Under proposed legislation this photo details criminal activity!

Another stupid proposal from stupid people

A few words from Sherman Hawley

U.S. Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis is a pro-union, socialist minded opponent of free trade and a staunch ally of Nancy Pelosi.  She had backing from the unions and the Communist Party when she ran for congress in 2000.  She is well educated and has supposedly worked to protect workers in this country but I think she is totally out of touch with the reality of what is good for this country in her latest proposal.


She wants to prevent children from doing farm chores.  The Dept. of Labor will soon put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child labor laws to children working family farms, keeping them from doing a list of jobs on their own family farms.


This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of and I am sure it is not designed to protect children but part of an agenda to further the intrusion of government into our private lives.  This is shameful and I will bet this woman does not know or has ever met a young person who has gathered eggs, slopped hogs, carried a 5 gal. bucket of water or scooped a bushel of corn.


These chores have produced the most conscientious, responsible and hard working youth in America.


Under her proposal, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of grain, vegetables or livestock.”  It would prohibit young people from working in grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, etc.


It would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA both of which I was involved in as a kid. Instead, it would replace them with a 90 hour federal government training course. Like most liberals, she thinks the government will do a better job than private enterprise can.


I was born and raised on a farm in central Illinois. I was picking asparagus for the Princeville Canning Factory at the age of 9. At 12, I was hired out to drive a tractor and plow, disc and harrow our neighbor’s fields if my Dad didn’t need me. At 15 I was hauling corn to the grain elevators with my Dad’s truck. And during all this I was feeding pigs, grinding corn, milking cows, spreading manure and handling bales of hay from the fields. Also mowing lawns and helping Mom in the garden.


I would not trade those experiences for any government efforts to protect my childhood. I don’t usually go on a rant like this, but the Secretary of Labor has pissed me off with her idiotic proposal. The majority of small family farms have already been eliminated by big Agra-Business, so this should just about finish them off. Now, if I only knew what to do about it.


Yours truly,
Sherman Hawley


p.s.  I apologize if I have offended any liberal sensitivities here but I had to express how I feel.
I’m allowed to do that, right?
(I don't think that Sherm has his 90 hours of approved training... uh oh, re-training camp!)

Stratfor Global Intelligence

Russia's Strategy

By George Friedman

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reversed a process that had been under way since the Russian Empire's emergence in the 17th century. It was ultimately to incorporate four general elements: Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Siberia. The St. Petersburg-Moscow axis was its core, and Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine were its center of gravity. The borders were always dynamic, mostly expanding but periodically contracting as the international situation warranted. At its farthest extent, from 1945 to 1989, it reached central Germany, dominating the lands it seized in World War II. The Russian Empire was never at peace. As with many empires, there were always parts of it putting up (sometimes violent) resistance and parts that bordering powers coveted -- as well as parts of other nations that Russia coveted.

The Russian Empire subverted the assumption that political and military power requires a strong economy: It was never prosperous, but it was frequently powerful. The Russians defeated Napoleon and Hitler and confronted the far wealthier Americans for more than four decades in the Cold War, in spite of having a less developed or less advanced economy. Its economic weakness certainly did undermine its military power at times, but to understand Russia, it is important to begin by understanding that the relationship between military and economic power is not a simple one.

Economy and Security

There are many reasons for Russia's economic dysfunction, but the first explanation, if not the full explanation, is geography and transportation. The Russians and Ukrainians have some of the finest farmland in the world, comparable to that of the American Midwest. The difference is transportation, the ability to move the harvest to the rest of the empire and its far away population centers. Where the United States has the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system that integrates the area between the Rockies and the Appalachians, Russia's rivers do not provide an integrated highway to Russia, and given distances and lack of alternative modes of transport, Russian railways were never able to sustain consistent, bulk agricultural transport.

This is not to say that there wasn't integration in the empire's economy and that this didn't serve as a factor binding it together. It is to say that the lack of economic integration, and weakness in agricultural transport in particular, dramatically limited prosperity in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. At the same time, the relative underdevelopment of the empire and union made it impossible for them to successfully compete with Western Europe. Therefore, there was an economic motivation within the constituent parts of the empire and the union to integrate with each other. There could be synergies on a lower level of development among these nations.

Economics was one factor that bound the Russian Empire and Soviet Union together. Another was the military and security apparatus. The Russian security apparatus in particular played a significant role in holding first the empire and then the union together; in many ways, it was the most modern and efficient institution they had. Whatever temptations the constituent republics might have had to leave the empire or union, these were systematically repressed by internal security forces detecting and destroying opposition to the center. It could be put this way: The army created the empire. Its alignment of economic interests was the weak force holding it together, and the security apparatus was the strong force. If the empire and union were to survive, they would need economic relations ordered in such a way that some regions were put at a disadvantage, others at an advantage. That could happen only if the state were powerful enough to impose this reality. Since the state itself was limited in most dimensions, the security apparatus substituted for it. When the security apparatus failed, as it did at the end of World War I or in 1989-1991, the regime could not survive. When it did succeed, it held it all together.

In the Russian Empire, the economic force and the security force were supplemented by an overarching ideology: that of the Russian Orthodox Church, which provided a rationale for the system. The state security apparatus worked with the church and against dissident elements in other religions in the empire. In the Soviet Union, the religious ideology was supplemented with the secular ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet Union used its security apparatus to attempt a transformation of the economy and to crush opposition to the high cost of this transformation. In some sense, Marxism-Leninism was a more efficient ideology, since Russian Orthodoxy created religious differentials while Marxism-Leninism was hostile to all religions and at least theoretically indifferent to the many ethnicities and nations.

The fall of the Soviet Union really began with a crisis in the economy that created a crisis in the security force, the KGB. It was Yuri Andropov, the head of the KGB, who first began to understand the degree to which the Soviet Union's economy was failing under the growing corruption of the Brezhnev years and the cost of defense spending. The KGB understood two things. The first was that Russia had to restructure (Perestroika) or collapse. The second was that the traditional insularity of the Soviet Union had to be shifted and the Soviets had to open themselves to Western technology and methods (Glasnost). Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was a reformer, but he was a communist trying to reform the system to save the party. He was proceeding from the KGB model. His and Andropov's gamble was that the Soviet Union could survive and open to the West without collapsing and that it could trade geopolitical interests, such as domination of Eastern Europe, for economic relations without shattering the Soviet Union. They lost the bet.

The Soviet Collapse

The 1990s was a catastrophic period for the former Soviet Union. Except for a few regions, the collapse of the Soviet state and the security apparatus led to chaos, and privatization turned into theft. Not surprisingly, the most sophisticated and well-organized portion of the Soviet apparatus, the KGB, played a major role in the kleptocracy and retained, more than other institutions, its institutional identity. Over time, its control over the economy revived informally, until one of its representatives, Vladimir Putin, emerged as the leader of the state.

Putin developed three principles. The first was that the security system was the heart of the state. The second was that Moscow was the heart of Russia. The third was that Russia was the heart of the former Soviet Union. These principles were not suddenly imposed. The power of the KGB, renamed the FSB and SVR, slowly moved from a system of informal domination through kleptocracy to a more systematic domination of the state apparatus by the security services, reinstituting the old model. Putin took control of regional governments by appointing governors and controlling industry outside of Moscow. Most important, he cautiously moved Russia back to first among equals in the former Soviet Union.

Putin came to power on the heels of the Kosovo war. Russia had insisted that the West not go to war with Serbia, what was left of the former Yugoslavia. Russia was ignored, and its lack of influence left President Boris Yeltsin humiliated. But it was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that convinced Putin that the United States intended to break Russia if someone like Yeltsin led it. Ukraine is economically and geographically essential to Russian national security, and Putin saw the attempt to create a pro-Western government that wanted to join NATO as Washington, using CIA-funded nongovernmental organizations pushing for regime change, attempted to permanently weaken Russia. Once the Orange Revolution succeeded, Putin moved to rectify the situation.

The first step was to make it clear that Russia had regained a substantial part of its power and was willing to use it. The second step was to demonstrate that American guarantees were worthless. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 achieved both ends. The Russians had carried out an offensive operation and the Americans, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could not respond. The lesson was not only for Georgia (which, similar to Ukraine, had also sought NATO membership). It was also for Ukraine and all other countries in the former Soviet Union, demonstrating that Russia was again going to be the heart of Eurasia. Indeed, one of Putin's latest projects is the Eurasian Union, tying together Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, a large economic and military part of the former Soviet Union. Add to this Ukraine and the former Soviet Union emerges even more.

Remaking the Union

For Russia, the recreation of a union is a strategic necessity. As Putin put it, the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe. Russia needs the economic integration, particularly given the new economic strategy of post-Soviet Russia, which is the export of raw materials, particularly energy. Aligning with states such as Kazakhstan in energy and Ukraine in grain provides Moscow with leverage in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe. As important, it provides strategic depth. The rest of the world knows that an invasion of Russia is inconceivable. The Russians can conceive of it. They remember that Germany in 1932 was crippled. By 1938 it was overwhelmingly powerful. Six years is not very long, and while such an evolution is unlikely now, from the Russian point of view, it must be taken seriously in the long run -- planning for the worst and hoping for the best.

Therefore, the heart of Russian strategy, after resurrecting state power in Russia, is to create a system of relationships within the former Soviet Union that will provide economic alignment and strategic depth but not give Russia an unsustainable obligation to underwrite the other nations' domestic policies. Unlike the Russian Empire or Soviet Union, Putin's strategy is to take advantage of relationships on a roughly mutual basis without undertaking responsibility for the other nations.

In achieving this goal, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a godsend. Until 9/11, the United States had been deeply involved in peeling off parts of the former Soviet Union such as the Baltics and integrating them into Western systems. With 9/11, the United States became obsessed with the jihadist wars, giving Russia a window of opportunity to stabilize itself and to increase its regional power.

As the United States extracts itself from Afghanistan, Russia has to be concerned that Washington will supplement its focus on China with a renewed focus on Russia. The possible end of these conflicts is not in Russia's interest. Therefore, one piece of Russian external strategy is to increase the likelihood of prolonged U.S. obsession with Iran. Currently, for example, Russia and Iran are the only major countries supporting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. Russia wants to see a pro-Iranian Syria -- not because it is in Moscow's long-term interests but because, in the short run, anything that absorbs the United States will relieve possible pressure on Russia and give more time for reordering the former Soviet Union.

The crisis in Europe is similarly beneficial to Russia. The unease that Germany has with the European Union has not yet matured into a break, and it may never. However, Germany's unease means that it is looking for other partners, in part to ease the strain on Germany and in part to create options. Germany depends on Russian energy exports, and while that might decrease in coming years, Russia is dealing with the immediate future. Germany is looking for other potential economic partners and, most important at a time when Europe is undergoing extreme strain, Germany does not want to get caught in an American attempt to redraw Russian borders. The ballistic missile defense system is not significant, in the sense that it does not threaten Russia, but the U.S. presence in the region is worrisome to Moscow. For Russia, recruiting Germany to the view that the United States is a destabilizing force would be a tremendous achievement.

Other issues are side issues. China and Russia have issues, but China cannot pose a significant threat to core Russian interests unless it chooses to invade maritime Russia, which it won't. There are economic and political issues, of course, but China is not at the heart of Russia's strategic concerns.

For Russia, the overwhelming strategic concern is dominating the former Soviet Union without becoming its patron. Ukraine is the key missing element, and a long, complex political and economic game is under way. The second game is in Central Asia, where Russia is systematically asserting its strength. The third is in the Baltics, where it has not yet made a move. And there is the endless conflict in the northern Caucasus that always opens the door for reasserting Russian power in the south. Russia's foreign policy is built around the need to buy time for it to complete its evolution.

To do this, the Russians must keep the United States distracted, and the Russian strategy in the Middle East serves that purpose. The second part is to secure the West by drawing Germany into a mutually beneficial economic relationship while not generating major resistance in Poland or an American presence there. Whether this can be achieved depends as much on Iran as it does on Russia.

Russia has come far from where Yeltsin took it. The security forces are again the heart of the state. Moscow dominates Russia. Russia is moving to dominate the former Soviet Union. Its main adversary, the United States, is distracted, and Europe is weak and divided. Of course, Russia is economically dysfunctional, but that has been the case for centuries and does not mean it will always be weak. For the moment, Russia is content to be strong in what it calls the near abroad, or the former Soviet Union. Having come this far, it is not trying to solve insoluble problems.

Read more: Russia's Strategy | Stratfor 

Not-So-Smooth Operator

Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.

Peggy Noonan, WSJ

Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.

The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

The high court's hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.

All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.

I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I'm only saying he's made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

In terms of the broad electorate, I'm not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.

From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?

That's what the American people were thinking about.

But the new president wasn't thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn't know it was so bad, didn't understand the depth of the crisis, didn't have a sense of how long it would last. They didn't have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.

The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the "Is America over?" part.

And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they've read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.

If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It's hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn't seem to like his job that much. As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.

He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O'Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.

An American president has to make cooperation happen.

But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.

A version of this article appeared Mar. 31, 2012, on page A13 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Not-So-Smooth Operator.

Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired) ....

All,

The tragic consequences over the acts by three or four individuals over the last few weeks in Afghanistan are both sobering and discouraging. 

It makes me think back on the opening of Kipling's poem If:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too; 

It is my argument that now is a time to keep our heads. A few months ago I spoke or, more correctly, listened to about a dozen Marines who are deploying to Afghanistan as I write. They ranged in rank from Lieutenant Colonel to Lance Corporal. 

Let me begin by stating that the Marines serving today as a group are more fit, better trained, equipped, led and motivated than at any time since I put on the eagle, globe and anchor in the late 1970's. They are legitimate heirs to the accomplishments of the Marines of the "Greatest Generation" or any other. 

The Marines were universally confident in their mission and their ability to achieve it. This was all the more admirable as they were bound for the last major stronghold of the Taliban remaining in Afghanistan, an area we had never challenged, an area that has remained under Taliban control since before 9/11.

Now let us address three facts. 

1. The Afghans who are allied with us share their roots with the Mujahideen that defeated the Soviets.

The Soviets were defeated by a coalition of fighters known as the Peshawar Seven (or P7):

Afghan National Liberation Front (Karzai was a senior leader)           

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) – Led by Hekmatyar

Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan           

Jamat-i-Islami (Tajik) Led by Rabbani/Ahmed Shah Massoud           

National Islamic Front of Afghanistan           

Hezb-e-Islami Khalis (HIK) Led by Haqqani AKA "The Haqqani Network"

Islamic Revolutionary Movement 

Here are the four P7 groups that are part of the current government in Afghanistan and fighting with us in 2012:

Afghan National Liberation Front (Karzai's old group)           

Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan           

Jamat-i-Islami       

National Islamic Front of Afghanistan           

Here is only P7 group that is fighting against us: Hezb-e-Islami Khalis (HIK) Led by Haqqani

Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) – Led by a Hekmatyar has split from the Taliban but has not agreed to join with the Afghan Government or work with the Coalition Forces. Peace talks with HIG are currently underway.

That leaves one remaining P7 member: The Islamic Revolutionary Movement. 

The group fell apart after the war. Some of the members joined the government as an opposition party, the Islamic and National Revolutionary Movement of Afghanistan. More importantly, one of its combat leaders, Mullah Omar went his own way and formed the Taliban a number of years after the war with the Soviets was over in 1994.

2. The Taliban did not defeat the Soviets. 

They did not even exist during the war. The mujahideen of the P7 defeated the Soviets and the overwhelming majority of those groups are with us in Afghanistan.

3. The Afghans we are allied with in the fight are succeeding while the Taliban are failing.

When the Soviets entered Afghanistan in 1979, they had the initial support of an Afghan military of some 90,000 men. The mujahideen had to start from scratch. When the Soviets called it quits in 1989, the number soldiers in the Afghan army had fallen to about 30,000. The numbers serving with the P7 Mujahideen had risen to over 200,000.

When the Coalition entered Afghanistan in 2001, the size of the Taliban army was about 45,000 including 055 Brigade which was commanded by Usama bin Laden and composed of al Qaeda fighters. The new Afghan army had to start virtually from scratch. Today, the Taliban is estimated to be at around 15,000 fighters while the 055 Brigade was completely destroyed. The Afghan Army is now over 130,000 strong.

What we have seen is a complete reversal of what happened when the Soviets entered Afghanistan.

When the Soviets entered, the Afghan mujahideen grew is size and strength while the pro-Soviet Afghan forces became weaker and weaker. 

Today, with the Coalition in Afghanistan, the Taliban are now much weaker than they were in 2001 while the Afghan Army has grown tremendously in size and strength compared to where they were in 2001.

Semper Fi,

Mike

Andrew Breitbart, RIP...

Krauthammer: U.S. apology is embarrassing and groveling...

By Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller

On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer took strong umbrage with the White House’s decision to apologize at a Virginia mosque for a reportedly accidental burning of Islamic holy documents.

“That was embarrassing, what we saw,” Krauthammer said. “We have gone from apology here to abject self-debasement and groveling. And groveling to whom? To the mob. We should have had a single apology coming from the commander on the ground and that’s it. Not from the secretary of defense. Not from the president, of all people.”

Krauthammer reminded viewers of the 2010 incident involving Terry Jones, a Florida pastor who was promoting “Burn a Koran Day” and the administration’s reaction to that.

“Remember when the president had to pick up the phone when there was a crazy pastor in Florida who wanted a Koran burning and he had to be talked out of it,” Krauthammer said. “Is the president in charge of the offenses against a certain religious tradition in the world? This is a world in which nobody asked the Islamic conference, the grouping of the 56 Islamic countries, to issue an apology when Christians are attacked and churches are burned in Egypt or in Pakistan. And have we heard a word from any Islamic leader anywhere about the radical Muslims in Nigeria who are not only burning the churches but are burning women and children who are Christian in the churches. When I hear that, I’ll expect my president to start issuing apologies.”

According to The Washington Post columnist, this response makes the United States look weak and despite looking weak, those on the other side rarely reciprocate.

“In fact I’m not sure the argument that … you have to do it to protect our soldiers, is correct,” he continued. “The fact that after the president apologized and after we have been on our knees groveling there was an increase in the violence. I mean, it isn’t as if it has any effect whatsoever. It whets the appetite. People love to see America on its knees. And second, on the idea that there are leaders, Muslim leaders in the world who apologize, there are 56 nations in the Islamic conference. Has one apologized for the attacks on the Copts in Egypt? Has the leader in Egypt himself apologized? No. Sorry.”

Krauthammer’s “Special Report” co-panelist Kirsten Powers shot back at him, suggesting that the United States should set the example.

“I just have a hard time following this idea that we should be demanding apologies from other people but we shouldn’t apologize,” Powers said. “Is this what people tell their children? Only apologize if somebody else apologizes? We have our standards based on what we believe in. We are the United States. We are better than those people.”

But despite that plea from Powers, Krauthammer explained that it is not the case in this country when other religions are attacked.

“The reason we’re apologizing is not because of politeness or showing respect,” Krauthammer replied. “A single apology would have done that. It’s the fear of violence. People don’t object if Mormons are mocked on Broadway, if Christian crucifixes are put in bottles of urine and displayed in a museum because the violence isn’t a factor. People are afraid. You do a cartoon of Muhammad and you get beheaded or shot. It’s a matter of fear. It’s not respect. One apology is correct. It shouldn’t have been done. Absolutely all of this stuff is cravens.”

Note from Mike Walker...

Bruce,

Mostly concur. Overseas, there is seldom a situation where an apology alone is a good decision.

When an apology is appropriate it should always be coupled with a counterpoint or counter statement.

In this case, we regret the accidental burning of the Korans, it should not have happened. We also regret the extreme violence used by some to damage the peace. This too should not have happened and is to be equally condemned.

Mike

John Hinderacker, Powerline

BUDGET? WHO NEEDS A BUDGET?

Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress have set a new standard of irresponsibility: for the third year in a row, Harry Reid announced that he would not allow a vote on a FY 2013 budget to come to the floor of the Senate. “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid told a conference call with reporters.

This year? How about last year, or the year before? The Obama administration has become a budget-free zone, in flagrant violation of federal law, which prescribes a process for developing a federal budget which the Democrats have simply flouted. Has our nation ever seen such fecklessness? $15 trillion in debt, the credit of the United States being downgraded, hundreds of thousands leaving the labor force, and the Democrats don’t think our government should have a budget? Or a plan to dig our way out of a $15 trillion hole? How out of touch can the Democrats be?

Senator Jeff Sessions responded to Reid’s thumbing his nose at federal law:

It’s been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people. Now, once again, the Senate’s ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership. Majority Leader Reid is denying the American people the opportunity to become engaged in the debate about the nation’s fiscal future and the difficult choices we face. He obviously continues in his belief that it would be politically foolish for his members to go on record in support of any long-term vision. But by refusing to lay out a budget plan for public examination—a fact no one can deny—the Democrat Senate has forfeited the high privilege to lead this chamber. If Sen. Reid and his members stand by this announcement, it means that the American people will go through yet another year of crisis without Senate Democrats unveiling and standing behind a financial plan for our future.

Budget Control Act spending caps, crafted behind closed doors and rushed to passage at the 11th hour under threat of panic, do not even approach the definition of the budget process that the law requires. They are not in any way or any sense a Senate Democrat budget plan. There is no argument that can be made that these caps are a long-term vision for this country—not on taxes, not on entitlements, not on spending, not on debt. Presumably, this obvious fact is why Chairman Conrad has said he will mark up a budget in our Committee. However, this process will be eviscerated if Sen. Reid refuses to allow a budget resolution to come to the floor.

I will continue to insist that the public process be carried out and that Senate Democrats bring an actual budget resolution to the Senate floor.

Paul Ryan said:

Earlier today, Senate Democrats confirmed that they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Senate Majority Leader Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis. By refusing to confront the storm clouds ahead, Senate Democrats are committing our nation to a future of debt, doubt and decline.

The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it is incapable of leading and incapable of governing. Why would anyone vote for a Democrat for any office?

Important read....

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

There is an old debating adage that the one who asks the questions controls the debate. When we are asked if the highest earners are paying their fair share of taxes, we become trapped in the wrong debate.

The problem we are facing is how to create jobs and promote economic growth. The only solution lies in the private sector economy and focusing on how much high earners send in taxes to Washington D.C. is a sure path to failure.

We need to ask the right question: Are the highest earners doing their fair share to create jobs and grow our economy? The answer to this question gets to the heart of the problem.

If high earners buy tax-free municipal bonds for public works and infrastructure then they are doing the right thing.

If high earners invest their monies in new businesses that create jobs then they are doing the right thing.

If the owners of businesses purchases new equipment and are able to deduct that as a business expense then they are doing the right thing.

The entire premise that what determines whether or not high earners are “good people and decent Americans” is the amount of tax dollars they send to politicians in Washington D.C. is plain wrong. 

More often then not, high earners are doing the best thing for America when they seek to invest in the private sector and NOT send those dollars to Washington D.C.

If we are going to put American back on top then we first need to ask the right questions.

Mike

The Dem mantra touts Barry's origins as an "organizer" and his ongoing efforts to help the middle-class... who believes that? An organizer isn't really concerned with the plight of the middle-class but the vote!