indicated that the group might be satisfied with some modifications. Specifically, the Chamber wants a change to the law’s definition of full-time employees from those working 30 hours a week to those working 40 hours or more. Under the ACA, large employers with 50 or more full-time employees must provide them with health coverage starting next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

To Democrats the Military is nothing more than a political tool!

Coach is Right ^ | January 18, 2014 | Jim Emerson, staff writer 

Former defense secretary Robert Gates harshly criticized the Obama Administration in his new book “Duty.” He exposes the “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president.” He notes that the Obama administration is composed of control freaks regarding national security policy. He opines that Mr. Obama’s “White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.” He warned the Pentagon “don’t give the White House staff and [national security staff] too much information on military options. They don’t understand it, and ‘experts’ like Samantha Power will decide when we should move militarily.” The White House has been panning military options in Libya without input from the military. Anyone familiar with the Vietnam War will see that Obama is following Lyndon Johnson’s roadmap to failure. Obama hasty retreat will most likely allow Iraq to become an al Qaeda Islamic Republic

“He Had Breached Faith with Me”

Obama sought to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which lead to a few months of debates as to whether homosexuals should be permitted to openly serve in the military. Losing patience, Obama just decided to repeal the law without military input and before any details were worked out. The Obama White House cut defense spending without input from the Defense Secretary. Gates wrote “I felt that agreements with the Obama White House were good for only as long as they were politically convenient.”
Other Democrat vindictive actions
Obama ordered the shutdown of the World War II monument as a sign of disrespect to the dwindling number of WWII veterans. The vindictive jackass wanted to make the sequester painful
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trapped in the vortex of climate chaos


During the “polar vortex,” some of us taunted frostbitten global warming alarmists who snapped back that isolated extreme weather events don’t indicate long-term trends.
Good. Because if they can remember that during heat waves and storms, we can actually look at long-term trends.
Really long. Geologically long. Back to when simple animals appeared in the “Cambrian explosion” about 542 million years ago.
Google it and you’ll find a chart of global temperature and carbon dioxide in the air from which two things will jump out at you right away.
First, atmospheric CO2 does not drive temperature. It hit 7000 ppm around 540 million years ago, over 20 times today’s level, plunged to current levels around 330 million B.C., shot up six-fold just as the Triassic was starting, bounced up again in the Jurassic then fell steadily back to just under 300 ppm.
Nobody knows why. But it doesn’t map onto temperature. Because the other really obvious thing is for about 450 of the past 540 million years the Earth has been roughly 22 degrees Celsius average, around 10 degrees warmer than now.
Three times it plunged dramatically to roughly today’s average temperature: about 440 million years ago, 310 million years ago and (more slowly) 30 million years ago. And once, between the Jurassic and Cretaceous, it dropped about five degrees then rebounded.
So Earth is normally warmer than today. But sometimes it cools suddenly, stays cold for a bit then heats up again.
In short, Earth’s climate is the province of once-fashionable “chaos theory” dealing with things too complex, too “Sensitively Dependent on Initial Conditions” or SDIC, to be modeled and predicted in computers.
That doesn’t mean it’s random. It does settle into what chaoticians call “strange attractors,” broadly stable states within which it moves around unpredictably… and then suddenly and unpredictably tips into other broadly stable states.
There’s one “strange attractor” around 22 degrees where any prolonged heating trend does something complicated to plants, the air, oceans and so on that provokes a contrary cooling trend and vice versa. However, for SDIC reasons, a period of heating, or maybe cooling, at just the wrong speed or time, or cooling, triggers a sudden dramatic 10-degree drop that lasts a few million years then suddenly tips back.
Now if the Earth has been around 22 degrees 90% of the time since animals appeared, for reasons man didn’t cause, it’s probably headed back that way sometime soon for reasons man isn’t causing.
Fortunately “soon” in geological terms means probably in thousands or millions of years - not while you’re waiting for the bus.
Unfortunately chaos is chaotic, with smaller “strange attractors” nestled inside bigger ones. For instance the “interglacials” within the Ice Age we’ve been in for about 2.5 million years, where glaciers leave Missouri alone and go pester the poles.
Over the last 800,000 years alone, we’ve seen roughly eight glacial temperature valleys and nine interglacial peaks including the current one where we invented agriculture. Which could end suddenly with another glaciation, go the other way, or not.
We could be heading back up to 22 degrees or back down to 10 or even 5. Or not. And of course it matters a lot. But we can’t tell.
Because the picture is unbearably complex, short-term trends tell us nothing. And while we know roughly what Earth normally does, and what it normally does when it’s not doing what it normally does, we don’t know what tips it from one state to the other or when or why except it’s not carbon dioxide.
So I’ll stop jeering about the polar vortex if you’ll shut up about the Australian outback and tropical storms. And we’ll just keep our parkas handy, our sunscreen nearby, and our fingers crossed.

No Country for Liberal Republicans

Friday Afternoon Roundup - 

About that minimum-wage EO …can't be enforced!

Hot Air ^ | January 17, 2014 | Ed Morrissey

Can Barack Obama raise the federal minimum wage by executive order? Reports this week have Obama promising Senate Democrats that he was looking into his options, but they would be limited … even more limited than he thinks, probably:
Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing for an across-the-board hike in the minimum hourly wage, from $7.25 to $10.10. But Republicans are cool to the plan, warning it could hurt the economy.
Federal contractors represent only a fraction of the nation’s employees. Businesses that together received more than $446 billion in federal contracts employ some 2 million workers, only some of whom are paid the minimum wage.
Still, an increase for that segment of the workforce could generate momentum toward a raise for all workers now paid the lowest amount allowable by law.
Proponents of the plan say Obama need not wait for Congress to pass legislation. Sanders and Boxer were among 15 senators who sent a letter to Obama in September, urging him to set a minimum-wage preference for private companies doing business with the federal government.
An executive order to that effect would be tantamount to setting a minimum wage for federal contractors, they said.
“Profitable corporations that receive lucrative contracts from the federal government should pay all of their workers a decent wage,” the lawmakers wrote.
Ace is skeptical:
At first blush, I thought it was possible this would be permissible (if not advisable) under our Constitutional scheme, given that he was directing the Executive itself to make these payments.
But despite that trying-to-be-fair impulse, I’d still like to see legal opinions on this. After all, the President will not be paying these wagesout of his own funds. The excess wages will, of course, be paid for by taxpayers, and absent an act of Congress raising the federal contractor minimum wage, this seems probably illegal.
As usual, of course.
Color me skeptical, too. One cannot write statutory law through EOs, which is what would have to happen to force companies with federal contracts to pay a certain wage or higher to all their workers. That takes Congress to act, and they’re not budging, which is why Obama is gabbing about “looking into” EOs. Even if he issued it, no company would be under any legal requirement to comply.
Obama could require the executive branch to write contracts with that requirement, though, without Congressional involvement. That can be done with an EO, although it probably wouldn’t require one. However, that requirement would force contractors to offer higher bids, forcing the executive branch to go back to Congress for more money, and would likely result in fewer jobs as contractors reduced costs. The same would be true for any attempt to force a higher floor for direct executive-branch jobs, too. Either way, Obama would have to go back to Congress for more funds.
I’d file this in the “cheap talk” category. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Update: Just to clarify my first point in light of some of the comments, EOs only apply to executive branch agencies and their direct employees, not to contractors or those working for contractors. The latter are bound by statute and the terms of the contract, and nothing more. Obama can pretend that he has the authority to order this in an EO, but contractors will simply ignore it — it can’t be enforced, and won’t be.

Why Are Dozens Of High Ranking Officers Being Purged From The U.S. Military?

The American Dream ^ | January 16, 2014 | Michael Snyder 

Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the “purge” of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place. As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years. So why is this happening? When I was growing up, my father was an officer in the U.S. Navy. And what is going on right now is absolutely crazy – especially during a time of peace. Is there a deliberate attempt to “reshape” the military and remove those that don’t adhere to the proper “viewpoints”? Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won’t “cooperate” out of the way? Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a “military purge” is never good. If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?
Perhaps you are reading this and you think that “purge” is too strong a word for what is taking place. Well, just consider the following quotes from some very highly decorated retired officers…
-Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely: “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”
-Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: “There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.”
-Retired Army Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin: “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.”
-Retired Navy Captain Joseph John: “I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.”
According to the Blaze, one anonymous Pentagon official has said that even young officers have been told “not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House”…
A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even “young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job — just keep your mouth shut.”
Now this trend appears to be accelerating. We have seen a whole bunch of news stories about military officers being dismissed lately.
Almost always, a “legitimate reason” is given for the dismissal. And without a doubt, if a military officer is actually behaving unethically, that officer should be held accountable.
However, the reality is that everyone has “skeletons in the closet”, and if you really want to get rid of someone it is usually not too hard to find a way to justify your decision.
The following are excerpts from three news stories about military officers in trouble that have come out so far in 2014…
#1 The Air Force Times: A group of former Air Force majors, forced out this summer by a noncontinuation board, plans to file a lawsuit claiming the service had no right to separate them simply to meet end-strength numbers set by Congress.
More than 10 of the 157 dismissed majors are banding together to challenge the move in court, seeking either reinstatement or early retirement pay. All 157 had been twice passed over for promotion and were within six years of retirement.
#2 Defense News: Acting US Navy Undersecretary Robert Martinage, the department’s No. 2, has resigned under pressure, sources confirmed for Defense News.
The resignation, which Martinage announced to his staff Tuesday morning, came after allegations were made of inappropriate conduct with a subordinate woman, the sources confirmed.
#3 Huffington Post: The Air Force says 34 nuclear missile launch officers have been implicated in a cheating scandal and have been stripped of their certification in what is believed to be the largest such breach of integrity in the nuclear force.
Some of the officers apparently texted to each other the answers to a monthly test on their knowledge of how to operate the missiles. Others may have known about it but did not report it.
The cheating was discovered during a drug investigation that involves 11 Air Force officers across six bases in the U.S. and England.
Taken alone, it would be easy to dismiss those stories as “coincidences”. But when you put them together with the stories of dozens of other high ranking military officers that have been purged from the U.S. military in recent years, a very disturbing pattern emerges.
The following is a list of high ranking military officers that have been dismissed over the past few years that has been circulating all over the Internet. I think that you will agree that this list is quite stunning…
Commanding Generals fired: •General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012) •Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013) •Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013) •Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013) •Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011) •Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013) •General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013) •Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013) •Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013) •General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013) •Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013) •General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010) •General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009) •General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012) •Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013) •Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013) •Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013) •Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)
Commanding Admirals fired: •Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012) •Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011) •Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011) •Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011) •Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011) •Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011) •Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011) •Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011) •Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011) •Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011) •Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011) •Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011) •Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011) •Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011) •Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011) •Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011) •Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011) •Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011) •Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011) •Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011) •Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011) •Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011) •Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011) •Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011) •Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011) •Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011) •Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011) •Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011) •Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2012): •Commander Alan C. Aber-Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012) •Commander Derick Armstrong- U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012) •Commander Martin Arriola- U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug 2012) •Captain Antonio Cardoso- U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012) •Captain James CoBell- U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012) •Captain Joseph E. Darlak- U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012) •Captain Daniel Dusek-U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme •Commander David Faught-Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012) •Commander Franklin Fernandez- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012) •Commander Ray Hartman- U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012) •Commander Shelly Hakspiel-Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012) •Commander Jon Haydel- U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012) •Commander Diego Hernandez- U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012) •Commander Lee Hoey- U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012) •Commander Ivan Jimenez-Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012) •Commander Dennis Klein- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012) •Captain Chuck Litchfield- U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012) •Captain Marcia Kim Lyons- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012) •Captain Robert Marin- U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012) •Captain Sean McDonell- U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012) •Commander Corrine Parker- U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012) •Captain Liza Raimondo- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, MD (Jun 2012) •Captain Jeffrey Riedel- Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012) •Commander Sara Santoski- U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012) •Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff-Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012) •Commander Sheryl Tannahill- U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville, TN (Sep 2012) •Commander Michael Ward- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012) •Captain Michael Wiegand- U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012) •Captain Ted Williams- U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012) •Commander Jeffrey Wissel- U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)
Naval Officers fired: (All in 2013): •Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen-Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013) •Reserve Captain Jay Bowman-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix, NJ (Mar 2013) •Captain William Cogar-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy’s medical treatment facility (Sept 2013) •Commander Steve Fuller-Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013) •Captain Shawn Hendricks-Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013) •Captain David Hunter-U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12 & Coastal Riverine Group 2 (Feb 2013) •Captain Eric Johnson-U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013) •Captain Devon Jones-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA (July 2013) •Captain Kevin Knoop-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort’s medical treatment facility (Aug 2013) •Lieutenant Commander Jack O’Neill-U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island, IL (Mar 2013) •Commander Allen Maestas-Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013) •Commander Luis Molina-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013) •Commander James Pickens-Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013) •Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice-U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013) •Commander Michael Runkle-U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013) •Commander Jason Stapleton-Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013) •Commander Nathan Sukols-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013) •Lieutenant Daniel Tyler-Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013) •Commander Edward White-U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013) •Captain Jeffrey Winter-U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013) •Commander Thomas Winter-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013) •Commander Corey Wofford- U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)

MIT Professor Exposes Climate Change Hysteria

Story Leak ^ | January 17, 2014 | Mikael Thalen 

A leading climate change figure has come out against the government’s continued and ridiculous climate change hysteria.
Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” Lindzen told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”
Although supporting the theory of man-made global warming, Lindzen admitted that rhetoric from the political class and green movement has been nothing more than over-the-top “catastrophism.”
“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”
Even more surprising, Lindzen goes on to point out the government’s obvious use of climate change alarmism to push greater state control, even warning over politicians’ use of “crony capitalism.”
“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen has frequently been attacked by climate alarmists for refusing to give into political pressures regarding climate sThe growing number of failed predictions from the global warming crowd has only cooled the public’s belief in recent years.
From 2007 to 2009, Al Gore hysterically warned that the North Pole would be completely “ice-free” by 2013. Instead, 2013 experienced record breaking cold and major growth in Arctic ice.
Similarly, Gore made desperate warnings over the danger of increased hurricanes during the same time period. Soon after, climate scientists had trouble explaining the record low hurricanes that soon followed.
In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore went on to claim that global warming would soon wipe coastal areas of Florida off the map in as little as a few decades. Sea level statistics taken 18 years later revealed Gore’s predictions to be completely inaccurate.
White House Science Adviser John P. Holdren, who made failed predictions of global cooling in his 1977 book Ecoscience, attempted to blame the recent “polar vortex” on global warming. Researchers soon uncovered a 1974 Time Magazine article that blamed a cold polar vortex on global cooling instead.
Climate change alarmists have become so crazed in their beliefs that some have attempted to equate skepticism with racism, claiming any denial of global warming is a “sickness” in need of “treatment.”
Unsurprisingly, major environmental issues such as the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster seem to be completely ignored by Gore and company. Given the massive amount of money Al Gore has continued to make from generating climate fear, it seems unlikely that any real disaster unable to generate cash will receive proper attention.