9-11 Off The Record

Today, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is testifying about the 9-11 Benghazi attack. I can’t help but remember when President Bush and Vice President Cheney were called to testify about 9-11 and they insisted on testifying together, not under oath. There was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.

“The president dismissed suggestions that he appeared before the panel with Cheney to coordinate stories. “If we had something to hide, we wouldn’t have met with them in the first place.”

Interestingly he didn’t want to testify…

“The administration initially opposed the creation of the commission. The White House relented amid pressure from some 9/11 family members and it later backed down from its opposition to an extension of time for the commission.”

Amount spent on investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal – $30 million.
Amount authorized for the 9/11 Commission – $15 million

One of many looming questions about 9-11-2001

On 9-11, why weren’t Air Force planes sent up to intercept the hijacked planes? In the year before 9-11, jet fighters were sent up routinely (at least 67 times) whenever any airliner went off course by two miles or by 15 degrees. Usually it only takes 10-12 minutes for jet fighters to go from stationary to 29,000 feet and 1850 mph.

On 9-11, the FAA was notified by a frantic stewardess that the plane was hijacked fully 25 minutes before it crashed into the first tower.

The second plane, which crashed 15 minutes later and which was known to be hijacked 20 minutes before it crashed.

The plane that struck the Pentagon was known to be hijacked a full 45 minutes before it crashed – after two other planes had already been hijacked – yet it flew unchallenged over the most protected airspace in the world. The Pentagon has the most advanced radar and air defense in the world, and Andrews Air Force base, which is charged with defending the Pentagon and always has fighter jets on ready alert, lies a mere 11 miles away (1 minute flying time).

Now we have people are crying out for answers about Benghazi – rightfully so. But I say, what about the thousands who died on 9-11-01. Where are the people in Congress who are willing to finally take a hard look at what took place that day. I hate to say it by I think many in the Republican party refused to even consider the possibility of a government coverup when it was a R behind the wheel. But with Democratic leadership they are happy to point fingers and cry fowl over Benghazi because it’s politically to their advantage to so.


Gun Control, Gun Control, Gun Control

I’ve been following the gun control debate taking place on Senator Bob Casey’s Facebook page. I’m finding that my Senator’s Facebook page is a great place to get a wide range of ideas on just about any topic under the sun. This is what I had to say.

“I think its obvious we all would rather live in a world where kids are not slaughtered by madmen. Some believe that more laws will help. Some believe more guns will help. Its obvious that laws bind only the upright – criminals by definition are willing to break laws. A murderer will acquire guns and high cap magazines whether they are illegal or not. A person who plans on killing themselves after slaughtering children doesn’t care about the legal repercussions of such an act.

There seems to be little to be gained by further restricting law abiding citizens. In a situation where innocent lives hang in the balance what you want is a good neighbor willing to risk life and limb to save life. Isn’t that just self evident.

Some argue that certain kinds of guns have no practical sporting use and therefore should restricted yet their purpose is evident in the fact that law enforcement officers wield them because they are more effective in subduing a threat. It should also be self evident that if your enemy has more sophisticated weapons than you, you are at a disadvantage.

We as a society are under ever increasing threat that we will be victimized. We cannot compound the danger by passing laws that turn hero’s into victims. The freedom of every individual to take proactive steps to counteract any perceived threat must not be questioned. The greatest source of safety comes not from DC. I promise you Senator Casey will not be there if ever your life is in danger. He cannot prevent bad people from doing bad things to you.

Evil can only be defeated head on in the instant it emerges out of the mind into perceivable action. If you are not equipped to face it in that instant it will prevail. You don’t get a second chance. Freeing good people to do the right thing is the only way to limit crime, save lives and foster a more peaceful society. That is what we all want. Right? It seems like some here are more interested in limiting guns than limiting murders.”

As Germany Prepares To Repatriate Its Gold, We Hope They Have Learned From The “Monetary Sins Of The Past” | Zero Hedge

Bundesbank has broken away from its “all is well” posturing exhibited as recently as three months ago, and in a dramatic reversal of its diplomatic position, has demanded repatriation of some of its NY Fed and all of its Paris-domiciled gold

via As Germany Prepares To Repatriate Its Gold, We Hope They Have Learned From The “Monetary Sins Of The Past” | Zero Hedge.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What You Need to Know about the Third US National Climate Assessment.

Late Friday, a draft of the third US National Climate Assessment was released.

According to Mother Jones:

The report describes, among other things, a future of disappearing coastlines, a staggering rise in average temperatures of up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (~6 C) this century, and more frequent heat waves and weather extremes. What’s more, it bluntly states that our modest efforts thus far are “not sufficient” to avert these devastating futures

How serious should this report be taken?

via EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What You Need to Know about the Third US National Climate Assessment..

Helicopter Ben Runs Out of Ideas for Creating Money :: The Circle Bastiat

Ben Bernanke’s confided yesterday that he is unaware of any new method of stimulating economic growth. Spoke Bernanke: “As far as I’m aware, there’s no completely new method that we haven’t [already tapped].” So Helicopter Ben has run out of innovative and unconventional ways to create new money. Lest you be tempted to breathe a bit easier, however, rest assured that the now conventional method of quantitative easing, involving the Fed’s monthly purchase of $85 billion worth of mortgage-backed and U.S. government securities, seems to be working just fine according to Bernanke and he foresees its continuation. Noting the stubbornly high unemployment rate combined with the low inflation rate in the U.S. economy, Bernanke stated, “That is the case for being aggressive, which we are trying to do.” Although he is “cautiously optimistic,” he does promise to closely monitor the risks, efficacy, costs and benefits of this inflationary policy.

I guess the rapid asset price run-up in stock and commodities markets, which are nearly back to financial bubble levels, and booming farmland prices do not count in Bernanke’s benefit-cost calculus. More likely, Bernanke accounts them as a benefit, which, via the “wealth effect,” will induce another debt-driven consumption spree on the part of the American public that will stimulate economic growth, i.e. create another bubble economy.

via Helicopter Ben Runs Out of Ideas for Creating Money :: The Circle Bastiat.

My thoughts on man-made global climate change

This is a revised version of a previous post entitled WANTED: Omnipotent ruler to implement global climate change strategy.

How absurd is the man made climate change propaganda! Think about it. If man’s actions and their subsequent impact on earth is sufficient to alter it’s climate, it stands to reason that, at least a portion of the time, we must have done something right – we’re still here. But never have I heard someone discussing the concept of man made global climate change in a positive light. It is always presented as if man’s impact on earth’s climate is entirely negative. However, such a notion does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny simply because, historically, earth’s temperature has fluctuated both up and down. Logic demands that those who blame man for negative climate change aught also be singing man’s praises, for to them, it is man who has collectively averted one catastrophe after another for what they would say has been millions of years. If they are right and climate is effected by man, I say we deserves a pat on the back and a hearty applause for lasting so long without melting or freezing our planet into oblivion. But I don’t expect we’ll be receiving such commendations from the likes of Mr. Al Gore anytime soon.

But I’ll take the bait. Lets say that man is to blame and agree that the less people on earth the better and more stable the climate will be. Lets say that we believe Al Gore and we want to avert a real crisis which is looming just over the horizon. What does the the idea of man-made global climate change really call for? Let’s take it to it’s logical conclusion. Here is the scenario. Mankind is going to be wiped out by changing sea levels, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic explosions, UV rays and tidal waves. The earth is literally on the verge of destruction. What now?

To avert such a crisis we would need men (or at least a man) who knows what temperature is best at any given point in time at every point on earth and precisely what changes are necessary to alter the climate. To know that would require an infinite knowledge of the world and space around us as well as the ability to see what the future holds.

If we were lucky enough to find an omniscient leader, who was capable of determining what changes were required to obtain the optimal state of the climate, of all the possible states – the force of a global authority – more powerful than any earthy ruler before would be required to move all of society as a single unit toward a single climate goal. Such a legion of super rulers would need to control every facet of production and consumption globally, kill masses of people to bring down the earth’s population, and limit all carbon dioxide emissions to have any hope of saving the planet and mankind. Of course, the people who remained would be total slaves to a ruling elite.

But that’s sort of the point, isn’t it.

Ron Paul Statement on Fiscal Cliff

Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.

While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.

Yet even these minuscule cuts in the “projected rate of spending” were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute “deal” was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.

Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called “bipartisanship” in Washington.

While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.

via EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Ron Paul Statement on Fiscal Cliff.