Not In Texas

Cologne sex attacks had been planned, says German justice minister as number of complaints following festivities passes 500

Germany’s justice minister yesterday appeared to confirm fears New Year’s Eve sex attacks and mob violence across Germany was organised.

More than 200 women have now come forward to say they were sexually assaulted during Cologne’s New Year festivities, police revealed yesterday, with the majority of suspects of North African origin.

There have been complaints of assaults by alleged migrants in half a dozen German cities, as well as Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland.

Cologne sex attacks over New Year festivities had been planned by gangs | Daily Mail Online

This couldn’t happen in Texas.

Open Carry Marie_Claire.

Our national leaders are working overtime to bring criminals in to our countries, destabilize our societies, and disarm our citizens.

2016-01-11-04-48-55

Only Ten Percent of Migrant Influx Has Reached Us So Far, Says German Minister

2016-01-11-04-56-55

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban – ABC News

2016-01-11-05-03-382016-01-11-04-59-17

I want Obama to take away your guns – CNN.com

2016-01-11-05-02-09

2016-01-11-05-01-14

NRA-ILA | New York Times Calls for Gun Confiscation

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

-Edward Abbey

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

176 Responses to Not In Texas

  1. Robertv says:

    Maybe strange question but could she legally carry a big knife ?

    • Doug says:

      Not in Texas. She legally could carry a rifle, shotgun, pistol or switchblade, but not a big knife or club. Go figure.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Maybe a rifle with a big bayonet?

      • A Tale of Two Cities

        Chicago Houston

        Population
        2.7 million

        2.15 million

        Median Home Income
        $38,600

        $37,000

        %African-American
        38.9%

        24%

        % Hispanic
        29.9%

        44%

        % Asian
        5.5%

        6%

        % Non-Hispanic White
        28.7%

        26%

        Pretty similar until you compare the following:

        Chicago , IL

        Houston , TX

        Concealed Carry – Legal
        No

        Yes

        # of Gun Stores
        None

        184 Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 – legal places to buy guns–Wal-Mart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.

        Homicides, 2012
        1,806

        207

        Homicides per 100K
        38.4

        9.6

        Avg. January high temperature (F)
        31

        63

        Conclusion: Cold weather causes murders.
        This is due to global warming

  2. Martin Smith says:

    “Our national leaders are working overtime to bring criminals in to our countries, destabilize our societies, and disarm our citizens.”

    Is there any truth to this, Steven? I mean, do you have any evidence?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Of course there is evidence.

      the administration seems to be equating Social Security recipients with the groups NICS does not allow to buy guns.
      There is currently no standard method for determining whether someone who collects Social Security is competent enough to own a gun.

      The Obama administration appears to be taking a cue from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which reports who is unable to manage his or her own pensions or disability payments and assigns him or her a “representative payee” to handle all financial decisions….

      ANOTHER

      The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control…
      “It’s a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.

      Earnest said he would “quibble” with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.

      Center for Immigration Studies

      While it is absolutely essential that we not scapegoat immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, we also must not overlook the most obvious fact: the current terrorist threat to the United States comes almost exclusively from individuals who arrive from abroad. Thus, our immigration policy, including temporary and permanent visas issuance, border control, and efforts to deal with illegal immigration are all critical to reducing the chance of an attack in the future.

      Much has been written about how we are involved in a new kind of war. In this new kind of conflict, America’s borders are a major theater of operations. This is because the primary weapons of our enemies are not aircraft carriers or even commercial airliners, but rather the terrorists themselves — thus keeping the terrorists out or apprehending them after they get in is going to be an indispensable element of victory. The simple fact is that if the terrorists can’t enter the country, they won’t be able to commit an attack on American soil.

      In the year 622 the Islamic prophet Muhammad set out on the first Hijrah. What is a Hijrah? In short, it’s the act if migrating to other parts of the world with the intention of spreading the grip of Islam.

      From the Quran.

      “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Quran. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful” (Quran 4:100).

      Hijrah, or jihad by emigration, is, according to Islamic tradition, the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

      To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance,” says the Qur’an. “And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (4:100) The exalted status of such emigrants led a British jihad group that won notoriety (and a shutdown by the government) a few years ago for celebrating 9/11 to call itself Al-Muhajiroun: The Emigrants.

      I have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he was a socialist. But Obama’s behavior over the last four years regarding Islam has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered world view – a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.

      Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the’70s, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism and even communism have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Shariah. The two ideologies blended together in the Baath Party in Syria, Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies such as the United States are alien to Islam and socialists because they regard government as a servant to the people and believe that human rights are from God and not from government or Shariah.

      Having said that, both Shariah and socialism united in their envy of Western society and needed to change it. That is when Obama became the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodied both ideologies, socialism and Islam, and was groomed for years to help the socialist and Islamic causes inside America.
      Obama became the one, the savior of both Islam and socialists. For that Obama had to deny who he really was. That is why Obama’s actions and words never added up.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Gail, please, the term “evidence” in this discussion refers to data that measures something, facts we can check. You have once again posted a long diatribe that expresses opinions that coincide with your own. That’s not evidence. It’s just your opinion restated by voices in your personal echo chamber.

        Grow up!

        • Gail Combs says:

          GEE, and I thought Saudi Islam Terrorists flying a plane into the twin towers was EVIDENCE.

          I thought Chechan Muslim brothers bombing the Boston Marathon was EVIDENCE!

          WHERE does it say ANTHING in the Constitution or our laws that the USA HAS TO ALLOW immigration from countries that wish us ill. And do not forget Turkey is churning out fake passports for the Jhadists.

          Wall Street Journal:

          Paris Stadium Attacker Got to Europe Using Fake Syrian Passport

          Man apparently posed as refugee, entered through Greek island of Leros…
          Serbian authorities haven’t confirmed or denied those reports, which raised the possibility that multiple forged Syrian passports using the same name have been circulating.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, it is evidence of something that we are not talking about. Sorry.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Jan 16, 2013 Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President

          And now the WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY say Obama is going to write MORE Exec orders that infringe on our Second Amendment RIGHT. Just so you know a RIGHT is NOT a privilege or favor granted by the government and there for should not be subject to any laws, executive orders or regulations.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Marty,

        • skeohane says:

          Get a life!

    • leftinflagstaff says:

      ‘Our national leaders are working overtime to bring criminals in to our countries…’

      This one you certainly can’t deny. I’d say not securing our border, for decades, allowing in 15 million or so criminals (which every single one is, the second they cross the border illegally), certainly confirms the first part of the sentence. And, no it’s not just since. Obama.

  3. gator69 says:

    A group of four people attempted to break into a home in San Antonio, Texas by removing an air conditioning unit from a window and crawling inside. The homeowner responded to the break-in by retrieving a gun and firing at the intruders, striking and killing one, and causing the others to flee. A knife and a bag, containing a gun and burglary tools, was found next to the body of the deceased intruder.

    Police captured the three intruders who fled the gunfire a short distance from the home. (KSAT, San Antonio, Texas 11/15/15)

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151117/homeowner-fights-off-four-intruders-ksat-san-antonio-texas-111515

    Poor bad guys. After waiting for a background check and carefully planning a safe home invasion, some “homeowner” ruined their day with another act of workplace violence.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Steven says our national leaders want to disarm those criminals. I don’t see any evidence of that. Do you?

      • gator69 says:

        More lies from Marty.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control…
        “It’s a high priority and will continue to be until we start to see more progress on this issue in this town,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today at the press briefing.

        Earnest said he would “quibble” with anyone who criticized the president for not voicing any specific gun control proposals during his press conference, asserting that the White House was working behind the scenes for more executive actions on guns.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, have any of the President’s executive actions been meant to bring criminals into our country, destabilize our societies,or disarm our citizens? If you say yes, you have to provide some factual evidence to support your belief. Otherwise, it is what it appears to be: hogwash.

        • David A says:

          Fact, the FBI says we cannot distingish Islamists from peacefull Muslims.

          FACT, THE O says import them anyway.

          Fact, the MB is a terrorist organization active in 90 nations, intent on destroying the US from within. ( study the holy land foundation)

          Fact, the O supports the M.B.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Do I have to accept your statements as facts because you state them as facts, or will you prove them? Or at least support them with some real facts?

        • David A says:

          Discover the Networks

          Now go read.

        • Martin Smith says:

          So you admit you can’t support your assertions.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “….meant to bring criminals into our country, destabilize our societies”
          >>>>>>>>>
          For others since Marty is congenitally immune to any facts that do not fit his world view.

          First on destabilizing our society.

          Dick Lamm, the former Governor of Colorado (Democrat) had this warning. It should sound very familiar to those who do not hate the USA.

          Recently there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hansen talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
          ………………..

          Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

          “Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: “First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficult times with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

          Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

          Third, “We could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would! replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

          “Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

          “My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

          “My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, [Obama, McCain, Cruz] and promote divided loyalties I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other- that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same Gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. ! Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘Pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America assuredly as Kosovo.”

          “Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bi-lingual/bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, please stop spamming long texts that have nothing to do with the subject.

        • David A says:

          Whoosh, right over his head.

          Gail, Martin really cannot begin real research. He does not know what the MB is, their relationship and objectives to Obama, the holy land foundation, the FBI assertions on our incapacity to vet imigrants from Islamic nations, the difference between Bush objectives and results in Iraq, Obama’s role in the Arab spring, the disparate roles of both democrats and republicans in the financial collapse, the political agenda of CAGW science, etc.

      • RAH says:

        David if Martin could actually comprehend he wouldn’t be here spouting stupid stuff and asking for “evidence” that is already practically at the tip of his nose.

        All the “evidence” one needs has been compiled LONG before the most recent actions and statements of this president and his parties goal of getting around the 2nd amendment by any and all actions they can possibly get away with. So here is all the “evidence” needed as read in the context of the presidents statements and actions concerning the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS:

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. – See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#sthash.eVxkU4fm.dpuf

        • Martin Smith says:

          RAH, Steven says our national leaders want to disarm you. I don’t see any evidence of that. Do you? If so, what is the evidence that our national leaders want to disarm you?

        • Gail Combs says:

          RAH,
          Notice that Marty, as usual, is ignoring ALL the evidence that has been presented on this thread and keeps repeating his inane question.

          This is an example of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
          RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
          Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling opposition a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.

          Marty is not very good at it though.

  4. Martin Smith says:

    When you write “Our national leaders,” I assume you mean President Obama. What reasons would he have to want to destabilize our societies?

    How many societies do we have in America? I have been thinking there is just one.

    • saveenergy says:

      “How many societies do we have in America? I have been thinking there is just one.”

      That just shows that you’re not good at thinking

      Humanity has divided itself into multiple layers & is obsessed by tribalism

      • Martin Smith says:

        I see your point. And Steven is saying our national leaders want to reduce tribalism?

      • lectrikdog says:

        “It is obvious why the morality of altruism is a tribal phenomenon. Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism’s perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological: the men of self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without tribal leadership and “protection” against reality. The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value—they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice—they have no firsthand inkling of such things as intellectual integrity, love of truth, personally chosen values, or a passionate dedication to an idea. When they hear injunctions against “selfishness,” they believe that what they must renounce is the brute, mindless whim-worship of a tribal lone wolf. But their leaders—the theoreticians of altruism—know better. Immanuel Kant knew it; John Dewey knew it; B. F. Skinner knows it; John Rawls knows it. Observe that it is not the mindless brute, but reason, intelligence, ability, merit, self-confidence, self-esteem that they are out to destroy.

        Today, we are seeing a ghastly spectacle: a magnificent scientific civilization dominated by the morality of prehistorical savagery.”

        “Selfishness Without a Self,”
        Philosophy: Who Needs It, 50
        Ayn Rand

    • David A says:

      Martin, society is composed of individuals, and individuals of a feather flock together, thus there are dozens of disparate cultural groups in every large modern culture. Whites are told often they cannot relate to the black culture, etc.

      Some US “groups” hate the US. The Os wife could think of NOTHING this nation has EVER done, of which she was proud, unitl the election of the O.

      The US was founded on principals of individual freedom and responsibility. It is the Os objective to fundamentally change that. (He said so) There are political schools of radical thought on how to destablize a society. Obama incorporates these tactics. Books have been written about this.

      • Martin Smith says:

        >The US was founded on principals of individual freedom and responsibility. It is the Os
        >objective to fundamentally change that. (He said so)

        I missed that. Do you have a source with the actual quote? Why would he (or anyone) want to change that? I think you are imagining things.

        >There are political schools of radical thought on how to destablize a society. Obama
        >incorporates these tactics. Books have been written about this.

        You have to provide some evidence to support your radical claims. Otherwise, it is what it appears to be: Absolute Horseshit. I haven’t seen any evidence that supports your claims. I am certainly disappointed with President Obama. He continued the same economic policies as George W. Bush, which were a complete disaster. And he simply gave away the Public Option in the health care bill. He has moved so far to the right as to be indistinguishable from a Reagan era Republican.

        But without evidence, your statements about him are absolute horseshit.

        • RealOldOne2 says:

          “Do you have a source with the actual quote?

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359967/obama-transforming-america-victor-davis-hanson

          H/t to Gail for helping me understand why you can’t see reality: http://s566.photobucket.com/user/atheistdave/media/headupass.jpg.html

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s a wonderful quote, RealOld. Now I see what you mean. By “destabilize our societies” you mean make changes. You mean that any change at all is an attempt to “destabilize our societies.”

          Yours is an astonishingly dumb philosophy, RealOld.

        • David A says:

          The problematic key word is “fundamental” based on foundational.

          The US foundation is not the errors of human flaws which infect all people.
          An individual can want to correct errors of evil, or unfair labor, or monoplies, etc but to transform fundamentally is an entirely different proposition.

          What the meant by this is well supported by his actions, enviromental education, and associates, as well as his wife’s statements, associates and actions.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Your reply was gibberish, David.

        • David A says:

          Martin, I cannot help your lack of research or bias.

        • Martin Smith says:

          President Obama is not trying to destabilize American society. Nor is he trying to take away the right to own and use guns. Your accusations are as dumb as they are unsupported, which is to say: completely.

        • gator69 says:

          More Marty lies…

          President Obama is not trying to destabilize American society. Nor is he trying to take away the right to own and use guns.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Obama said he wants a Fundamental Transformation of America. Marty doesn’t understand what that means. So here are the definitions of the words.

          FUNDAMENTAL

          adjective
          1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.

          2. of, relating to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.

          3. being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.

          noun
          5. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamental

          TRANSFORMATION

          trans·form/tran(t)sˈfôrm/verb
          make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.
          noun
          the product of a transformation.

          In business

          In an organizational context, a process of profound and radical change that orients an organization in a new direction and takes it to an entirely different level of effectiveness. Unlike ‘turnaround’ (which implies incremental progress on the same plane) transformation implies a basic change of character and little or no resemblance with the past configuration or structure.
          http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/transformation.html

          This is why Obama ignores the Constitution with such frequency. He is busy ‘transforming’ the Constitution the foundation of our country.

        • RealOldOne2 says:

          “Yours is an astonishingly dumb philosophy, RealOld”
          Yours is an astonishingly inane reply Martin, because I expressed no philosophy of mine.
          I merely linked you to an 8 sec clip of Obama’s own words & an article documenting what fundamental transformations he has done.
          I imagine I should have given you a copy of the NYTimes or the HuffandPuffington Post and then you would have been comforted that I have the same philosophy as you do. Sorry that I caused you so much cognitive dissonance.

      • David A says:

        I said nothing about guns, although you are wrong there as well.

        Regardless of dark motive, (of which there is ample evidence,) he is destablising and fundamentally / foundationally transforming America.

  5. David A says:

    Your ignorant post is well stocked in arrogance. Read to the bottom the recent post here on socialism. Study Saul Alinsky, Go to school by reading “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”

    Go to “Discover the Networks” to learn about the difference between Bush and Obama. ( Neither properly represented US founding principals, but one wanted to build, while the other, full of angst, has only torn down.)

    The O has created greater debt, government central control of capitol, including future capitol, then ever, and by a lot. He has created greater black poverty and international disasters, then any predecessors, and may well land us in W.W.

  6. David A says:

    BTW Martin, tell us what role Bush played in the 06 housing collapse, and what role the democrats, controlling the Senate finance committe, played, and what role Obama played. Let us see if you have one objective bone in your body.

    • Martin Smith says:

      It was 2007, David. Bush’s role in that collapse was his wasting of trillions on two wars rather than spending that money at home.

      • David A says:

        Ok, I see your studied answer to Bush’s role. ( Steve Case, I need a label) Now for the democratic role, and the Os role?

        • David A says:

          Your 11:43 post as well. Certainly you can follow a simple time line.

        • David, it’s clear Martin Smith doesn’t know how to find his own time-stamped comment on this page. You are just being hard on him by repeatedly demanding that he does that. Martin deserves a space where he can feels safe.

        • Martin Smith says:

          We’re done, David. You are just being an obstacle.

        • David A says:

          Colorado, my apologies, clearly simple expectations cause stress on today’s youth. From Martin’s childish comments I assume him to be a college student.

        • Martin Smith says:

          David and Colorado: I certainly CAN find the message David complained about, but why should I jump through hoops for either of you? If neither of you is willing to follow the standard protocol for threaded discussions, then you are giving the appearance that you know your argument is wrong and you don’t want to call attention to it. I’m happy with that result.

          You can whine about it and exhort me to find the message all you want. I am happy with this result. Thank you.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Colorado and David: I thank you for your concern for my well-being, but it is misplaced. I am living a good and productive life. I wish the same for you someday. Please put your alleged minds at rest. You can not threaten me.

        • David A says:

          What threat?

        • Martin Smith says:

          “What threat?”

          Exactly. How childish.

        • David A says:

          So nobody threatened you, but you feel threatened, or, I get it, you are so emotionally attached to your biases, nothing can threaten them, and any attempt to broaden your limited perspective is a threat you feel confident your ignorance is impervious to. I must agree.

          How about those fossil fuel CO2 profitering Norwegians? More seriousely, did you read the links in those comments?

      • David A says:

        Ok, I see your studied answer to Bush’s role. ( Steve Case, I need a label) Now for the democratic role, and the Os role???

      • Gail Combs says:

        Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2015
        Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc
        BUSH: 09/30/2004 ……… 7,379,052,696,330.32

        Obama: 09/30/2015 ……… 18,150,604,277,750.63
        https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
        OBummer has more that DOUBLED the debt during his tenure and it is not even over..

        • Gail Combs says:

          “They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action, and expecting a different result. By that measure, Obama and Congress has lost their minds.

        • DD More says:

          Question Gail. Does that $18.15 Trillion include the +$4 Trillion quantitative loans by the Fed? I know the banks are supposed to own the Fed and they are not?? government, but I don’t see them taking a loss on that loan. Makes the debt a lot closer to $22.14 T.

        • Gail Combs says:

          DD More says:
          January 12, 2016 at 4:09 am

          Question Gail. Does that $18.15 Trillion include the +$4 Trillion quantitative loans by the Fed?

          Checkout these:
          http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/quantitative-easing-the-feds-balance-sheet-and-central-bank-insolvency
          And QE explained
          http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-5

        • Martin Smith says:

          Yes, Gail, the debt has increased much more under Obama. But almost all of that increase was fated by the policies and wars initiated by George W. Bush. The USA would not be in the debt situation it is in now were it not for George W. Bush starting two wars that continue to this day. Even with the collapse of the economy, we would not have run up so much debt were it not for the chicken hawks of the Bush administration.

        • gator69 says:

          George W. Bush starting two wars

          Marty lies again…

          A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

          For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a “declaration of war” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated “Declaration(s) of War” must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war.”[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.

          This article will use the term “formal declaration of war” to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase “declaration of war” in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms “authorized by Congress”, “funded by Congress” or “undeclared war” to describe other such conflicts.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress

        • David A says:

          M.S, once again demonstrating he does not study issues.

        • Martin Smith says:

          David, you just make yourself look foolish, when you attack me personally instead of attacking my argument. George W. Bush started two wars that were both unnecessary. They have cost us and the world trillions of dollars, which continues. You simply can not dispute this. That money could have been spent on improving civilization, especially at home, but instead, we spent it all on destruction, which, again, continues.

        • gator69 says:

          … George W. Bush started two wars…

          Marty lies again…

          A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

          For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a “declaration of war” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated “Declaration(s) of War” must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war.”[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.

          This article will use the term “formal declaration of war” to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase “declaration of war” in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms “authorized by Congress”, “funded by Congress” or “undeclared war” to describe other such conflicts.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress

        • David A says:

          Actually MS, you ignore all contrary evidence, complain when Gail makes a long detailed and cogent message with quotes and link, ignoring content entirely, ignore my references to detailed academic discussions well refuting your political sound bites, ignore many other posters here and their linked responses to your ramblings, and ignore links to many peer reviewed publications disputing CAGW.

          You then whine when others cannot resist mocking your willful blindness, while you engage in similar, albeit inaccurate insults.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Actually MS, you ignore all contrary evidence, complain when Gail makes a long detailed and cogent message with quotes and link, ignoring content entirely, ignore my references to detailed academic discussions well refuting your political sound bites, ignore many other posters here and their linked responses to your ramblings, and ignore links to many peer reviewed publications disputing CAGW.”

          David, Gail makes long, detailed messages, but they are never cogent. Her replies never address the subject. Her replies are always about something else. She does that deliberately. It is psychopathic. She must always avoid direct confrontation because she knows subconsciously she can’t win.

          You didn’t provide any references to detailed academic discussions refuting anything. Look, I’m not like you and gator and Colorado. I don’t subscribe to receive all the replies to my posts here. I have a professional life and a social life that require most of my time, so I don’t even see most of your replies. In this case, I went back and found your links because I saw the reply in which you asked me about them. But please don’t think I am hiding from you if you don’t get a reply from me to one of your posts. If I don’t reply, it just means I didn’t see your message at all. That’s what happened in this case, and I would not have seen your links if you hadn’t told me about them in a message of yours that I did see.

          But I have addressed them now, and they are all wrong, except for the one I talked about.

          “You then whine when others cannot resist mocking your willful blindness, while you engage in similar, albeit inaccurate insults.”

          Don’t misunderstand. I don’t mind your mocking, David. I don’t mind Colorado’s mocking, d=gator’s mocking, Gail’s mocking. I don’t mind because whenever one of you resorts to mocking me, I win.

        • gator69 says:

          I don’t mind Colorado’s mocking, d=gator’s mocking…

          Gator mocks liars and stupid people. Can you figure out which you are?😆

        • Gail Combs says:

          David A says:
          “Actually MS, you ignore all contrary evidence, complain when Gail makes…”

          >>>>>>>>>>>>

          What Marty does is show he is not interested in debate but in applying Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

          RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
          This is why Marty (and other socialists) can not be debated with. They will ALWAYS ignore anything that goes outside their very limited knowledge which is based on focused propaganda. It is why Democrat voters show little to no broad knowledge to the point it is comical.

          RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people; people hurt.

          We have certainly seen this rule applied to many scientists recently and it is what Marty is ineptly trying to apply to me.

          His goal is
          RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

          He is trying to get an angry response from me by continually saying I am off topic or spamming long texts or what ever because he KNOWS I am knowledgeable and could sway the larger audience. Therefore I and Gator who is also very knowledgeable have to be neutralized.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, once again, your Alinsky response has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread.

      • Martin Smith says:

        “So nobody threatened you, but you feel threatened, or, I get it, you are so emotionally attached to your biases, nothing can threaten them, and any attempt to broaden your limited perspective is a threat you feel confident your ignorance is impervious to. I must agree.”

        What are you talking about, David? why should I feel threatened by you or Colorado? I don’t feel threatened by anyone here. Why would you think that?

        “How about those fossil fuel CO2 profitering Norwegians? More seriousely, did you read the links in those comments?”

        First, Norway doesn’t spend its oil money. Or, very little of it anyway. In fact, historically, Norway has used some of its oil money to buy US treasuries, so, assuming you are in America, you have been living off Norwegian oil money more than Norwegians.

        Second, I just found the links I think you are referring to. There is no truth in what any of them say about Norway, except for this one: http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Norwegian_welfare_system_facing_major_challenges/1253967894814?lang=en

        The Norwegian welfare system does face challenges. It always has faced challenges. That’s the point, David. Norway always faces these challenges. In the case of the Norwegian welfare system, it is supported by taxes. All our social services are supported by taxes. My own income tax rate is about 36%. With the VAT I pay on goods and services, my total tax rate is about 50%.

        I’m happy with that. Well, happy isn’t the right word. What I mean is that I believe I get good value from those taxes. I am quite certain that pretty much all Norwegians feel similarly about the tax system here.

        But there is nothing new about tax funded systems being a challenge. That has always been true. The difference in the scandinavian countries is this: They meet the challenges.

        America used to meet the challenges, but now America is letting its social systems and its infrastructure degrade. When will America meet these same challenges, David? Well, first we have to stop wasting money on wars, yes?

        • David A says:

          So in seconds you read 50 plus pages of links and found them all lies. As stated, you do not research.

          You are the one that felt the need to assert that “we” could not threaten you.

        • Martin Smith says:

          I’ve seen them all before, David. I don’t need to see them again.

        • Martin Smith says:

          David, you didn’t address the argument. Do you plan to address it, or are we done?

        • David A says:

          Norway spends about 5 percent of its oil revenue today, the rest is earmarked for state pensions, our S.S., which costs the US a large percentage of individual and corporate tax, so yes this savings is large and spent. So without oil, every Norwegian would be about 170,000 dollars poorer.

          Prior to the 1960s oil boom Norway was a relaively poor Scandanavian nation, much worse off then Sweden as an example.

          Sweeden, bty, was the fastes geroei,g European economy before they went to socialism. Socialism works just ok in a homogenous culture where a work ethic and morality is established, but is ever in danger of degenerating into tyranny. History is the verification of this.

        • David A says:

          Martin, you failed to address the arguements, simply dismissing them, as per usual.

        • Martin Smith says:

          There aren’t any earmarks, David. The money is invested. All of the money is “earmarked” in the sense that Norway will use the investments to support its social programs and infrastructure, but AFTER the oil runs out.

          “So without oil, every Norwegian would be about 170,000 dollars poorer.” True, but Norwegians don’t get to spend that money. The state has invested it on their behalf. The US could have done the same thing with its resources, but it chose instead to give them away for next to nothing, and the result is crumbling infrastructure and social systems.

          “Sweeden, bty, was the fastes geroei,g European economy before they went to socialism. Socialism works just ok in a homogenous culture where a work ethic and morality is established, but is ever in danger of degenerating into tyranny. History is the verification of this.”

          Sweden never “went to socialism.” Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland are not socialist countries. they are capitalist countries. They use social democracy to advantage, which means they choose to collect higher taxes and use the revenues to implement collectivist systems for health insurance, education, transportation, pensions, child welfare, and unemployment.

          Nor are the Scandinavian countries “homogenous.” They have always been heterogeneous, as are all European countries. I suppose you are trying to express racism without sounding racist, but be advised Norway in particular takes in many more refugees per capita than the US.

          No, you are wrong. None of the scandinavian countries is socialist and none of them is in danger of descending into tyranny. Your ignorance of this part of the world is simply astonishing.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Martin, you failed to address the arguements, simply dismissing them, as per usual.”

          David, I don’t have time for this. If you want me to address an argument, state the argument, and if I see your reply, I will address the argument. In fact, wherever you see a comment from me, if you want me to address an argument, state the argument you want me to address and I will do my best to address it.

          But be advised, the Norwegian social systems are ALWAYS challenged, because that is the nature of social systems funded by taxes. However, Norway accepts the challenges and deals with them. It has always been that way in Norway, and it will always be that way.

          The point is, you seem to think that when a system is challenged, it means the system has failed. This is simply wrong. Take your car, for example. It is always challenged. Sometimes it runs low on fuel; sometimes it runs low on oil; sometimes the transmission fails, or a tire blows out. You always meet these challenges, yes? When your car breaks down, you don’t just leave it by the side of the road. You fix the problem and drive on. So it is with Norwegian social systems. They always need tuning; they always need care. Norway takes care of these responsibilities the same way you take care of your car.

        • David A says:

          Norway is about90 percent ethnic Norwegian. The US immigration, including Hispanic legal and illegal, is far higher, and US cultural is far more an intergration of the world then Norway or Sweden. The current Scandanavian and EU problem with a non Scandanavian immigration is rapidly mamifesting.

          There are thousands of PhD political scientist that claim nations like Sweeden to be socialist. I am we aware of the compromise with the need for Capitalism, and pleased you recognise the primary role this engenders in their economic success.

          I clearly explained how sans their oil production Norway would be required to raise all their taxes by at least ten percent to fund their pensions. I am correct.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Norway is about90 percent ethnic Norwegian. The US immigration, including Hispanic legal and illegal, is far higher, and US cultural is far more an intergration of the world then Norway or Sweden. The current Scandanavian and EU problem with a non Scandanavian immigration is rapidly mamifesting.”

          You are good at restating your opinion, David, but it is just your opinion. But now your opinion is becoming racist, so I will no longer respond to it.

          “There are thousands of PhD political scientist that claim nations like Sweeden to be socialist. I am we aware of the compromise with the need for Capitalism, and pleased you recognise the primary role this engenders in their economic success.”

          No, David. Sweden is capitalist. Here is the description of Sweden’s economy from the CIA Fact Book: “Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Sweden remains outside the Eurozone because of concerns over its impact on the country’s economy, welfare system, and sovereignty. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for vast majority of industrial output. Agriculture accounts for less than 1% of GDP. Economic growth slowed in 2013, as a result of continued economic weakness in the EU – Sweden’s main export market; however, Sweden’s economy experienced modest growth in 2014, with an adjusted real GDP growth that averaged 2.1%. Sweden’s economy is expected to grow modestly in 2015, although the country continues to struggle with deflationary pressure.”

          “I clearly explained how sans their oil production Norway would be required to raise all their taxes by at least ten percent to fund their pensions.”

          You clearly explained it, yes, but your explanation was false.

        • David A says:

          I made no racist comments whatever. I, very briefly, describe the much greater US ethnic diversity, and the challenges it presents. (explain what you think I said was racist)

          Google US ethnic demographics and The same for Norway. I am also correct about the use of oil funds.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “I made no racist comments whatever. I, very briefly, describe the much greater US ethnic diversity, and the challenges it presents. (explain what you think I said was racist)”

          Ethnic diversity has nothing to do with single-payer health insurance. In Norway, everyone pays taxes, regardless of ethnicity. There are ethnic differences in Norway, even among what you call ethnic Norwegians. There are eastern Norwegians and western Norwegians, who speak different languages. There are the Sami, who speak a third language. And there are Russians, Germans, Swedes, Danes, French, Spanish, and many different Africans. The point is they all pay taxes. Their ethnicity has nothing to do with that, so you can’t claim that Norwegian social systems work because there is less ethnicity in Norway. Even if we assume for the sake of this argument that Norway has less ethnic diversity… Do you see how silly your claim is? You are claiming single-payer health insurance works in Norway because Norway has less ethnic diversity. How does ethnic diversity make single-payer health insurance impossible in America? …unless you mean that people who are ethnically different from you don’t pay taxes. Is that what you mean? Because that IS racist.

          Or go ahead and explain how Norway’s alleged lack of ethnic diversity makes its social systems work. Go ahead and explain what it is about Norwegian ethnic uniformity that makes its welfare system work.

          “I am also correct about the use of oil funds.”

          No, you are not. “Norway predicts it will for the first time need to withdraw cash from its $820 billion sovereign wealth fund as western Europe’s biggest oil exporter uses a record chunk of its petroleum revenue to cover budget holes and stimulate the economy.”
          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/norway-budget-proposes-boosting-oil-spending-by-14-nrk-says

    • Gail Combs says:

      Do not forget Clinton’s fingerprints all over the 2008 foreclosure mess: <a Clinton and the five banking laws that set-up the financial mess and ‘Too big to fail Banks.’

      Clinton appointed Lynch to the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York straight from law firm Cahill, Gordon & Reindel — “the go-to law firm for New York’s financial crooks.”

      Lordy you can’t make this stuff up! A publisher of fiction would say it was too unbelievable!
      These are the critical five new banking laws Clinton signed.

      BANKING LAWS:
      The McFadden Act of 1927 or Amendment to the National Banking Laws and the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 69-639, 44 STAT. 1224): Prohibited interstate banking.

      Law: Negating above:
      Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994
      (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338).
      Permits bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state one year Beginning June 1, 1997, allows interstate mergers.

      The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162): Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

      Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133): Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.

      Law: Negating both of the above laws:
      Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
      (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338)
      Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters. Law creates a new financial holding company authorized to engage in: underwriting and selling insurance and securities, conducting both commercial and merchant banking, investing in and developing real estate and other “complimentary activities.”

      Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-242, 105 STAT. 2236).
      Also known as FDICIA. FDICIA [b]greatly increased the powers and authority of the FDIC. Major provisions recapitalized the Bank Insurance Fund and [b]allowed the FDIC to strengthen the fund by borrowing from the Treasury.

      Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550, 106 STAT. 3672).

      RTC Completion Act[/b] (P.L. 103-204, 107 STAT. 2369):
      implement provisions designed to improve the agency’s record in providing business opportunities to minorities and women.. Expands the existing affordable housing programs of the RTC and the FDIC by broadening the potential affordable housing stock of the two agencies.
      Increases the statute of limitations on RTC civil lawsuits. In cases in which the statute of limitations has expired, claims can be revived for fraud and intentional misconduct resulting in unjust enrichment or substantial loss to the thrift.
      https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/important/index.html

      • gator69 says:

        For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

        2001

        April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

        2002

        May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

        2003

        January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

        February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

        September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

        September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

        October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

        November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).

        2004

        February: The President’s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

        February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).

        June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).

        2005

        April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).

        2007

        July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

        August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

        September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

        September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

        December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

        2008
        January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

        January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

        February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).

        March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

        March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).

        April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).

        May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

        “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).

        “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).

        “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).

        June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).

        July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Thanks gator. It adds very nicely to the picture that Clinton handed Bush the mess in the making.

    • Gail Combs says:

      These are the changes those banking laws that Clinton signed caused.

      Here are the crucial move:
      1.CDSs, credit default swaps were exempted from regulation in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in the year 2000.

      2.Hank Paulson was the Treasury secretary who engineered the AIG bailout. He worked for Goldman Sachs.

      3. If a bank had the credit default swap insurance policies on a mortgage, especially if they had more than one, it was to their advantage to force foreclosure.

      4. Obama mortgage program sets up homeowners for defaulting on their mortgage by reducing payments up front before qualification. The bank then stalled making a decision for a year by asking for different paperwork. They then handing homeowners a staggering bill, due in one month when they do not qualify. If the homeowners could meet the bill the banks then refused to name an actual amount due. (First hand experience. Took 6 months and a lawyer to nail bank down.)

      Senior investors, who are typically financial institutions, own the AAA tranches that are insured against default by AIG, and they WANT to foreclose on the Middle Class so that insurance payments kick in. Conversely, the junior tranche investors want workouts with homeowners because their investment is not insured.

      “To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?

      “Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”

      “A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties,” says Wikipedia. “The buyer makes periodic payments to the seller, and in return receives a payoff if an underlying financial instrument defaults. CDS contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if one of the specified events occur…

      Instead of cars or houses, credit default swaps were used to guarantee mortgage-backed securities (MBS), a safe bet according to the best-available mathematical models. Why? Because most homeowners pay off their home loans with the certainty of an ATM.
      The is no reserve requirement with CDS because there’s no government regulation. Each insurance company can set aside as much — or as little — as it wants for reserves. In fact, a company could set aside nothing for potential losses without violating regulatory requirements.
      The money NOT set aside for reserves can be invested in high-risk securities to create a larger cash flow for the insurance company. This means that with CDS, insurers expected not only premiums but also bigger investment returns then would be possible with regular insurance products.
      CDS premium revenue is not restricted to those who might have actual losses or real assets to protect. You can bet as much as you want and create as many CDS as you want….
      http://www.realtytrac.com/content/news-and-opinion/how-the-aig-bailout-could-be-driving-more-foreclosures-4861

      ]

      In other words there maybe more than one CDS on a mortgage and therefore it is much more profitable to collect the multiple payoffs than to refinance the mortgage.

      Obama’s Mortgage Modification Program A Colossal Flop

      …The high unemployment rate alone explains why all of the “stimulus” and bailouts in the financial sector have been to so little effect in improving the market so far……

      …..Obama’s mortgage modification program was a colossal failure, with hardly any principal modifications occurring. Obama blames this on Federal Housing Finance Agency Chairman Edward DeMarco, who blocked such measures.

      But even under the agency’s best-case scenario, DeMarco estimated just 248,000 borrowers would have even been eligible for the Home Affordable Modification Program Principal Reduction Alternative — or just 2.3% of the 10.4 million borrowers nationwide who are underwater. Meanwhile, the program likely would have been a net loss to taxpayers….
      http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/121412-637256-obama-housing-recovery-a-failure.htm?p=full

  7. David A says:

    Martin, btw, you have provided ZERO evidence for every assertion you have made on this post.

    Really, start with “Discover the Networks” and read about Iraq under Bush, vs under the O.

  8. David A says:

    BTW, housing peaked and turned down in 06.

    • Martin Smith says:

      You were referring to the financial collapse caused by bad mortgages. The housing peak and subsequent downturn are/were normal events in the housing market. The financial collapse started in 2007, and Bush’s role in that collapse was his wasting of trillions on two wars rather than spending that money at home.

  9. David A says:

    You are wrong. The collapse began in 2006. (look it up)

    Federal Debt is a long term problem eventually debasing a currency, and had little direct causation to the collapse.

    • Martin Smith says:

      The year is irrelevant, David. Bush’s role was to waste trillions on two wars he should not have started instead of spending the money at home.

    • Martin Smith says:

      I think we’re done, David. You are being an obstacle to enlightenment.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Marty’s “…an obstacle to enlightenment.” of course means “You refuse to be a good little a dumb as dirt serf.”

        No Marty, we are not as dumb and blind to the Elite’s game playing as you are. But thanks for giving us another chance to show people just how immune to reality socialists are.

        Socialists, over two thousand years of being F..K over by the Elite and still willing to believe them another time.

        In the year 404 BC, the despotic state of Sparta conquered Athens. A year later when the Athenians overthrew Spartian rule they executed Socrates on suspicion of sympathy with the Spartan cause. As a result, Socrate’s disciple, Plato, the scion of a noble family became devoted to aristocratic and despotic rule. A decade later he set up a think tank of not only philospophic teaching and research but also a fountainhead of policy programmes for social despotism. He even tried, unsucessfully to set up despotic regimes in the city state of Syracuse, while no less than nine of Plato’s students succeeded in establishing them selves as tyrants over Greek city-states. — From f link

        And what was Sparta’s system of government? Ancient Spartan Communism

      • skeohane says:

        You are being an obstacle to enlightenment. Says the piece of granite.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    To continue highlighting Marty’s ignoring reality.
    “….meant to bring criminals into our country, destabilize our societies”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As part of the last wave of legalizing illegal immigrants Americans were given a promise and part of that promise was the Secure Fence Act of 2006. As usual the POLITICIANS LIED. Worse it is not just ordinary criminals and drugs flooding across our southern border.

    FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress in March 2005, that “there are individuals from countries with known al-Qaida connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic.”

    March 22, 2015

    …acknowledged by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that Iran and Hezbollah, “are suddenly MIA from the U.S. terror threat list.”

    DNI apparently has no plans to change its report, having told CNS News that “This year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence community report was simply a format change,” while contending that “There is no ‘softening’ of our position.” DNI’s excuse-making tacitly acknowledges the absence of Iran and Hezbollah from this year’s terror threat list.

    On March 16, the Times of Israel, apparently having obtained the classifed versions of this year’s and last year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, reported that DNI had “removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports.”

    September 24, 2009

    Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border

    A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer is seen from Mexico’s side of the San Ysidro port of entry guarding vehicles involved in a shooting in Tijuana, Mexico, Sept. 22, 2009. Four people were injured in a gun battle

    Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week–as I first reported in my column yesterday–that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.

    A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border

    March 17, 2010

    Napolitano shifts policy on border fence
    Signaling a major shift from her predecessor, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Tuesday said she will spend $50 million of stimulus funds originally intended to build a “virtual fence” along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border on other more proven and cost-effective security technology.

    The decision to pull back funding on the initiative aimed at protecting the U.S. from terrorists, violent drug smugglers and illegal immigrants comes on the heels of a series of damning reports by the Government Accountability Office, and as Ms. Napolitano attempts to justify to lawmakers a 30 percent budget reduction for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the midst of a raging drug war along the Southwest border.

    March 22, 2013

    U.S. confers ‘EZ-Pass’ status on travelers from Saudi Arabia
    As the TSA continues to make headlines — and trouble — for Americans in strollers and wheelchairs, a new report suggests that Department of Homeland Security has plans to relax the rules … for travelers from Saudi Arabia.

    The report released on Wednesday by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) notes that this “U.S. ally” is “one of a handful of countries whose travelers can bypass normal passport controls at major U.S. airports.” Other countries so honored include Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and the Netherlands.

    France and Germany need not apply.

    But back to Saudi Arabia. That’s the same Saudi Arabia that was the birth place of Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 flunkies he recruited to fly jetliners filled with Americans into buildings filled with Americans on 9/11. And now its citizens are being granted “trusted traveler” status through the Global Entry program

    • Gail Combs says:

      And since Marty wants EVIDENCE Senator Sylvia Allen is happy to oblige.
      March 23, 2012

      Hezbollah terror threat on U.S.-Mexico border is real
      on Feb. 2, former Chief of Operations for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, Michael Braun, testified before Congress about Iran’s growing influence along the southern United States Border.

      Braun testified that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, has developed strong, sophisticated relationships with Mexican drug cartels. “And by developing those relations it provides them with the ability to operate far from home in our neighborhood and – as I said earlier – on our doorstep,” he replied.

      At the same hearing, “Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, committee member and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, asked about Hezbollah’s relationship to criminal organizations in the Western Hemisphere and what it means for U.S. security. Braun replied with the warning that those relationships allow “these groups to operate freely in our neighborhood” and said the U.S. would regret it if the threats were not taken seriously.”

      On Feb. 9, Zachary Taylor, a former Border Patrol Agent who is now Vice Chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, appeared on national television and described the known relationship between cartel tunnels used for smuggling and the Shia militant group Hezbollah.

      According to Mr. Taylor, a Muslim cleric, Abdullah al-Nafsi, said that “there is no need for airplanes and planning; one man with the courage to carry a suitcase of anthrax through the tunnels from Mexico to the United States could kill 330,000 Americans in one hour.”

      Even Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has recently expressed concern about a potential Hezbollah attack against the U.S.

      Documented examples of terrorists slipping across our southern border are not new. Consider the following:

      In February 2001, Mahmoud Kourani (the brother of Hezbollah’s security chief in southern Lebanon) came across the border from Tijuana into California in the trunk of a car, after bribing a Mexican embassy official in Beirut to get a visa. He eventually settled in Dearborn, Mich. Kourani had received training in weapons, intelligence, and spy craft in Iran.

      In December 2002, Salim Boughader was arrested for smuggling 200 Lebanese, including Hezbollah operatives, across the border from Tiajuana into California. Boughader had previously worked for Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV satellite network.

      In July 2004, a woman named Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed was arrested at a Texas airport boarding a flight to New York after she either walked or swam across the Mexican border into Texas. According to the Washington Post, she was connected to a Pakistani terrorist group and was believed to be ferrying instructions to U.S.-based al-Qaeda operatives.

      In January 2005, two Hamas operatives, Mahmoud Khalil and Ziad Saleh, were arrested as part of a criminal enterprise in Los Angeles. Both had entered the U.S. after paying a smuggler $10,000 each to take them across the border.

      In November 2005, Texas Congressman John Culberson described on national TV how an Iraqi al-Qaeda operative on the terror watch list was captured living near the Mexico-Texas border. In addition, Texas border sheriffs reported in the same newscast that there were at that time, in Mexico just across from Brownsville, Texas, at least one — and probably three — narco-terrorist training camps, run by the Zetas, a paramilitary force that is the muscle and the army for the Gulf cartel. The sheriffs told Congressman Culberson about another narco-terrorist training camp operating outside of Del Rio, about 40 miles southwest.

      Those are just a few examples of terrorists who were identified or captured. We have no idea how many other terrorists may have slipped across our unprotected border undetected. We do know that U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended 59,017 “Other-Than-Mexican” illegal aliens through October 7, 2010. Of those, more than 800 came from terrorist-watch or Middle Eastern countries, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Cuba, Somalia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

      Terrorism expert Patrick Poole reported to my committee last year that the first al-Qaida cell in the United States was located right here in Tucson. Tucson has been called the “birthplace of al-Qaida in America.”

      • David A says:

        Thanks Gail, I think Martin will simply say, “stop, too long, wrong graphic, not cogent, (when it clearly is)

        The truth is your post is simply a small snap shot of the issues relevant to immigrants and the three to four Paris type massacres perpetuated every month by Islamists.

        If Martin actually spent 100 hours reading “Discover the Networks” Jihad watch” “atlas shrugged” etc, he may not come across so ignorant.

        Is 100 hours of study (of a contrary viewpoint) to much to ask before one spouts off nonsense?

        • Gail Combs says:

          “…Is 100 hours of study (of a contrary viewpoint) to[o] much to ask before one spouts off nonsense?

          Not at all. It might even keep you and the rest of the American citizens from wearing slave collars.

          It is interesting that when a Democrat Think Tank did research they (very grudgingly) admitted that the members of the Tea Party were much better educated and informed compared to the democratic voters.

          Ignorance allows belief in the propaganda our would be masters spew. Marty is a great example of that type of ignorance. He believes what the elite propaganda machines, the MSM, feeds him without any investigation or critical thought.

          He is also completely unable to take bits and pieces, the glimpses we get, and see the whole. Even if Toto ripped down the entire curtain I think he would still deny reality.

          Since he now lives in the EU he might have the sword of reality sitting on his neck real soon. I wonder if he will still deny reality?

        • David A says:

          Interestingly a similar study found CAGW skeptics far more knowledgable regarding climate science then Green proponents.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Martin Smith says:
    January 11, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Gail, have any of the President’s executive actions been meant to bring criminals into our country, destabilize our societies….”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    And when I give him the ITEMIZED point by point list from a DEMOCRAT on how to destabilize the USA I get:
    Martin Smith says:
    January 11, 2016 at 12:32 pm
    “…..Gail, please stop spamming long texts that have nothing to do with the subject….”

    Oh the wonders of trying to think when your head is misplaced by Socialism!

    • Gail Combs says:

      For those who do not understand, Obama is head of the administrative branch of the US government. The bureaucracy. That means ALL of their actions come from him.

      President Harry Truman understood this

      Note sign on the left of the desk.

    • David A says:

      Martin said he had a point. I told him to be careful where he put it. (-;

  12. Jason Calley says:

    “Get off the train track! There’s a train coming!”

    “A train? I don’t see a train. All you have done is made an assertion that there is a train. Why should I believe you?”

    “Look! Look down the tracks. You can see the train yourself if you just look.”

    “I have looked. I don’t see a train. All I see is a light and some kind of I-don’t-know-what behind it. You say it is a train. Prove it.”

    “It’s a train! It is rolling down a train track and you are standing between the rails! Just look! You can feel the ground rumbling!”

    “If there were really a train, wouldn’t there be some sort of sign warning about trains? Maybe a guard or something. One person yelling about trains doesn’t mean that there is a train! That light might be the moon — and that rumbling might very well be some sort of earthquake. You are not so stupid that you never heard of earthquakes, are you?”

    “GET OFF THE TRACKS! THERE IS A TRAIN!”

    “You really have to give up this delusion that your perception of a train is somehow more real than the proven existence of the moon and of earthquakes! If you keep —” SPLAT!!

  13. omanuel says:

    Reconciliation between believers and skeptics of AGW may be the best way to end hate-mongering between ethnetic and religious groups.

    As noted in messages to Climate Skeptics and Junk Science, it is in the best interest of the inhabitants of planet Earth for believers and skeptics of AGW to work together:

    http://junkscience.com/2016/01/nasa-to-save-planet-with-electric-airplanes/#comment-66488

    We all (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) share a common interest in having the best available information about the forces of nature that will determine our shared fate.

    • Martin Smith says:

      I agree.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “We all share a common interest in having the best available information…”
      January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

      In that I fear you are incorrect. The goal is to push an agenda that will lead to a totalitarian world government headed by the corrupt UN bureaucracy and even the Pope is on board as is the Anglican Catholic Bishop. (He sent a rep of the Church of England to the meeting where the BBC decided to censor skeptics. Claire Foster, Church of England
      )
      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-exposed-greenpeace-activists-bp-decide-what-sciencebrits-see-hello-twentyeightgate/

      Claire Foster, Church of England

      …. Claire developed expertise in medical ethics as a Research Fellow at King’s College, London. She published The Manual for Research Ethics Committees ….became a national expert in research ethics committees, developing and teaching an intellectual framework for the ethical scrutiny of medical research…..Claire then moved to work for the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England as policy adviser in medical ethics and also environmental issues.

      She led the efforts to shift the Church’s thinking on environmental issues, offering a sound theological basis and practical guidance to change minds and hearts across the country. She published Sharing God’s Planet (CHP 2005); How many lightbulbs does it take to change a Christian (CHP 2007), and; Don’t stop at the lights (CHP 2008). ….

      Claire has been a member or chair of numerous public and advisory bodies, including the Royal Society’s Science in Society Committee, the 10 Downing St coalition on climate change, the Sustainable Development Education Panel of the Department for Education and DEFRA, Central Oxford Research Ethics Committee, the Banking Code Standards Board and the Royal College of Paediatrics Ethics Committee. She is currently member of the British Medical Association’s Medical Ethics Committee, Unilever’s Central Research Ethics Advisory Committee and the McDonald Centre for public theology and ethics, Christ Church, Oxford.
      http://www.westminster-abbey.org/institute/institute-people/claire-foster-gilbert

      One of her books:

      Don’t stop at the lights – update to environmental guide
      10 July 2015

      The Church of England’s lead bishop on the environment has welcomed a new update to a guide providing environmental advice and resources for parishes.

      Don’t Stop at the Lights – Leading Your Church Through a Changing Climate, first published in 2008 by Church House Publishing, has now a new booklet giving updated information and practical tips to churches on incorporating the environment into the Church year. People who already have the book, co-authored by Claire Foster and David Shreeve….

      The update, which will be available at General Synod, has been issued after faith leaders including the Archbishop of Canterbury signed the Lambeth Declaration last month warning of the “huge challenge” facing the world over climate change. The declaration includes a call on faith communities to recognise the pressing need to make the transition to a low carbon economy.
      https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2015/07/don't-stop-at-the-lights-update-to-environmental-guide.aspx

      The Church, Roman and Anglican, has a thousand year history of backing the Aristocracy. We should never forget that.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Remember the bible we read is a translation of a translation of a translation that has been copied and recopied by hand. The Roman Catholic Church existed only with the agreement of the Aristocracy who they backed with the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. A bit of history on the concept

        Early-modern governments had pathetically inadequate resources (in comparison with today) for directly regulating behavior. Early-modern English monarchs had no standing army (until the late seventeenth century), little paid bureaucracy or civil service, and very little money. (Modern governments control about 20% of the Gross Domestic Product; just before the English Civil War crown revenue peaked at about £900,000 – certainly less than 10% of GDP and probably more like 3%).
        Early-modern governments had to rely mainly on persuasion rather than coercion. In the face of widespread opposition to government policy, regimes could do little….

        The main way of instilling obedience, however, was propaganda. Through teaching, preaching and writing, the message was sent that sedition was morally wrong, un-Christian, and would result in divine retribution. Even those who escaped punishment in this life would burn in hell fire.

        The theory of the Divine Right of Kings aimed at instilling obedience by explaining why all social ranks were religiously and morally obliged to obey their government.
        After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the theory of the Divine Right of Kings lost almost all support in England. It was forcefully expounded in France by Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704) and survived until rendered irrelevant there by Enlightenment and Revolution.
        https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/367-04.htm

        Professor Sommerville, Department of History, University of Wisconsin–Madison provides a lot of historic evidence in support.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Martin Smith says:
        “Gail, you always use too many words to say as little as possible.”
        >>>>>>>>>>>>

        Translation:

        Marty is not capable of wearing Big Boy pants yet and joining in a conversation with complex ideas.

  14. talldave2 says:

    Citizens are armed.

    Subjects are not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Some interesting bits on the philosophy upon which Western Civilization is built

      <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/it-all-began-as-usual-with-the-greeks/"It All Began, As Usual, With the Greeks
      ….While Greek city-states fluctuated between outright tyrannies and democracies, at its most “democratic” Athens, for example, reserved the privileges of democratic rule to 7% of the population, the rest of whom were either slaves or resident aliens. (Thus, in Athens of the fifth century BC, there were approximately 30,000 citizens out of a total population of 400,000.)…

      As privileged landowners living off taxes and the product of slaves, Athenian citizens had the leisure for voting, discussion, the arts and – in the case of the particularly intelligent – philosophizing….

      While Aristotle was politically more moderate than Plato, his aristocratic devotion to the polis [city-state] was fully as evident. Aristotle was born of an aristocratic family in the Macedonian coastal town of Stagira, and entered Plato’s Academy as a student at the age of 17, in 367 BC. There he remained until Plato’s death 20 years later, after which he left Athens and eventually returned to Macedonia, where he joined the court of King Philip and tutored the young future world conqueror, Alexander the Great….

      Their aristocratic bent and their lives within the matrix of an oligarchic polis had a greater impact on the thought of the Socratics than Plato’s various excursions into theoretical right-wing collectivist utopias or in his students’ practical attempts at establishing tyranny. For the social status and political bent of the Socratics colored their ethical and political philosophies and their economic views. Thus, for both Plato and Aristotle, “the good” for man was not something to be pursued by the individual, and neither was the individual a person with rights that were not to be abridged or invaded by his fellows. For Plato and Aristotle, “the good” was naturally not to be pursued by the individual but by the polis. Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented. All this means that Plato’s and Aristotle’s thought was statist and elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated “classical” (Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian and medieval thought. Classical “natural law” philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the “natural rights” of the individual which may not be invaded by man or by government.

      In the more strictly economic realm, the statism of the Greeks means the usual aristocratic exaltation of the alleged virtues of the military arts and of agriculture, as well as a pervasive contempt for labor and for trade, and consequently of moneymaking and the seeking and earning of profit. Thus Socrates, openly despising labor as unhealthy and vulgar, quotes the king of Persia to the effect that by far the noblest arts are agriculture and war. And Aristotle wrote that no good citizens “should be permitted to exercise any low mechanical employment or traffic, as being ignoble and destructive to virtue.”

      Furthermore, the Greek elevation of the polis over the individual led to their taking a dim view of economic innovation and entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur, the dynamic innovator, is after all the locus of individual ego and creativity, and is therefore the harbinger of often disturbing social change, as well as economic growth. But the Greek and Socratic ethical ideal for the individual was not an unfolding and flowering of inner possibilities, but rather a public/political creature molded to conform to the demands of the polis. That kind of social ideal was designed to promote a frozen society of politically determined status, and certainly not a society of creative and dynamic individuals and innovators.….

      This is where the dislike of the individual, economic innovation and entrepreneurship comes from. A frozen society is a society that is safe for the Aristocracy/Elite because there is no challenge to their power, wealth or status. This is the basis for the entire CAGW con and the promotion of RIGHTS of ‘the community aka The State, over the RIGHTS of the individual that Marty and CFool are so busy defending.

  15. Douglas Hoyt says:

    One of my neighbors builds his own guns in his basement. Just requires some easy to acquire shop equipment. Will government outlaw lathes and such?

  16. Snowleopard says:

    The second amendment was not concerned with crime, self defense, or sporting uses of weapons but rather with the ability of the people to form an effective militia with their own ARMS. When it was written, the revolutionary war had just been won, in part, with privately owned field artillery and warships. Thus Constitutionally all weapons are permitted to the people without restriction.

    Why pick on Obama? I’m not defending him, but this has been going on for most of a century, and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms (as originally defined “the weapons needed to wage war” per Jefferson) has been “illegal” since the National Firearms Act of 1933. The argument since then has been what personal weapons will citizens be allowed to keep and/or carry by their various governments.

    It will continue to get worse, in this area and many others, until citizens and states take on their responsibility to enforce the Constitution on the federal government. Don’t hold your breath.

  17. Don says:

    Steve —

    Time for this troll aka Martin Smith to be given the boot. This thread should be evidence enough of his ill will.

    • Trump Rocks says:

      don’t worry Marty will soon be runnin away with his tail between his legs just like his sock puppet Lawrence. Why is our troll Maetin afraid to use his other sock puppet who has been missing for a week?????

    • Gail Combs says:

      The TRAITOR FDR in action again…

      • Gail Combs says:

        ^^^^
        (On the start of gun control.)
        >>>>>

        “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

        Mikey Do-caca, came to our plant to troll for the Union vote. He was given a tour and tried to shake everyone’s hand. I looked the Sleazewad up and down and then deliberately turned my back on him. He stood there with his mouth open. It was one of the bright spots of my life.

        Remember it was because of Mikey Do-caca’s presidential bid that Wirth and Hansen pulled out their bag of dirty tricks to got CAGW on the table in Congress.

        …Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer…

        …. Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well….

        So a number of things came together…

        … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

        So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

  18. richard says:

    Sweet, Gail. Made me envious; I had my moment when
    a few years ago a salesperson for the New York Times
    called me with a sweetheart subscription deal to the
    Times; My reply came out of the blue; The NYT is a
    yellow liberal rag, I wouldn’t accept it as a gift! She paused,
    and meekly replied ” you know, a lot of people feel that way.”
    I dream for a chance to tell any liberal political hack what
    I think of them. (75 years in Florida).

  19. Robertv says:

    No TSA in Texas any longer ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s