A False Recovery, Part II

From Mish’s:

Inquiring minds are digging into the stunningly bad Quarter-Over-Quarter decline in wages and real wages across all sectors…

…The BLS notes “Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 4.3 percent in the first quarter of 2013, the combined effect of a 3.8 percent decrease in hourly compensation and the 0.5 percent increase in productivity. The decline in hourly compensation is the largest in the series, which begins in 1947.”…

This is just lousy.  Now, before any of you out there get all “that’s just GOPer doom and gloom”, Mike Shedlock (Mish) was firmly anti-Bush 2001-09 and stands entirely outside the GOP.  He’s not in any way, shape or form one of us.  He’s just a genuinely independent observer and economic analyst.  And his conclusion?

The Fed and Obama are both engaging in counterproductive policies that discourage hiring, especially hiring of full-time employees.

Of course Obama will respond by asking for a raise in minimum wage (giving further incentives to businesses to seek ways to get rid of employees), and the Fed will vow to keep interest rates low (enabling companies to borrow money for next to nothing to do just that).

Between the Federal Reserve (entirely committed to Keynesian idiocy) and Obama (also entirely committed to Keynesian idiocy), the ability of the United States to recover from the 2008 crash has been crushed.  And to make it all worse, the twin policies of Bernanke and Obama are setting us strait on the path to renewed, and much worse, crash.  The only way we can get out of this mess is to produce our way out of it – by creating wealth.  That takes making, mining and growing things in a free market…not subsidizing green energy scams or dinosaur auto makers; not printing more fake money and piling up more debt; not by re-paving an already paved road and hiring more diversity coordinators for the Department of Departmental Affairs.



109 thoughts on “A False Recovery, Part II

  1. Retired Spook June 6, 2013 / 8:17 am

    Between the Federal Reserve (entirely committed to Keynesian idiocy) and Obama (also entirely committed to Keynesian idiocy), the ability of the United States to recover from the 2008 crash has been crushed.

    I may be remembering this wrong given my last study of economics was in the mid 60’s, but I don’t believe Keynes ever advocated the kind of long-term deficit spending we’re engaged in. If you Google “Keynes rolling over in his grave”, you get a number or articles that would indicate such. Last summer Zero Hedge had a great piece on Keynes. It’s really difficult to understand why anyone is still enamored by his theories.

  2. Retired Spook June 6, 2013 / 9:27 am

    The Fed and Obama are both engaging in counterproductive policies that discourage hiring, especially hiring of full-time employees.

    Think for a second just how profound a statement that is. And then think about why they’re doing this. There can only be two explanations: They are incredibly incompetent or there is a more malevolent intent. I’m betting on the latter, although the two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It defies logic that 65 million people showed up at the polls last November and proudly proclaimed, “yeah, man, we want 4 more years of this.”

    • neocon01 June 6, 2013 / 9:41 am

      . It defies logic that 65 million people showed up at the polls last November and proudly proclaimed, “yeah, man, we want 4 more years of this.”

      It defies logic that almost 50% of the people pay no federal taxes, there are 30 MILLION ILLEGAL occupants here sucking hundreds of billions $$ off the producing 50%….one can get 99 weeks of unemployment for drinking beer on the porch, Trillion $$ deficits year after year,
      and the naacp inciting riots because of the eeeevil GOP.

      to me the 65 million is a no brainier, as they (65m) also seem to be…hence the low information population = dumb as a Fn box of rocks.

  3. Retired Spook June 6, 2013 / 10:53 am

    The comment by one of the Forkers has been deleted, but the question he (Fred, I think) raised needs to be answered. He called Neocon on the carpet for suggesting that the coming collapse is “by design”, and wondered how corporations could possibly benefit from an engineered collapse. Anyone who doesn’t believe it’s “by design” is either naive or just hasn’t been paying attention. Probably the best analysis I’ve read was an essay by Richard Clark a couple years ago, based largely on an article at Zero Hedge. It’s a long read, but really lays it out in language that even a layman can understand.

  4. Cluster June 6, 2013 / 10:55 am

    Let’s not forget folks, the GOP is nearly as much to blame for this mess as the Democrats are, although I still give the lion’s share of the blame to the Democrats. What have “career” GOP’ers done to stop this? The 1994 – 2006 GOP led Congress wasn’t exactly a fiscally prudent body. And where’s the outrage, or the repatriation efforts, directed towards companies like GE, Apple, etc., who are avoiding income taxes and keeping trillions of dollars off shore. Where is the GOP effort to seize on the IRS scandal, grow a spine and forcefully call for tax reform? And why did the GOP, and Romney, cower after the 47% comment? That comment was not derisive – it was reality. It is a HUGE problem that 47% of wage earners pay no income tax, and it is 100% politically driven. The only reason those folks pay no income tax, is because politicians found ways to exclude them in exchange for their votes. I don’t care if you only make $15,000/yr, you should pay something – everyone needs to have skin in the game!!

    Equally to blame for our current mess is the entitlement culture we are mired in. A record number of people are collecting disability, and if you think that is driven by a sudden increase in work place injuries, you need to have your head examined. Welfare rolls at record highs, labor participation rates at record lows, the actual number of tax payers dwindling, the debt at record highs, corporate tax rates that are the highest in the world, and a media complex that claims the objections to our President’s policies are race based.

    This country couldn’t be any worse off 5 years after the election of The One We Have All Been Wanting For. I think we all need to have our heads examined.

    • M. Noonan June 6, 2013 / 11:50 pm

      Indeed, the mirror is the first place we have to go to find out what is wrong.

  5. Cluster June 6, 2013 / 11:17 am

    Excellent article Spook linked to and an article of which everyone should read, notably the liberals that frequent this blog. Here are two important take aways:

    BOTH major parties are owned and operated by global banks. This is the cold hard and undeniable truth of our current political-economic system. There is no way around it. Learn it, accept it as reality, and stop trying to blame one party or the other for problems that both sides helped create! (If you cannot do this, your view of our current state of affairs will always be badly skewed and your insights on our socioeconomic problems will be worthless.)

    The IMF has on several occasions made it clear that they eventually intend for the SDR (Special Drawing Rights) to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency, and they have openly admitted that it (the SDR) will one day be established as a global currency. IMF press releases make this development sound far off and away, but SDR accumulations by countries around the world have risen dramatically in the past year. This along with other factors we will cover (namely China’s preparations to dump their U.S. T-bond holdings) show that IMF actions indicate they are preparing for a collapse of the dollar now!

    I have been wanting to write a thread on the impending “cash bubble” that this country will soon face following the tech bubble and the housing bubble. The coming cash bubble could be as bad or worse for millions of Americans. The authors conclusion was more optimistic on our ability to avoid such global manipulation, but that hope starts with becoming aware of what is going on, and not tolerating it any more, regardless of political party affiliation. The student survey that our liberals gleefully pointed to the other day is a good example of how deeply buried their heads are – the younger generation gives Obama good marks because they believe he “cares” and that he is “trying” – it doesn’t get any more naive than that.

  6. bardolf2 June 6, 2013 / 1:16 pm

    “That takes making, mining and growing things in a free market…not subsidizing green energy scams or dinosaur auto makers” – Mark

    I agree heartily with this point, and once again I want to add real estate to the “not subsidizing list.” Take away the economic prop of the ‘housing bubble’ as Cluster rightly calls it, the associated jobs in housing,construction, realtors etc. and the Bush economy would have been properly seen as a nightmare even without the trillions of dollars spent bringing democracy to hopeful democracy-lovers in the middle east.

    I would advocate a repeal of the tax write off for interest on homes as a way to bring market prices closer to reality in home sales. It would also encourage people to pay off their homes more quickly and then use money beyond that to start or help start small businesses. Right now the idea for the middle class is to store up maximal value in your home and retirement fund, neither of these contribute to making-mining-growing.

    I would also like to point out that I think the government should subsidize many, perhaps risky efforts to increase the energy infrastructure in the US. From running the Post Office on natural gas trucks to research into tinkering with solar/wind. There is some good news along this line (obviously in spite of the government). A steeper-than-expected rise in US shale oil reserves is about to change the global balance of power between new and existing producers, a report says.


      • neocon01 June 6, 2013 / 3:12 pm

        Dr. B.
        Mish also has an interesting link about how technology will displace ever more jobs in the coming years. As a father this is concern of mine
        not sure your concern is for your job or theirs (kids).. Either way look towards a trade that will support all that technology.
        I did that years ago and worked even when degree’d engineers were being laid off, and I was making more than they were.

      • bardolf2 June 6, 2013 / 7:56 pm


        I actually don’t worry about my own generation that much. I’ve been poor before, I own my house and 12 acres of good land outright if push comes to shove. I’d prefer to use my noggin to figure out how to take the toil out of work instead of the opposite, but I’m undaunted.

        I worry more about the next generation and what kind of jobs they will find. A huge percentage of the ‘service’ industry as well as manufacturing sector will be replaced in 10 years.

      • neocon01 June 6, 2013 / 8:10 pm

        Dr B.
        A huge percentage of the ‘service’ industry as well as manufacturing sector will be replaced in 10 years.

        The young should look into what sector will be replaced then aim for that which replaces it. IE when the auto industry automated a bunch of “wrenches” lost their jobs to technicians who built, repaired, and serviced those robots, damn good jobs for those with the abilities.
        As a Mechanical, heating/AC contractor everything is going electronic, and computer operated and controlled. All my sons (my self included) are very proficient in electronics and damn good with computers. We already have a leg up on the shade tree companies.
        All of them served 5 year apprentice ships and attended school with at least an associates degree in the related studies. People call us to do work for them, we never advertise.
        Of course those who CAN DO, those who CANT…TEACH!
        sorry the devil made me say it!!

      • M. Noonan June 6, 2013 / 11:56 pm


        My view is that no matter how good technology gets, the basics of life still have to be met – we have to have food, we have to have clothing, we have to have housing. This can only come about by making, mining and growing things in one manner or another. Whomever makes, mines and grows things the best will be wealthiest and dominate the globe. One of the things which really irritates me is those out there who say that “information technology” is the way to go – but, goodness, info-tech is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Unless it is helping us – here in America – to make, mine and grow things, then its is mostly worthless…indeed, counter productive in that if we develope info-tech which allows a different country to make things better and cheaper, then we’ve just shot ourselves in the foot…because eventually they’ll develope an info-technology base and won’t even need us for that.

        Our whole economic policy should be geared towards rewarding those who make, mine and grow things and those who allow us to make, mine and grow things more efficiently. We can do this – heck, we’re better positioned than anyone else to do it as we still have the best research institutes in the world, still have a large pool of highly skilled labor and can find almost all the raw materials we need right in our own territory. We’re sitting in a pot of soup right now, starving to death.

      • bardolf2 June 7, 2013 / 1:10 am

        @Neo and @Mark

        I grew up in Nebraska and know dang well that there are a lot fewer farmers than there were 100 years ago even though we eat better. Technology has allowed people who used to farm to do other things. They moved to cities and started building things which have enriched our lives like clothing and bigger houses. But what happens when the built things are also automated?

        What we have come to in my opinion is the end of the line of middle class WANTS which can not be fulfilled by either (1) a decreasing number of people + machines or by (2) a small number of people or which need (3) a huge amount of money or (4) which can be had by a fraction of the population by definition. Food/housing/clothing will be turned over to a decreasing number of people plus machines and entertainment or services or medicine etc. will require a small number of people. That leaves (3) which are wants requiring an exorbitant amount of money, like exotic travel or rare opportunities and (4) wants like FAME which by definition can only be had by a few people since otherwise fame is meaningless.

        As the Chinese would say, we are living in interesting times.

      • M. Noonan June 7, 2013 / 10:47 am


        We’re also importing massive amounts of food in 2013, something unheard of in 1913. Huge swaths of prime, American farm land are lying fallow…because we’ve made it so that its harder and harder to grow things for a profit in the United States. Given the size of our arable land we should not import any food except types which physically cannot grow within our territory – to import food we can grow is a failure. Whatever turns out to be the reasons must be corrected. You’d be completely right in your views here if we were maxed out on production and still needed more – but, we’re not maxed out.

        Same thing goes with oil and steel and copper and screw drivers and shoes – we have a need for such things and we are not maxed out on production from our own resources. Production is the only way to make wealth – and we’re not producing enough.

    • Cluster June 6, 2013 / 1:49 pm

      I would cap the mortgage deduction amount to homes no more than say $200K (or thereabouts). People of modest income rely on financing and are not in a financial position to pay loans off early, and the mortgage interest deduction does provide them with a needed write off at the end of the year. That also being said, I would eliminate 100% LTV loans, which are still available and insured by the government.

      The next economic platform for the US is energy, and we have an abundance. Look at what’s going on in ND, and that industry relies on good ol fashion man power, meaning lots and lots of good paying jobs and support jobs. We just need to get the greenies, and the “paid off” Democrats out of the way.

      • neocon01 June 6, 2013 / 3:13 pm

        I know some disagree but I am for term limits in both houses.

      • bardolf2 June 6, 2013 / 8:08 pm

        I’ll add another subsidy to the pile which would personally hurt. I think the tax write off for education expenses needs to be overhauled. It has inflated the prices at universities and encouraged a bureaucracy of diversity gurus, grievance counselors and professional bean movers (certain administrators who move money to projects mainly to enhance their own resumes so they can find the next better job) who can’t even count beans.

        I’d add that too many people use the ‘so and so is blocking the way’ as an excuse to do little. Instead of taking risks in an uncertain economy these people understand ‘make mine grow’ as an order for what some magic financier should do with their savings.

  7. Retired Spook June 6, 2013 / 3:13 pm

    Just to give you an idea of how FUBAR our economy is, this is one of the main headlines at MarketWatch this afternoon:

    Do markets want a good or bad jobs number?

  8. tiredoflibbs June 7, 2013 / 7:59 am

    Spook, mitchie bitches and moans that this blog is an echo chamber. Yet we have posted disagreements with each other as well as criticisms of Bush during his Presidency.

    Mitchie hangs out with and has become the proxy poster for the forkers. Of course he denies it and the forkers have denied it as well, but in reality he and they are liars. He believes his “opinions” (more like regurgitated dumbed down leftist talking points crusty posted the same ones above) are deleted because they are simple disagreements. He conveniently “forgets” his massive four letter word rants and attacks. He presents himself as a pitiful little victim.

    • Retired Spook June 7, 2013 / 8:26 am

      He presents himself as a pitiful little victim.

      Tired, I would agree with the “pitiful” part, and, to some extent, he is a “victim” of his own distorted world view. He’s just not someone with whom I wish to have a conversation. I actually don’t mind talking to people who disagree with me, but I’d prefer it be people who can tell me why I’m wrong, not just that I’m wrong.

  9. Retired Spook June 7, 2013 / 8:05 am

    This comment in a MarketWatch article this morning about the upcoming jobs report dovetails with comments made by Neocon:

    Lots of jobs for skilled labor. Go to Tech school and learn a trade. A good electrician can make $100,000 a year and they are in demand. Same thing with welders and machinists. Sorry no jobs for dopes anymore. Just the way it is.

    I would disagree, however, with the “no jobs for dopes” comment. At a fast food restaurant recently, the bill came to $11.27. I gave the cashier $12.00, then realized I had $.27 in change in my pocket. I handed her the $.27 and said, “just give me one of those 1’s back. She gave me this really puzzled look, and before I could explain it, she said “I was never any good at math”, and called her supervisor over to straighten it out. There will always be jobs for dopes — just not very good jobs.

  10. bardolf2 June 7, 2013 / 10:42 am


    Rand Paul is way ahead of the president on matters of civil liberty. Looking into my crystal ball and I see Attorney General Holder will not survive the summer. This topic should be the subject of a NEW THREAD. Matt and Mark may have gotten lucky with the timing of their book. They should be working 24/7 right now pushing it and talking about Obama trampling civil liberties.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 12:42 pm

      Speaking of Rand Paul; do you think a Republican candidate can get the nomination as an isolationist? That is, Paul’s foreign policy is out of the Republican mainstream and no Republican since Hoover has had a shot without a muscular foreign policy.

      I’m not criticizing Rand (Ron Paul is another subject), he has much to recommend him as a candidate. And much to offer the Party in terms of focusing on domestic issues.

      • neocon01 June 7, 2013 / 1:26 pm

        no we will do mcLame – mitt 3, and nominate the round rino christie for a perfect trifecta of losers. Then proclaim we need more illegals, abortionists, homosexuals and the forkers in our tent to win…….Riiiiight Pee Wee!!

      • bardolf2 June 7, 2013 / 1:26 pm


        I go to a very conservative church LCMS and 95% are Midwest Republicans (like Spook) and many have sons serving in the military. Without realizing it they are exhausted by all the ‘theoretical democracy bringing’ the US has been doing and I believe would welcome a little more isolationism. The question is whether the party elite will put up with a speak-softly-carry-a-big-stick approach.

        One danger of isolationism that isn’t mentioned got brought to my addition from a military academy guy I know who isn’t too happy about the pc culture imposed on the the US forces from on high. From what I gather, today’s military has exchanged old time leadership with MBA corporate management (think Captain Stillman from Stripes) so that moving up in the ranks requires less physicality from the more pointy-headed officers. One only finds out about the failures of such philosophies on the battlefield and so isolationism sets the stage for theorizing to take hold.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 1:39 pm


        so are you saying that the Republican Party is ready to move to isolationist? Since “big stick” implies a very active foreign interventionist behavior (think Great White Fleet).

        Inductive reasoning aside, is it possible for the Party to become more fixated on domestic issues and social issues in a post 9-11 world? I mean beyond the people you know.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 1:44 pm

        I believe Romney was the most qualified, best prepared candidate the Republicans have put up since Reagan. We are much the worst for having not elected him.

        The Press selected McCain, not even the “Establishment Republicans” approved of that choice.

      • neocon01 June 7, 2013 / 2:08 pm

        Ooh I agree on those points, I voted for Romney…TWICE..Oh wait! LOL
        However R came across as a milquetoast, a nerd, a dweeb.
        People are looking for a champion, a warrior to take up the mantle and stick it to the donks. That is why Sarah (mmmm mmm mmm) was wildly popular as well as Rand Paul and the new rising star…Ted Cruz.
        the GOP establishment let the press rape Palin, destroy Herman Cain, blast Allen West and steal his seat. And we are still stuck with the rino schmuck maLame and his GOP toadies. It is they who let the donks steam roll the American people.
        I agree with Cluster both a parties are culpable, not equally though.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 2:29 pm

        I’m with you on that neo.

        We all know how the Press gave us Juan Mc Lame and wanted anyone but Romney, promoting the non-Romney of the week before flaying and savaging each in turn until they had just Romney left to savage.

        It is a shame that all candidates must pass the Madison Avenue test; pretty empty-headed spokesmen chock-full o’ platitudes and short on personal history.

        If he’s the candidate, Rand will look like Mister Peepers at the debates. Who am I kidding; he already looks like Mister Peepers.

        Unless the Party takes a very strong turn to isolationist, and here I mean they must forget they’ve been Republicans for the last 90 years, Ran will never do better than Ron; a funny historical foot-note.

      • Amazona June 7, 2013 / 4:45 pm

        Count, not sure why you think of Mr. Peepers when you think of Rand Paul. Aside from the curly locks, I think he comes across pretty strong.

        But no GOP candidate will ever stand a chance as long as we allow ourselves to be lured off the path of defining the election as a choice of GOVERNMENT and get sucked into the feverswamp of ISSUES. The Left wants/needs every election to be as much as possible about “issues”—gay “marriage”, abortion, bogus “war on women” tripe, etc. This is where emotions rule, this is where demagoguery is king, and this is where they absolutely MUST have decisions made.

        The last thing the Left wants is an election that has the two basic competing forms of government clearly laid out, described and defined, and then having the American public understand that their choice is not between ‘choice’ and ‘pro-life’ but between huge, powerful, controlling and infinitely expandable big government which is put in charge of every aspect of our lives or small, restricted, and limited national government with more power and control kept at the state and local levels.

        Just as this blog is a microcosm of the GOP, with people incapable of resisting the lure of that bait dragged across in front of them, I am sure we will see every GOP candidate getting sucked into responding to gotcha questions about birth control, etc.

        It will take training and discipline to have a candidate who can respond to a gotcha such as the one Tiny George presented to Paul Ryan about birth control by saying, in return:
        “You’ll need to make that question a little clearer, George. If you are asking about my own personal religious beliefs, my answer is that it is none of your business as they will have nothing to do with the way I think the nation should be governed. If you are asking about my position on states’ rights, my answer would be that under the 10th Amendment, as birth control is in no way related to any of the enumerated duties of the federal government it is exclusively up to states to make their own decision. If you are asking me if the federal government should stick its nose into personal issues like birth control I would refer you back to the 10th Amendment and say no. This is a foolish question and until I know what you are getting at, it’s pretty much impossible to answer.”

        It will take training and discipline to respond to every gotcha with a stern and consistent return to the matter of government, and to avoid the quicksand of “issues” questions. And I doubt that any of our candidates will have the backbone to do that. Even if some do, there will be those who, like our Jack Russells here, will simply feel compelled to respond to the most inane, stupid, and clearly-designed-to-entrap questions the Complicit Agenda Media will come up with.

        Smart, focused and prepared candidates can easily have the media talking heads exploding, making them look the fools they are, by turning every question away from fluff and back to the only real point of an election, which is to decide how to govern the nation.

      • Amazona June 7, 2013 / 5:01 pm

        “….Then proclaim we need more illegals, abortionists, homosexuals and the forkers in

        No, what we need is more people who understand that the real purpose of an election is to choose the best form of government for our nation, and to get over the ego trip of demanding that any vote for a federal government restricted as to size, scope and power must also come from a straight person who is against abortion, or some other similar criterion.

        What we need is the understanding that short of a despotic big-controlling-federal-government leviathan that will (in our fantasies) reflect our own personal “values”, every one of the “values” some tout—-understanding that “values” is conservative-speak for “issues”—should be, to a true Constitutional Conservative, wholly in the realm of state or local government.

        What I hear from the hair-on-fire “conservatives” is that if someone does not adhere to a rather limited and restrictive list of “values” they don’t want his vote.

        In other words, what I hear is a strident declaration that it is more important to make a point than it is to return our nation to a constitutional form of government. Win a skirmish, lose the war, and then preen over the moral victory while the government grows out of control, we lose more and more of our freedoms, and the United States becomes unrecognizable to those who understand how and why it was formed the way it was.

        “But we sure ran off those damned gay guys. Hillary is president but we sure stood up for our “values”.

        Well,I say that the people I want to appeal to come from every single demographic we can think of,and I say that the only appeal we should make to any of them is one to return the nation to a small-government free market system of personal liberty and restricted federal size and authority. When it comes to POLITICS the only characteristic I care about is a commitment to the principles of government laid out in the Constitution. Why should I reject his vote because he goes home to another man instead of to a woman? What does that have to do with how the nation is governed?

        I share the same religious principles as most of the Founders, I place the same importance on most of the same values I see touted here. But I understand that without a nation devoted to the political principles of the Constitution the personal and religious values will be trampled, and I think it foolish to demand that POLITICAL ideology be linked in every way to personal, ethical or religious ideology.

      • Retired Spook June 7, 2013 / 5:03 pm

        so are you saying that the Republican Party is ready to move to isolationist? Since “big stick” implies a very active foreign interventionist behavior (think Great White Fleet).

        My idea of “speak softly but carry a big stick” is more along the lines of projection of power rather than through interventionist behavior. But having cut back our navy from 600 ships to under 300 in the last couple decades, we’ve ceded away one of our most powerful power-projecting tools. I would certainly prefer, at this point, that we refrain from any more foreign entanglements like Iraq and Afghanistan, and limit our military activities to going after terrorist cells with special forces types. My gut feeling, however, is that Obama has different plans. I’d be very surprised if we make it through his 2nd term without a major conflict.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 5:26 pm


        We fundamentally agree that the choice should be laid out clearly for the voters to decide. But, an overarching philosophy regarding the governability of these United States is no substitute for a clear vision using issues as the roadmap.

        Arnold Swartzenwhoozits described his political philosophy roughly as this; when he came to America he was presented with a choice between big government top-down declarations from politically motivated operatives, or unobtrusive small government guidelines from citizen legislative functionaries (of course he didn’t state it as eloquently as yours truly). The choice was an easy one; small government = Republican = Arnold!

        We all know how Mr. Small Government actually governed. Arnold wasn’t just a RINO, he was a Kennedy RINO!

        It would have helped had we known how he viewed a Small Government role on the issues. Should government be involved in abortion and if so, what is that role? What is the purpose and expected outcome of taxation? What parts of our lives should be taxed, and what should the government intend to do with the proceeds?

        Remember how Obama spoke of using the Tax System to promote “fairness”?

        And regarding Rand Paul (you seriously think he looks butch?) if we were to know how he dealt with issues of military intervention, or more specifically how he voted on matters of military intervention, we would be better able to judge how he might use our military during a Paul presidency.

        Soaring rhetoric and ten-thousand foot pontification is all well and good if you’re a thin resume political hack (like our current Whitehouse resident) but specific beliefs on the role of government on issues for which we vote is a much clearer rubric.

        Besides, how do we package a Republican Obama? He won’t tell you what he’ll do but he’ll look great doing it!

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 5:40 pm

        TR’s foreign policy (Speak softly …) was one of a very involved expeditionary policy. TR used our military as Capone would use his wiseguys; ,i>we’re gonna move in here and take what we want, and if youze-guyz should have a problem wit that, just cast yer eyes down to da harbor where we parked our fleet of big nasty ships.We woodn’t wan any unfortunate circumstances to befall youze.

        The only way we project that kind of power is from using our military to smack a few heads together. Every republican candidate since Hoover has had that mentality, for better or worse, that is at the core of the Republican Foreign Philosophy.

        Should it be in 2016?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) June 7, 2013 / 5:47 pm

        limit our military activities to going after terrorist cells with special forces types.

        Small footprint, tactical advantage using superior technology, localize targets, in-out like a theif in the night. Take only photos, leave only dead terrorists. ,

        Isn’t this the Rumsfeld Plan?

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 9:48 am

        Count, my comments were a summation of what I would like to see as an election strategy. Obviously, such a strategy would be based on Constitutional standards which include a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power.

        Anyone running on a Constitutional small-government platform will be including answers to questions such as those you pose. I believe I even referenced the Constitution, by way of the 10th Amendment.

        You say: “It would have helped had we known how he viewed a Small Government role on the issues. Should government be involved in abortion and if so, what is that role? What is the purpose and expected outcome of taxation? What parts of our lives should be taxed, and what should the government intend to do with the proceeds? ” I contend that applying the 10th Amendment to each of these questions will provide an answer.

        And these are political issues, much as I have come to detest that word after seeing it dominate what is supposed to be political discourse. In political areas, of course political issues must be considered. I am talking about the other “issues” dragged in to bait conservatives off course.

        I happen to share most if not all of the personal, moral, values stated here. I just don’t think they should be part of the discussion on how best to govern the nation. I could vote for a Hindu whose life partner is a man, if he could convince me that his political beliefs are founded in an unshakable commitment to Constitutional governance for this nation, and a commitment to those political values.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 11:50 am

        “But we sure ran off those damned gay guys. Hillary is president but we sure stood up for our “values”.

        BALONEY, we all know there is a huge agenda pushing government to lord over us in this matter. IF you want a smaller government that you claim- then gay off the civil union bandwagon, tell homosexuals to shut the #@$% up already, and quit pushing their pathology in every bodys face.
        THEN and ONLY then can the rest of us ignore this 800 lb gorilla that is throwing $$** at us daily through government regulation and get on with voting for a smaller government.
        Until that happens as a father, grand father, uncle etc I WILL push back against this never ending agenda for power they are exercising.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 11:55 am

        gay off = get off
        Freudian slip?? LOL

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 1:04 pm

        neo, sometimes you talk about the gay agenda and sometimes you off onto a tirade about sodomy, Biblical quotes you say tell us what Christ really MEANT though he never actually said it, etc.

        I agree with you about the offensiveness, and the danger, of the gay agenda. I see it, as I think you do, as another element in the Left’s massive armory of demogoguic weaponry. I noted it, commented on it, and was alarmed by it long before I started to post on this blog…

        I’ve also known, over the years, a lot of homosexuals who have said “They don’t speak for me” and it is quite obvious that the agenda is political in nature, with the single goal of undermining support for Constitutional government by demonizing people on the Right and disguising the Left as a movement “for the people” and one all about “fairness” and so on.

        So if you want to object to the political aspect of the gay agendas being pushed by the Left to lure people into that tent and away from thinking about government in favor of focusing on “issues” I am with you.

        Where I veer away is your smug self-righteous pride in your conviction that you not only know what lies in the heart of God but that it is, like you, harsh and judgmental. While I have yet to run across any words of Christ mentioning homosexuals or condemning them, I have encountered warnings about the spiritual dangers of waving ones’ piety like a flag and posturing as being holier than others.

        I’ve known a lot of people who are deeply, genuinely, repulsed by the mechanics of male homosexuality. Fine. We all get to have our own foibles and quirks, our own list of what we find personally offensive. It is the effort to justify this by quoting the words of MEN, all of whom were just as susceptible to personal weakness, bigotry and bias as any others, who have had their words transmitted over many centuries and through countless translations from one language to another, as absolutely and without any doubt stating the words and meaning of God, that I find so offensive. Be creeped out by the mechanics of gay intimacy but at least own that reaction and don’t try to bolster it by constantly telling us that this is the real, true, attitude of God as well.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:05 pm

        Yeah we should IGNORE THIS and scream for smaller less intrusive govt…Oh WAIT!!
        those silly pesky “social issues” that make no difference….

        Could a Christian Baker Who Refused to Make Wedding Cake for a Gay Couple Really Go to Jail?

        Could a Christian Baker Who Refused to Make Wedding Cake for a Gay Couple Really Go to Jail?

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 1:11 pm

        While you are impugning my credentials as a Constitutional Conservative and telling me to “get off the bandwagon” of civil unions, you are completely ignoring the fact that as the definition of any personal relationship is not included in the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, nor forbidden to the States by the Constitution, if any state wants to have a law allowing couples to enter into legal contracts that are parallel to, and equal to, that of the contract of marriage, that is completely compatible with the Constitution.

        Those states also have the right to define those contracts as “marriage” though I think this is not only wrong, it is downright silly, as if slapping a word onto something will somehow magically change it to what it is not. But I do not deny the legal right of that state to do what it wants to do.

        Too bad you can’t be bothered to read what I write. If you had, you might remember that I have often supported civil unions as legitimate contracts between people who are not couples but who have other reasons for needing this kind of legal protection,such as a situation in which a woman gives up her career to care for her widowed brother’s children.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:14 pm

        Where I veer away is your smug self-righteous pride in your conviction that you not only know what lies in the heart of God but that it is, like you, harsh and judgmental.

        actually I could turn those words back at you the way you dismiss me, the bible and 1 billion Christians who see it differently than you do. I could say the exact same words about YOU being smug, self righteous, and pride full of your conviction that the bible is wrong and only you have it correct.
        Please tell me how supporting a government that forced all (57) states to overturn their sodomy laws and may soon dictate to them to accept same sex “unions” is a vote for smaller less intrusive government…good luck with that.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:23 pm

        in which a woman gives up her career to care for her widowed brother’s children.

        really? the old abortion for the raped woman defense, that maybe happens 1/10 of 1% and you want the federal government to dictate this??
        Sorry but all the sneering and name calling will not change what I know in my heart to be true.
        I again state love the sinner hate the sin, I stand 1000% behind that.
        Christ himself defined marriage as a man and a woman, The OT through the NT addressed homosexuality, murder , theft. adultery and many other sins Christ had no reason to address specific sins as it they were already well spelled out and understood what they were.

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 1:24 pm

        neo, get a grip! Smaller, less intrusive, government would not pay the slightest bit of attention to some shrill demand that this baker should be penalized for expressing his views.

        This whole kerfluffle is about the determination of big-government Leftists to have a despotic government which tells people what they are allowed to say, think, feel and do, and which wants the full power and authority of the government to back this up.

        It is not about who is attracted to whom.

        I’d take the same position if the baker refused to decorate a cake with a swastika, or a Star of David, or a unicorn. The suit has nothing to do with support of sodomy, and everything to do with an assault on personal liberty.

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 1:33 pm

        Ya got me, neo. Boy, I can’t put anything over on you! Mind like a steel trap, you’ve got.

        Clever of you to figure out that when I talk about the federal government being limited in its scope and authority to only the 17 duties enumerated in the Constitution, and the rest of all laws being left up to the States, or to the people, what I REALLY am advocating is that the federal government just ignore those 17 enumerated duties and charge ahead, legalizing civil unions. “DICTATE” that we must have civil unions.

        Now that I know you are such a skilled code-breaker, I can see I will have to up my game.

        I think what really set me back on my heels was your stunning analysis that suggesting one of countless reasons to allow people to enter into some types of legal contracts was really a comparison to abortion. Damn. I really thought I could get away with that!

        Clearly I should cut my losses and stop here, before I mention that trying to limit the freedoms of people to do things like decide what kind of legal civil contract they can enter into is despotism, and disguising it as a moral imperative handed down from God is a tired old trick that has been used by many despots in the past. No doubt your code-breaker book explains that libertarianism is just a code for support of sodomy.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:40 pm

        Ya got me, neo. Boy, I can’t put anything over on you! Mind like a steel trap, you’ve got.

        glad you are finally realizing that, you are off the Obama – Fema re education camp list (for now anyway) but the wire tapping will continue!

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 1:45 pm

        Hmmmm. So Christ just didn’t need to bother with some sins because He understood that everyone else understood that they were sins so there was no need to mention them.

        I have to admit, I haven’t heard that one before.

        I’d skip the OT references if I were you, or you’ll find yourself mired in things like killing witches, etc.

        NT, back to my comments about MEN writing some things that simply had, due to human nature, be influenced by their own attitudes and opinions and the cultural standards of the day, only to have those writings pass through countless interpretations over many centuries and through the minds of countless other MEN with their own biases.

        I have done very little translation, and that only between English and Spanish, and even between two very similar languages from European-based cultures I have run across words which have no literal translation into the other language. When that happens there is a process in which you look at the message the original language statement is trying to convey and then you look for words and phrases in the other language that you think will convey the same meaning, tone and impression, though the words do not literally translate. And it is easy to see how the personal bias of the person going through this process can change the meaning.

        But what I really come back to is something I figured out for myself when I was in high school, or perhaps earlier than that, though that is when I wrote an essay on it which I titled “And Man Created God, and He Created Him In His Own Image”. It was not that God does not exist, but that each of us creates in his or her own consciousness a concept of what God is, and means, and wants, and that concept has much more to do with the character and personality of the person than it does with the reality of God. Therefore, a harsh and judgmental man will believe in a harsh and judgmental God because this validates his own character. A kind and forgiving man will believe in a kind and forgiving God, for the same reason.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:52 pm

        I mention that trying to limit the freedoms of people to do things like decide what kind of legal civil contract they can enter into is despotism, and disguising it as a moral imperative handed down from God is a tired old trick that has been used by many despots in the past

        actually I meant NO such thing, I merely presented bible verses that reinforce MY line of thinking and used them to show how I came to those ideas and a basis for them. I could care less if you agree or disagree with them that is your free will.
        Not mentioning ALL 57 states, 200 years of medical and legal standards defining homosexuality,as an ILLEGAL pathology as well as drug use and adultry.
        My whole point is that there is a HUGE agenda for the government to make criminals of people opposing that.Showing that in a private owned company the owners may go to JAIL for not selling a product to someone..
        I still do not see how the federal government legitimizing and then forcing the states and citizens at the point of a gun to obey it’s dictates of same sex unions is smaller government.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 2:06 pm

        Therefore, a harsh and judgmental man will believe in a harsh and judgmental God because this validates his own character. A kind and forgiving man will believe in a kind and forgiving God, for the same reason.

        Actually I believe in both….forgiveness begins with repentance, God is both he provided us with a GUIDE how to live our lives the Bible, and a savior Jesus because none of us are capable of living a 100% pure life. However there is the warning from a stern but loving father that there are consequences for mis-behavior. I love my boys and grand kids and would lay my life down for them but will take out the belt if necessary.
        AGAIN, hate the sin love the sinner, but do not deny the sin for there are consequences for it in this life and after. LOVE and compassion sets the stray sheep back to the safety of the flock.
        I believe Gods word points us to that we cand just read the feel good verses and ignore the rest…….Do I make sense on this?

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 2:18 pm

        Actually I think this describes what I am attempting (obviously unsuccessfully) explain. I agree with your understanding of translation and interpenetration, maybe this will fill in some of the blanks for me to better answer you that the central theme remains the same.

        Techniques of hermeneutics

        In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers the original medium[4] as well as what language says, supposes, doesn’t say, and implies. The process consists of several steps for best attaining the Scriptural author’s intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):

        Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
        Historical/cultural analysis: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
        Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
        Theological analysis: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn’t make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
        Special literary analysis: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.

        Howard Hendricks, longtime professor of hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary, set out the method of observing the text, interpreting the text, applying the text in his book, Living By the Book. Other major Christian teachers, such as Chuck Swindoll, who wrote the foreword, Kay Arthur and David Jeremiah have based their hermeneutics on the principles Howard teaches.

        David L. Barr states there are three obstacles that stand in the way of correctly interpreting the biblical writings: We speak a different language, we live approximately two millennia later, and we bring different expectations to the text.[5] Additionally, Barr suggests that we approach the reading of the Bible with significantly different literary expectations than those in reading other forms of literature and writing.
        Roman Catholic principles of hermeneutics

        The Catholic Encyclopedia lists a number of principles guiding Roman Catholic hermeneutics in the article on Exegesis (note: the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1917 and does not reflect the changes set forth by the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu published by Pius XII in 1943, which opened modern Catholic Biblical scholarship) :

        Historico-grammatical interpretation – The meaning of the literary expression of the Bible is best learned by a thorough knowledge of the languages in which the original text of Scripture was written, and by acquaintance with the Scriptural way of speaking, including the various customs, laws, habits and national prejudices which influenced the inspired writers as they composed their respective books. John Paul II said that: “A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions [such as Islam, for instance], the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history.[6]
        Catholic interpretation – Because the Catholic Church is, according to Catholics, the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, Catholicism’s teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the commentator. The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly.
        Reverence – Since the Bible is God’s own book, its study must be begun and prosecuted with a spirit of reverence and prayer.
        Inerrancy – Since God is the principal Author of Sacred Scripture, it can be claimed to contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scientific or historical truth (when the original authors intended historical or scientific truth to be portrayed). Minor contradictions are due to copyist errors in the codex or the translation. Catholics believe the Scripture is God’s message put in words by men, with the imperfections this very fact necessarily implies. That’s why it becomes self-contradictory to hold biblical interpretation to be ‘historico-grammatical’ and treat the Bible’s own words — which aren’t but human — as error-free. Catholic hermeneutics strongly supports inerrancy when it comes to principles but not, for example, when dealing with Evangelists’ orthographic mistakes. According to Pope John Paul II, “Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.[6]
        Patristics – The Holy Fathers are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.

        Pope Benedict XVI has indicated in Verbum Domini, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the Word of God, that “Christianity…perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history”. He encourages a “faith-filled interpretation of Sacred Scripture”. He emphasizes that this manner of interpretation, “practiced from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition…recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition”. It “seeks to discover the living meaning of the Sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres”. Verbum Domini #44.


      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 2:20 pm

        neo, are you trying to fill in the gap left by the vanishing trolls by employing Leftist arguing tactics? You seem to be inventing things not said, so you can argue with them.

        “actually I could turn those words back at you the way you dismiss me, the bible and 1 billion Christians who see it differently than you do. I could say the exact same words about YOU being smug, self righteous, and pride full of your conviction that the bible is wrong and only you have it correct.”

        Uh, take a breath here and calm yourself down.

        I did not say the Bible is wrong. I merely said that one has to employ some rational thinking when reading the Bible, including a desire to read what it actually says and not just to find or spin parts of it to support a personal perception and the understanding that it was written by MEN, subject to their own personal perceptions, and then run through centuries of translations.

        How odd to claim that someone who admits to not knowing what God really means is then defined as “smug, self righteous and prideful”.

        “Please tell me how supporting a government that forced all (57) states to overturn their sodomy laws and may soon dictate to them to accept same sex “unions” is a vote for smaller less intrusive government…good luck with that.”

        Please tell me how you can possible lurch to the conclusion that I “support” this government you describe. That is the goofiest 180 away from anything I have ever said that it simply boggles the mind.

        ?????????????????? Are you really, truly, asserting that I have supported the Obama regime and its excesses, and furthermore that I now define out-of-control expansive government intrusion and excess as “smaller government”?

        Sorry, neo, but you are dragging this off into territory I thought exclusive to trolls.

        Try to understand what I say and then respond to it, or just let it drop, because this howling at the moon over things I never said or implied is just as tiresome coming from you as it was from mitche or the others.

        I do not come here to get mired in the personal religious beliefs of others, and I find the whole effort to convince anyone of someone’s religious foundation for anything to be self-serving and boring. I also find that any diversion into this area is inevitably unproductive. So quote your religious stuff all you want. I simply do not care.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 2:36 pm


        Sorry, neo, but you are dragging this off into territory I thought exclusive to trolls.
        actually I responded to at least two snipes you took in posts to other people I merely responded to those snipes which led to this whole discussion.
        again I could use your own words and accusations right back at you as you are convinced only you know the truth as you understand it and do not like being challenged, but hey that is fine with me I still like ya…. 🙂

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        Tell you what, neo—if you get indignant at my so-called “snipes” at other people, why don’t you let them fight their own battles?

        And if you truly see a statement of not claiming to know all there is to know as being the same thing as having only one truth and not liking to have that challenged, well, you just hang onto that little odd perception. I certainly can’t deal with that kind of inversion of fact so there is nothing I can do about it.

        So far today I have been accused of supporting “this government”, not being in favor of small government, wanting the feds to “dictate” civil unions, and whatever other nonsense has come through your posts., much of it direct contradiction to the very post which is supposedly being answered.

        You are entrenched in a belief system that certain behaviors are not just unnatural or harmful or deviant but downright morally wrong, and you use this moral righteousness as the springboard for endless commentaries. OK. To you it is not enough to find them unnatural, or harmful, or deviant. No, to you one must also take the rigid, unyielding, judgmental and harsh position that this behavior is also profoundly immoral, and that this is supported by the very word of God. Lucky for you a lot of people are equally entrenched in the same self-righteous bigotry, as it seems to give you a sense of confidence.

        But many of us simply see this behavior as something we find fault with on many levels, and do not find the need to go beyond that into declarations of understanding the will of God to support additional opinions of moral depravity. You might just accept this without trying to reframe the lack of absoluteness as, well, the presence of absoluteness.

      • M. Noonan June 9, 2013 / 11:36 pm

        To me, its not even so much a matter of being fed up with leftists (though there is that), but a matter of practical politics. The States – especially the Western States, but in some sense all of them except a few on the eastern seaboard) were rather cobbled together, mostly when hardly anyone lived in them. Over the past 100 years, especially, as the land became firmly settled and economically exploited, there has arisen a great deal of divergence of interests within the States. The prime case in point is California, both Senators coming from the San Francisco area…and, as such, they vigorously and ably represent the interests of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento. On the other hand, they don’t do squat for San Diego and Fresno. The fact of the matter is that there were less than 100,000 Americans living in California when it became a State – and the overwhelming bulk of them lived in the San Francisco/Sacramento area. Now that California has nearly 40 million people, it is absurd to think the entire interests of the State can be effectively represented by two Senators…especially when population dictates that within California, whomever can win Los Angeles and San Francisco wins the whole State, even if large majorities elsewhere vote against.

        Secession is the answer – for a lot of the States. California probably needs to be broken in to four States (South California, West California, West Nevada and South Oregon); Nevada needs to be broken in two (North and South Nevada – South Nevada being gaming and tourism, North Nevada being mining and ranching); Florida needs to be East and West Florida; New York to be North New York and South New York; Illinois, North Illinois and South Illinois. On and on it goes – we should probably have about 60-62 States (upwards of 64 if we make Puerto Rico and Guam in to States, as they probably should be). We should also increase the House to 601 members, and increase the size of the Supreme Court to 13 (but not until after Obama is out – don’t want him appointing 4!). It might seem counter-intuitive that in an era of too much government that we should be, essentially, creating more of it – but this is different. This is ensuring that the government is responsive to the will of the people and the interests of the States. On balance, the political advantages would be mostly equal, with a slight edge to the conservative side (while West Florida would almost certainly return two conservative Senators, Democrats would have a strong chance of picking up both senators from East Floria, etc).

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 3:56 pm

        I know they don’t mean it but I sympathize with their desire to send a message to Congress, and the nation, that the country is no longer very much like the United States we all have a right to expect to see when we look around us.

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 6:36 pm

        neo, when I got back from the vet hospital—premature baby yak was crashing and hopefully I got her to the hospital in time to save her—I read your linked article and I retract my statement about those Colorado counties not being serious. I called a friend who lives in one of those counties and she said they are completely serious, and fed up with Colorado’s government.

        I live in what may be the most conservative county in the state and I see it even here. It is the one thing that made me give so much thought to returning from Wyoming. But just in the year or so I have been back, I have seen serious advances by the very radical Left. The gun control laws have nearly the whole state thoroughly ticked off (though that is not the way most people phrase it) and I think it may lead to a massive turnover in the statehouse in the next couple of elections. John Hickenlooper (“the Looper”) is now very vulnerable in bid for reelection as governor.

        In the past year Colorado legislators passed (if memory is correct) something like 415 new laws, and the Looper is signing every one into law. Think about it—–more than 400 new laws! And as far as I can tell not one of them will make the state a better place or add to the quality of life.

        BTW, “Whistle Joe” Salazar is a brother of political whore and EPA despot Ken Salazar.

        I may have to move to one of those counties…….

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 7:23 pm

        A YAK??
        one of these?
        The yak is a long-haired bovine found throughout the Himalayan region of south Central Asia, the Tibetan Plateau and as far north as Mongolia and Russia. Most yaks are domesticated animals, usually referred to as Bos grunniens

        Holy moley I hope it survives ….if you dont mind me asking how did you come to raising them? how many do you have? are they outside animals like steers or are they barn dwellers in the evening?
        @”I may have to move to one of those counties”…….

        I think we are going to see a lot more of that sort of thinking.

    • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:34 pm

      The suit has nothing to do with support of sodomy, and everything to do with an assault on personal liberty.

      some how i THOUGHT that was what I was trying to convey, obviously I failed somewhere along the line DOH!!…….Who Loves ya baby?? (kojak)

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 1:52 pm

        OK, now you are just spinning me off into stream of consciousness. Not just that I passed up a chance to buy a lime green Mercedes 450 SL that had belonged to Telly Savalas—different story, but explained by the words “lime green”.

        My husband and I went out to eat with some friends, including a young man newly arrived in the United States. Everyone else wandered off while we were waiting for our table, and he and I were looking at the celebrity photos on the wall in the entry of the restaurant. He pointed out a Kojak photo and I said I had never really liked Telly Savalas because he always seemed so egotistical.

        He pondered that for a moment and then asked, in total seriousness “Perhaps I don’t understand much about America but why would you dislike him because of his testicles”?

        After I chewed the inside of my mouth raw to keep from laughing, we had a little impromptu English lesson. It was not helped by the comment of the hostess, who had overheard this, and who contributed the comment (though she looked like an innocent angel) “It could be because he wore such tight pants”.

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 2:09 pm


        LOL funny story…..

    • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 2:07 pm

      The actual Bush comment, which has been distorted so grotesquely by lying Leftists, was not about existing yellowcake in Iraq but about reports from several foreign intelligence services that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

      The lying Left twisted this so bizarrely that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, had a special press conference to assure the world that the Brits, for one nation, absolutely believed this to be true and stood behind it 100%. The United States had terrible intel from the Middle East, but nations which had well-established intelligence networks all agreed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

      Even the notorious Joe Wilson admitted as much in his verbal debriefing by the CIA when he came back from his tea-drinking jaunt to Niger. He said that he was told by officials that agents for an undisclosed nation had been trying to buy this material, and that they (the officials) believed the prospective buyers to be from Iraq.

      It was only later that he realized he could spin this into a multi-tiered invention that would hurt Bush as well as offer cover for his wife’s problems with her CIA bosses by simply lying about what he had been told and then about who had discussed the fact that his wife had been employed by the CIA. With the willing help of the Complicit Agenda Media, this was stunningly successful. Valerie managed to deflect attention away from the fact that she had been doing a really crappy job with the CIA, potentially exposing a covert operation by using her own name to donate money to the Dems and—–in a fit of absolute utter stupidity—-listing her occupation as working for the cover company created for this operation. Instead of being a screwup trying to put together a move over to the State Department before she got fired, she became a media darling and celebrity with a big book deal. Joe managed to blow up his own lie into an elaborate attack on Bush, and a publicity whore/prosecutor got the most bang for his buck by ignoring the fact that his “investigation” was over within minutes with the discovery that Richard Armitage had discussed Val’s employment with the CIA and dragging the whole process out until he had created a non-crime to hang on a Bush Administration person.

      Buried in all the layers of these multiple lies and manipulations lies the simple fact that all Bush said was that he had been told by other intelligence agencies that something had happened, and that he was backed up in this by the other intelligence agencies.

      • tiredoflibbs June 8, 2013 / 3:21 pm

        That is it exactly Amazona, the left is so far entrenched in their talking points all facts get distorted. Once they are entrenched, there is no moving them regardless of facts presented – 95% of the lefty trolls that visit here have shown to be so.

        Look at mitchie’s (and he fellow forkers’) view of conservatism as an example.

  11. neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 1:30 pm


    Only neocon can tell us why he lies, and only the moderators can tell us why they are frightened by facts.

    actually if you had one working brain cell you would have seen what I posted was an article from another site..not my words..so NO lie from me talk to the author who wrote it…DUH!!

    ired, only the most fervent of Bush apologists would claim that the yellow cake you are referring to confirmed the Bush administration’s justification for the Iraq war

    speaking of LIES watty

      • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 7:36 pm

        I welcome others thoughts on this………

        Tonight the Princess and I went to a Chinese restaurant for dinner (a buffet). A weird looking man in his late 30’s or early 40’s kind of disheveled looking wearing a backpack came in and sat down. He set the backpack on the other side of the booth got up and walked out the door leaving the pack there.
        After about ten minutes he still had not returned I began getting somewhat anxious. I wasnt sure if I should say something to the manager, call the cops, ditch the bag outside or shrug it off.
        The Princess told me I was being paranoid and quit worrying about such trivial things. The man returned about 20 minutes later and she said SEE what was the big deal?
        All I could think was that what a whole bunch of people probably thought in Boston.

      • Amazona June 8, 2013 / 8:53 pm

        neo, I agree with you. This would have bothered me. When I was spending a lot of time in the UK about 25 years ago there were signs everywhere telling people to report unattended bags or packages. Even then, the Brits had had enough experience with IRA bombers to be alert.

        I think I would have,at the very least, called the cops, and let them make the call regarding getting people out of the restaurant, etc.

        These are the times in which we live.

      • Retired Spook June 9, 2013 / 6:55 am


        Had that been me and my wife, my wife would have walked over and looked in the backpack — or would have told me to do so. That must have been the longest 20 minutes of your life.

      • neocon01 June 10, 2013 / 8:35 am

        The GOP’s Continuing Betrayal of Its Rock Stars
        By Steve Flesher

        As if running moderate Republicans in two consecutive national elections (and losing) wasn’t enough, some of the GOP’s latest attempts to find their inner coolness have been successful only at one thing: letting the left and their pals in the media dictate the direction of the Republican Party.</i?

        WOW sound familiar??

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_gops_continuing_betrayal_of_its_rock_stars.html#ixzz2VoexxpOo

  12. tiredoflibbs June 8, 2013 / 2:00 pm

    Watty, again your poor reading comprehension gets the better of you. I never said that was the only justification for the war.there were many reasons and you affirmed one of them in the Deufler report. The report stated flat out that Hussein would restart his WMD programs – volume 3 annex F. After the 2003 release, the ISG found evidence of WMDs and some were modified to use as IEDs. The whole point is that the leftist drones made the invasion about WMDs only and when their scarcity was revealed the the political move was to come up with “Bush lied”,”illegal war for oil”, etc. etc.-whatever would catch on for the low information voter. The UN still maintains that all of Husseins WMDs were never destroyed and that these weapons were not accounted for.

    All one has to do is look at the original cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War and Bush had all the authorization and justification for the invasion.

    Again, the whole point was tat mitchie regurgitates the dumbed down talking points and I used Iraq as an example while mitchie and the other drones give 0bAMATEUR a pass for invading Libya for the same reasons they screamed for Iraq – was Libya a threat? Did Libya attack us? Libya did not have WMDs? All no, but drones like mitchie will look beyond that.

  13. tiredoflibbs June 8, 2013 / 2:05 pm

    Watty I will also note that you leftist bitched and moaned of “warrant less wire taps” which was legal by FISA. Now 0bAMATEUR has brought that to an unprecedented level.

    What do we get now from the left?

    It took the foreign media to bring this to light. 0bAMATEUR’s Prateurian Guard here did their best to ignore it.

  14. neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 3:09 pm

    yet still no refuting the article…..when ya cant- just lie and attack the messenger.

  15. tiredoflibbs June 8, 2013 / 7:24 pm

    Watty: How many soldiers were lost in Libya?

    Doesn’t matter watty. Let’s look at the dumbed down talking points for Iraq from the left. “Iraq was a sovereign nation”, so was Libya. “Iraq did not attack us”, neither did Libya. “Iraq was not a threat”, neither was Libya. “Iraq did not have WMDs”, neither did Libya. The left was relentless with the regurgitation of those talking points.

    Bush had authorization from Congress to attack Iraq. 0bAMATEUR did not.

    Bush…. excoriated.
    0bAMATEUR….given a pass.

    Watty you’re a good little loyal mindless drone. You continue to follow the playbook.

    woof woof // Moderator

    • M. Noonan June 9, 2013 / 11:23 pm


      Well, its all good – but logic and facts are wasted on liberals.

  16. tiredoflibbs June 8, 2013 / 7:36 pm

    I should be slapped on the wrist for doing this…. but too good to pass up.

    mitchie: “When was the last time anyone has heard a candidate talking about the philosophy of governmental templates which, once enacted become the method of dealing with human issues.”

    Reagan, next.

    Or even 0bAMATEUR!!! 0bAMATEUR presented his philosophy on for the need for government to play a large and aggressive role in turning around the faltering economy:
    “Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy — where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending.”

    And we have seen this enacted and how it has affected human issues…. more people out of the work force, more on food stamps and welfare, etc. etc.

    mitchie you don’t even try anymore.

    woof woof //Moderator

    • neocon01 June 8, 2013 / 7:41 pm

      did you miss where pigLowsey said unemployment was good for the economy?
      camon get with the program, if unemployment is good then food stamps and welfare has to be great maybe that is why we are in such a boom period Oh Wait!!

  17. Amazona June 8, 2013 / 9:06 pm

    Out of sequence, but…yes, the Tibetan bovine, the yak.

    When I was in Wyoming I wanted to start a grass fed beef operation. I had already become really interested in yak meat. Yak muscle does not marble, so there is no use in trying to make them fat—they just lay down a layer of fat between the skin and the muscle. The meat is delicately flavored, and has less cholesterol than skinless chicken breast or fish. When crossed with cattle, the female offspring are fertile but the males are not. The advantage to such a cross is the increase in size.

    The government says that if the meat is at least 50% yak you can sell it as yak. My goal was to take my 50/50 cross females back to big yak bulls, then take those females back to regular bulls, till I got a cross that was mostly yak but with more size, and sell yak meat as well as regular grass-fed beef.

    (I also wanted to have a yak oxen team named Zach and Mack, and have them driven by my brother Jack. Jack was not fully on board with this plan.)

    They are fascinating animals, like prehistoric cows. They look weird, with bony humps behind the heads and long hair hanging down to their ankles like hula skirts. They have very long pointed horns and tails that look like a cross between a horse’s tail and a cow’s. They are wild and wily, faster than a cow and smarter. I have 20 and am selling most of them to a rancher in New Mexico, but I wanted to keep at least one.

    They are not very friendly, so I had planned to take a baby away from its mother after a couple of days and bottle feed it so it would grow up friendlier—-this is advice from people who show yaks at stock shows. In this case, this decision saved her life, as she was nearly dead when we picked her up. We have had a vet out a couple of times, have been taking turns with feeding her every couple of hours and doing all sorts of veterinary things with her, but she just kept slipping downhill so today I took her into a hospital where she is on an IV and a feeding tube.

    She is so small, we just carry her around tucked under an arm, or in our arms like a baby. She is mostly white, with a perfect black heart on her left side. She is a tough little thing, to have made it this far, and I am hopeful that some time on IVs getting rehydrated and a few days with a full tummy so she can develop the strength to suck will get her around the corner and back home, where we already realize she will run the place, having become such a favorite already.

    • Amazona June 9, 2013 / 9:42 pm

      neo, I did a google search for “yak” and got a page with lots of photos, many of which were actually of yaks. At the top were a couple of a Scottish Highland, not a yak as I well know because I have some of them, too, and then there are some musk oxen and I think a water buffalo, plus a German Shepherd, a big-breasted woman (I knew that would get your attention) and a lot of planes. I seem to remember a plane called a yak but am not sure.

      • Amazona June 11, 2013 / 8:01 am

        Update on baby yak—she was responding, slowly, to treatment at a veterinary hospital but then surprised the docs there by dying night before last. We did not do a post-mortem but think that she must have had something else wrong, a fatal deficiency we could not see, because what was being done should have given her the strength to recover. However, haven’t delivered adult yaks to new buyer so I might still get a baby to keep—I told him I wanted a baby and that is part of the deal.

  18. seniorwoman June 9, 2013 / 2:30 am

    Unemployment ticked up to 7.6% as more unemployed are looking for jobs. I look at the U6 as a more precise indicator. On a personal note, my always employed daughter of 47 lost her job after 15 years with the same company. With her lease up and no job offers, she moved home. I am now one of those mothers who has an adult child living with her. My daughter is one of those adult children who moved home with her mommy. We are both statistics.

  19. tiredoflibbs June 9, 2013 / 6:21 am

    Federal Reserve Study: Tax Hikes, not spending cuts, are slowing the recovery

    Tell us something we don’t already know. Short term tax increases and spending increases are somewhat effective. In the long term, increased taxes are a drag on the recovery. The lefty drones will point to the stock market as an indicator, but when Clinton ran for pResident, he compared the opposite – The higher stock market was an indicator of the rich getting richer meme.

  20. Retired Spook June 9, 2013 / 7:11 am


    I scrolled back up through the comments, trying to find where the string originated where you asked Amazona about her take on Coloradans seceding, and finally gave up. I don’t know if you get CTD’s email newsletter, but there was an article yesterday about the anger in Colorado over new gun legislation. Interesting times indeed.

    In the same newsletter, there was another article about just how unhinged the Left is becoming on the gun issue. I still view their rants as just hollow words at this point, but it is kind of scary that there are Americans who think that way about other Americans who aren’t doing anything illegal or even wrong. It’s been my experience that the vast majority of Lefties who rail about eeeeeevil guns, don’t know which end of the barrel the round comes out of.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) June 9, 2013 / 8:11 am


      Over 1,400 comments after the Charleston Gazette linked article. I think the Left has bitten off a bit more than they can chew.

    • Retired Spook June 9, 2013 / 8:34 am

      No, what I meant was that I couldn’t find a reply tab where that string of comments originated. It was so far back I decided it was easier to just post at the end. The random placement gremlins still put it where they wanted, so it didn’t really matter.

      • Amazona June 9, 2013 / 9:53 am

        The random placement gremlins still put it where they wanted, so it didn’t really matter.

        Tell me about it. My post on the article by Victor Davis Hanson was supposed to be at the end of the comments thread and that pesky old gremlin stuck it right in the middle.

      • Amazona June 9, 2013 / 10:01 am

        Again: Does anyone else like this new blog format? Faint print seems to be the new fad online, as I encounter it more and more as I search other websites for things. Is crisp black printing now supposed to be too old-fashioned or something?

        This faded, washed-out look may be quite impressive to those who think we need change just for the sake of change, but I find it annoying. I also don’t like putting the reply tab (for the whole thread post) at the top. Is this supposed to lure us into reading the post? “Oh, lookee, 38 people have responded to this one—-it must be good”. It’s not a big deal. I used to read the thread post to see if I wanted to respond and then click the response tab, now I have to scroll back up to the top to find it, and I can do that. I just find it annoying to change something that worked just fine.

        And I find it more than annoying to have this sad, faded, font replacing clear crisp lettering.


  21. Amazona June 9, 2013 / 9:51 am

    As usual, Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent take on the shifting morality of Barack Obama.

    “His morality is to be judged by his professed aims, not his means of achieving them.”

    From Obama’s Ethical Gymnastics :

    Presidential ethics are now situational. Obama is calling for a shield law to protect reporters from the sort of harassment that his attorney general, Eric Holder, and the FBI practiced against Fox News and the Associated Press. Through such rhetoric, he remains a staunch champion of the First Amendment — even though he now has the ability to peek into the private phone records of millions of Americans.

    The president is outraged that the IRS went after those deemed politically suspicious. So he sacked the acting head of the IRS, Steven Miller, who was scheduled to step down soon anyway. The administration remains opposed to any partisanship of the sort that might deny tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, founded by the president’s half-brother Malik, but would indefinitely delay almost all the applications from those suspected of tea-party sympathies. Consequently, Lois Lerner granted the former’s request in 30 days, but took the Fifth Amendment when asked the reasons for obstructing the applications of the latter.

    These ethical gymnastics were not entirely unforeseeable. Obama ran as a reform candidate for the Senate in 2004, while his campaign was most likely involved in the leaking of the sealed divorce records of both his primary- and general-election opponents. As a senator, he characterized recess appointments as tainted, only as president to make just such appointments — some of which later were declared unconstitutional in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    …..and Hanson is just getting warmed up


Comments are closed.