Tuesday, August 14, 2012

BARACK "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT HIS "FAMILY" - One Citizen Speaking

BARACK "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT HIS "FAMILY" - One Citizen Speaking

Ryan’s Not the First: Media’s History of Trashing GOP Vice Presidential Picks | Media Research Center

Ryan’s Not the First: Media’s History of Trashing GOP Vice Presidential Picks | Media Research Center

The Israeli Crisis

The Israeli Crisis



WHY MEN ARE NEVER DEPRESSED: 
Men Are Just Happier People --
What do you expect from such simple creatures?

Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack...
You can be President.
You can never be pregnant.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.

You can wear NO shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.

Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress-$5000. Tux rental-$100.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.

Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks.
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.

If someone forgets to invite you,
he or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.

Everything on your face stays its original color.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, even decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can play with toys all your life.
One wallet and one pair of shoes--one color for all seasons.

You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can 'do' your nails with a pocket knife.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.

___________________________________

Men Are Just Happier People

NICKNAMES

If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah. If Mike, Dave and John go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Bubba and WWWildman


EATING OUT

When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and John will each throw in $20, even though it's only for $32.50. None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.

When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators.

MONEY


A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.


BATHROOMS


A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.


ARGUMENTS


A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.


FUTURE

A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.


MARRIAGE


A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.


DRESSING UP


A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the trash, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.


NATURAL

Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.


OFFSPRING
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.


THOUGHT FOR THE DAY


A married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!



SO, 
send this to the women who have a sense of humor and who can handle it....and to the men who will enjoy reading it.

The Ryan Choice

Interesting commentary, but one has to wonder if, with the dumbing down of America, there are enough members of the electorate who have the intellect and interest to read and understand it, and to make a rational, informed decision whether to agree or disagree with it. Sadly, a huge and growing number of voters only want to know, "Where's my free s--t?"

The Ryan Choice

Romney selects a leader of the GOP's reform wing.

When these columns asked last week "Why Not Paul Ryan?", we had no idea that Mitt Romney would choose the Wisconsin Congressman as his running mate. So much the better if he had already made up his mind. In choosing the 42-year-old, Mr. Romney has embraced the GOP's reform wing and made it more likely that the election debate will be as substantial as America's current problems.

Vice Presidential choices rarely sway electoral outcomes, but they do reveal something about the men who make the choices. As Mr. Romney's first Presidential-level decision, the selection speaks well of his governing potential. He broke free of the stereotype that he is a cautious technocrat by picking Mr. Ryan, a man who has offered reforms that the country needs but are feared by the GOP's consultant class and much of his own party.
Mr. Romney is signaling that he realizes he needs a mandate if he is elected, which means putting his reform ideas before the American people for a clear endorsement. He is treating the public like grown-ups, in contrast to President Obama's focus on divisive and personal character attacks.
The Ryan choice also suggests that Mr. Romney understands that to defeat Mr. Obama he'll have to do more than highlight the President's economic failures. He must also show Americans that he has a tangible, specific reform agenda that will produce faster growth and rising incomes.
Mr. Ryan is well equipped to help him promote such an agenda. The seven-term Congressman grew up in the GOP's growth wing and supply-side ranks as a protege of Jack Kemp. Far from being a typical House Republican, he was a dissenter from the Tom DeLay do-little Congress in the last decade. He began talking about his reform blueprint in the George W. Bush years when everyone said he was committing political suicide.
Ignored in 2008, his agenda began to look prescient in 2010 as Mr. Obama's policies produced persistently high unemployment, the slowest recovery in decades, and exploding, unsustainable debt. In 2011, Mr. Ryan won the battle inside the House GOP to take on entitlements, including Medicare. The budget showed the courage of Republican reform convictions and helped smoke out Mr. Obama's insincerity on spending cuts and budget reform.
Democrats and media liberals also claim to be thrilled with the choice, boasting that they can now nationalize the election around the Ryan budget. But behind that bluster you can also detect some trepidation. In Mr. Ryan, they face a conservative advocate who knows the facts and philosophy of his arguments. He is well-liked and makes his case with a cheerful sincerity that can't easily be caricatured as extreme. He carries his swing Wisconsin district easily though it often supports Democrats for President.
This may be why, in his meetings with House Republicans, Mr. Obama has always shied away from directly debating Mr. Ryan on health care and spending. He changed the subject or moved on to someone else. The President knows that Mr. Ryan knows more about the budget and taxes than he does, and that the young Republican can argue the issues in equally moral terms.
Democrats will nonetheless roll out their usual attack lines, and the Romney campaign will have to be more prepared for them than they were for the Bain Capital assault. There's no excuse in particular for letting the White House claim that Mr. Ryan would "end Medicare as we know it" because that is demonstrably false.
Late last year, Mr. Ryan joined Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden in introducing a version of his reform that explicitly retains Medicare as we know it as a continuing option. The reform difference is that seniors would for the first time also have a choice of government-funded private insurance options. The Wyden-Ryan belief is that the choices resulting from private competition will be both cheaper and better.
This "premium-support" model has a long bipartisan pedigree and was endorsed by Democratic Senators John Breaux and Bob Kerrey as part of Bill Clinton's Medicare commission in 1999. Wyden-Ryan is roughly the version of reform that Mr. Romney endorsed earlier this year.
Our advice is that Mr. Romney go on offense on Medicare. He could hit Mr. Obama with ads in Florida and elsewhere for his $716 billion in Medicare cuts, and his plan to cut even more with an unelected rationing board whose decisions under ObamaCare have no legislative or judicial review. Then finish the ads with a positive pitch for the Romney-Ryan-Wyden reform for more patient and medical choice.

In his remarks on Saturday in Norfolk, Mr. Ryan also hit on what is likely to be an emerging Romney theme: leadership that tells Americans the truth. "We will honor you, our fellow citizens, by giving you the right and opportunity to make the choice," he said. "What kind of country do we want to have? What kind of people do we want to be?"

The underlying assumption is that at this moment of declining real incomes and national self-doubt, Americans won't fall for the same old easy demagoguery. They want to hear serious ideas debated seriously. The contrast couldn't be greater with a President who won't run on his record and has offered not a single idea for a second term.
In choosing Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney is betting that Americans know how much trouble their country is in, and that they will reward the candidate who pays them the compliment of offering solutions that match the magnitude of the problems.
A version of this article appeared August 13, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Ryan Choice.

Ever Woundered Who Voted For Obama?

sad 
  
Ever wondered who voted for Obama ?   Check out this interview video clip 
  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I&feature=youtu.be
 

Monday, August 13, 2012

 
The Most Serious Threat To US That Almost No One Knows About: EMP

Can the United States actually protect itself from the effects of an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack, or is the nation merely a sitting duck just waiting for disaster?

The EMP Commission, a panel established by Congress, has written that “EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. … It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of U.S. society … .”

The effects of an EMP have been known for 50 years, but it is virtually unknown by the general public. Sadly, many who do know about EMP either discount the threat or consider those who talk about it are “fear mongers.”

The fact is the scenario of a nation-state threatening to use an EMP device against the U.S. is a real threat. There have already been instances of an EMP threat being used against America.

In a recent webcast hosted by hosted by The United West, U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., offered this anecdote to illustrate just how real the threat is.

In May 1999, a congressional delegation that included Bartlett, met in Vienna, Austria, to ask the Russians for help in resolving the conflict in Kosovo. He and other members of the U.S. government met with members of the Russian legislature (the Duma) to work toward a peaceful resolution to the fighting in the region. The chairman of the Duma International Affairs Committee was Vladimir P. Lukin, who was also the former ambassador to the United States. Bartlett said the Russians were the only ones the Serbs really trusted and anything they agreed to, the Serbs would agree to.

During the course of the negotiations, Lukin displayed his displeasure with what Russia perceived as U.S. interference on Russia’s sphere of influence. Lukin asked Bartlett, “You spit on us, now why should we help you?”

Near the end of the three days of negotiations, Lukin warned Bartlett that Russia was not helpless to oppose the U.S.

Lukin said, “If we really wanted to hurt you with no fear of retaliation, we would launch an SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] and detonate a single nuclear warhead at high altitude over the United States and shut down your power grid and communications for six months or so.”

The third ranking Russian in the delegation, Alexander Shabanov, smiled and added, “And if one weapon wouldn’t do it, we have some spares.”

Bartlett was criticized for telling that anecdote, that he may give people ideas. Bartlett’s response was that maybe one in 50 people even knew about the EMP threat.

Members of the Russian military have offered similar threats.

In 2004, Russian Maj. Gen. Vladimir Belous openly advocated an “asymmetric response” against the U.S., writing: “During a crisis situation period, ‘space’ mines can be inserted into space. They are dispersed in orbit around enemy objects and, detonating on command from Earth, disable them at the necessary moment. The ‘blinding’ of enemy territory by disabling his electronic and power network also is possible. American specialists determined that in case a large nuclear charge were detonated at an altitude of hundreds of kilometers above the geographic center of the United States, the state of Nebraska, a powerful electromagnetic pulse will disable electronic and power systems on the territory of the entire country for a certain time.”

U.S. Amb. Henry Cooper also warns of the EMP threat. Cooper was the chief U.S. negotiator at the Geneva Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union and was named the first civilian director of SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, from 1985 to 1989.

Cooper has stated that a nation-state or terrorist organization doesn’t need an ICBM to inflict catastrophic damage on the U.S., but that “60-year-old SCUD technology is quite sufficient.”

In an Aug. 3 webcast, Cooper said Iran, among other nations, well understands the potential catastrophic effects an EMP can produce. He went on to say that, “They [Iran] have written about it … they have actually tested it [in the Caspian Sea].”

Reza Kahlili, a WND contributor and former Revolutionary Guardman, marked for assassination by the Iranian government has written a book titled, “A Time to Betray,” about just how serious a threat Iran is to the U.S. and to the world.

Kahlili has said Iran has obtained bombs from the former USSR, but does not have the codes. It can, however, use the material in the bombs for use in an EMP attack.

Amb. Cooper said terrorists are also a threat, as they are trying to obtain a nuclear device. Launching the device on the head of a SCUD missile from a ship docked at port or lying off the coast of the U.S. is very real possibility.

Cooper has disagreed with other experts in that Aegis missile systems have, in fact, the capability of bringing down a missile while in ascent and not have to wait until it is in its transition or decent stages.

An Aegis cruiser is usually in transit along the coast and could bring down a SCUD if they are at the ready and near enough to respond. Even at port they can provide protection from attack.

Cooper once asked the captain of a U.S. Navy cruiser station in Norfolk, Va., what he would do if he detected a SCUD missile ascending off the coast. The captain said that, if he had the opportunity, he would attempt to shoot it down. Cooper isn’t sure if naval captains have the authorization to do that, but supposes that some may respond to the threat even if they are not fully authorized.

Cooper’s main concern is with our “soft underbelly” in the Gulf of Mexico, because our Aegis ships do not patrol there. This vulnerably could be exploited by “Iran, terrorists, or even Venezuela”. “This vulnerability could be rectified by deploying ‘Aegis to shore’ on military bases around the Gulf of Mexico.”

He also wonders why, if we can protect our allies with “Aegis-to-shore” batteries, why we can’t protect our own shores.

An EMP from nuclear missiles is not the only threat facing the U.S.

Dr. Lowell Wood of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has also referred to “God’s EMP,” which is associated with solar storms. The interaction of the Earth’s magnetic field with solar wind during these storms mimics the low-frequency components of EMP. These effects have been known for years and widely reported.

There have been large-scale blackouts associated with severe solar storms in America in recent decades.

According to a NASA study, on March 10, 1989, astronomers witnessed a powerful explosion on the sun. The burst released a billion-ton cloud of gas into space. It was likened to thousands of nuclear bombs exploding at the same time.

The solar flare that accompanied the outburst immediately caused short-wave radio interference, including the jamming of radio signals from Radio Free Europe into Russia. It was first thought the signals had been jammed by the Russians.

Three days later, the solar storm was severe enough to cause the collapse of Quebec’s electrical transmission system. Six million people were without power within six seconds.

Even as far back as 1921, solar flares interfered with man’s technology.

At 7:04 a.m. on May 15, 1921, the entire signal and switching system of the New York Central Railroad below 125th Street shut down due to a “solar event.” At the same time in Sweden, a telephone station was “burned out,” and the solar storm interfered with telephone, telegraph and cable traffic over most of Europe.

Congressman Bartlett is one of the few scientists in Congress, and has been advocating the U.S. do more to protect the nation from the effects from an EMP.

In 1995, he convened the first unclassified hearing on EMP. He and 22 other members of the House also co-sponsored the SHIELD Act, standing for “Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage” Act.

The purpose of the SHIELD Act is to “To amend the Federal Power Act to protect the bulk-power system and electric infrastructure … of the United States against natural and manmade electromagnetic pulse (‘EMP’) threats and vulnerabilities.” It would implement standards to protect the electronic grid against an EMP event.

While standards are important, they do not necessarily apply to existing equipment.

Fritz Ermarth, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, has stated the U.S. needs to build an affordable, real, plan for hardening. He says we need to test nukes against existing electrical transformers. Ermarth also noted the need for testing is only one of the reasons why the U.S. should not ratify the U.N.-proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

It’s estimated the cost to protect the transformers would be between $100 to $200 million, less than $1 per life. The cost to protect the entire electrical grid would be $1 billion to $2 billion.

It is critical to protect these transformers since the technology to replace this equipment resides in China, Japan and Germany.

Launching a protective response to an EMP is problematic at best. The only real defense is to harden what we have.

Featured Post

RT @anti_commie32: Keep up the great work!!! https://t.co/FIAnl1hxwG

RT @anti_commie32: Keep up the great work!!! https://t.co/FIAnl1hxwG — Joseph Moran (@JMM7156) May 2, 2023 from Twitter https://twitter....