Daily news sites| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates

Wrong Way Siegel Strikes Again v.2

It's been a year since I made the wrong way claim. Let's see how Siegel is doing.

March 27, 2012
Wrong Way Siegel Strikes Again

Fed to Raise Rates `Well Before 2014' Siegel Says

They say that a picture's worth a thousand words. The following chart is no exception.


Click to enlarge.

Step right up ladies and gentlemen. Gasp in horror at the rising interest rates! For the love of all that is holy, avert your children's eyes!

In all seriousness, we're pretty darned close to the long-term trend line now. It's coming down to meet us.

Goshinpai naku.
Oyasumi nasai.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Effective Federal Funds Rate

New in! Chanel espadrilles

chanel espadrilles 2013, chanel, shoes chanel flats


chanel espadrilles 2013, chanel, shoes chanel flats
chanel espadrilles 2013, chanel, shoes chanel flats
 I just happened to buy my newest pair of shoes from Neiman Marcus this Tuesday. I've been craving a pair of two tones Chanel espadrilles for a while, but now are finally in my closet :)
 It's hard not to love them... and I can't wait to wear them...














Undocumented Democrats ... J. D. Longstreet

Undocumented Democrats   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Undocumented Democrats
They're Just Pawns
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

*****************

The GOP is making a huge mistake chasing after the Hispanic vote.  It is a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of effort.  In fact, it is a pathetic joke the GOP is playing on itself. And it will be almost as successful as the Republican Party's wooing of the black vote in America.  I think we all know how THAT turned out.

Look. Latino and Hispanic voter and the Democratic Party are MADE for each other.  The Latinos and Hispanics now in the US , for the most part, hail from countries with strong central governments.  The Democratic Party with its socialist philosophy is nothing if it is not a believer in and an advocate for a strong central government.

The illegal immigrants, otherwise known as "undocumented democrats," are already comfortable with those strong central governments.  They have already learned how to "milk" the system in their native lands and come here, in my opinion, to milk the American system -- because it is much easier. Not to mention, we have a ruling government more than ready to make a deal.  The deal, simply put is this: Vote and support democrats and we will redistribute America's wealth -- TO YOU!  Any attempt by the GOP to influence those Hispanic and Latino voters, at that point, is shot down in flames.

The GOP's plan to take Hispanic and Latino voters for the Democrats is a Quixotic plan doomed to abject failure.  It's not sensible. It is idealistic and unrealistic -- and almost funny.

Part of the deal, we are told, to get Obama's "Shamnesty" passed in Congress is that the border be secured first.  Of course, that is not going to happen. If the democrats wanted the border secured it would already be secured.  Heck, we have US troops securing, and assisting in securing, borders in several nations around the world, at this very moment, while our borders lie wide open -- both north and south -- as well as our seaports and air terminals.  The plain truth is:  The US government does not want US borders secured.

The Obama Administration has already begun their Bovine Scatology campaign about the southern border being more secure than it has ever been.  That's rubbish.

There is a virtual flood of illegal immigrants entering the US across the southern border with Mexico as they attempt to get inside the US BEFORE the new amnesty law is passed by Congress and signed by Obama.

Arrests along the border \are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year. The number was 170,223 in 2012, and is 192,298 this year.  SOURCE:  http://redflagnews.com/headlines/despite-dhs-claims-stats-show-surge-in-illegal-immigrant-border-traffic?utm_content=Latest+Tea+Party+News,+Current+Events,+Breaking+News,+Politics,+Opinion&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=RFN                     

Sometime in the next few days we should see the proposed new immigration bill from the Senate.  It is expected to include a call for increasing border security, introducing a pathway to citizenship, and increasing visas for high-school workers.  SOURCE: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291415-cruz-obama-pushing-path-to-citizenship-as-poison-pill#ixzz2PhKCFZs7

The House is still working on their bill but it, too, is expected to have that "pathway to citizenship" including. 

Let's be clear:  "Pathway to citizenship" is amnesty, pure and simple.  And it may well be the deal killer for any immigration reform bill Obama tries to push through the Congress.  There is a fairly good chance the bill will pass in the Senate and die in the House.

Congressman Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, says THAT'S the Obama plan.  Cruz says:  "But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it's just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem." SOURCE: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291415-cruz-obama-pushing-path-to-citizenship-as-poison-pill#ixzz2PhMuSX8Z


If Cruz is right, then the whole immigration reform effort by the Obama Administration is a "sham" intended to create a political bludgeon to use against the republicans in the elections of 2014 and 2016.

What about those "illegals" swarming across our borders?  Well, they're just pawns used by the democrats to stay in power.

The GOP, in my opinion, ought to recognize it has lost the illegal immigrant bid.  In fact, the GOP never had a a chance at attracting illegals in the first place.  They are MADE for the democratic party.  

The problem with the GOP is not its lack of minority voters, its the party's tacking to the left that has cost it strength at the ballot box.  Many conservative voters will no longer support the GOP as a result.  Making the GOP tent larger just makes the problem larger.

© J. D. Longstreet


before and after: farmhouse kitchen

Are you there reader? It's me, Margaret Elizabeth.

So of course I have to begin with an apology. I tease y'all on Friday and then leave you hanging. Uncool. I'm sorry. Life got in the way. But if it makes you feel any better, my tar and feathering is scheduled for 4 pm today. You can come watch if you like.

Luckily I've got some good eye candy to make it up to you. Let's have a little before and after, shall we? Everyone loves a good makeover story.

It starts like any good story does - a cute little family buys the perfect house. But the house has a dark side. Or, a dark kitchen. Oh the horror.


Metal cabinets. Bad roll on floor. Three different doorways into a small galley and one single ceiling fan. What's not to love?


And who is the genius that forgot to line the sink up with the window? Pitiful.



The layout was just wrong. The counter space was just wrong. Everything was just wrong.

The family wanted to open the space into the dining room, not only to create better flow but to make this kitchen feel larger. They also wanted the kitchen to have a farmhouse feel.

Ask, and you shall receive.


With the plans in place the kitchen was gutted. Soffits were removed, an extra doorway was closed off, appliances switched positions and the wall between the kitchen and dining room was knocked out to open up the space. I love a good puzzle and this space was really fun for me to rethink and reconfigure.  Like a giant game of tetris.


After several long months of work, my very patient clients now have one saucy kitchen.




The space between the dining room and kitchen is much more open now, but still gives both areas their own defined space.


Buffalo check on the dining room chairs is picked up again with the roman shade in the kitchen. You can read more about the dining room chairs I recovered here.


The cork board was a simple DIY project I previewed on Instagram (follow me here). I'll share the tutorial as soon as I can write it up.


I love the side by sides. Let's have some fun shall we.





I love it when a story has a happy ending.

Like what you see here? I can do the same for you. Let's talk.

Americans have been sequestered by their elected public servants

Americans have been sequestered by their elected public servants


The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has produced an economic report using The Budget and Economic Outlook: FY 2013 to 2023 from the Congressional Budget Office that paints the true picture of the impact of the sequester on federal spending.

It has become standard practice in recent years for the federal government to spend more than a trillion dollars above what it takes in. In 2013 the budget deficit will be a little over $900 billion, adding nearly another trillion dollars to the national debt. According to Mercatus, the government planned to increase spending by $2.54 trillion through 2023. That represents an increase in government spending of 72 percent over ten years.

And then came the sequester, which President Barack Obama told us would wreak all sorts of havoc on the government and the nation, throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of work, and all manner of other horrors.

We were told that the sequester was a cut to government funding levels, but that was not true. The sequester wasn't cutting anything, merely reducing the amount of additional money government got each year over the previous year, so that over that 10-year period spending would only increase by $2.40 trillion. With the reductions in spending increases under the sequester, spending would still increase by 68 percent over ten years. Instead of spending an average of $540 billion more each year, government could only spend $400 billion more each year. What a hardship.

Putting this equation in dollar amounts that people can identify with, let's say that you earn $43,000 a year, -- the average wage in the U.S. -- and your employer told you that each year for the next ten years you would get paid $2,540 more than the previous year. But then the company had a financial crisis and was only able to pay you $2,400 more than last year, about 5.5 percent less. Would you have to sell your second car to make ends meet? Would you have to move to a less expensive home, or eat only bread and beans? Would your life really change at all because your pay raise was $140 less than you expected?

Actually, you could spend money on things just like you did the preceding year, and have money left over.

Returning to the federal situation, how could the government having $400 billion more to spend in FY 2013 than it had in FY 2012 cause such horrific results as those the president warned us about? Well, because those in the position to create horrific results decided to make the most of the situation, and create as much pain as possible.

And why would they do that? Quoting that famous socialist philosopher, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." In other words, use this situation to help you achieve your selfish goals by creating a lot of pain and blaming it on your political opponents.

And how would they do that? Well, when faced with two possible areas to spend less, where one was painful and the other wasn't -- such as not filling government positions opened through attrition (painless) or releasing illegal alien criminals back onto the streets (painful and dumb), these public servants choose to release illegal alien criminals. Of course, everyone with common sense recognizes that decision is stupid and dangerous, but common sense is unwelcome in this entirely political situation. What matters most to these malpracticing public servants is causing enough pain to get the people to clamor for relief from the painful decisions, and restore things to their pre-sequester status.

This is the path that Barack Obama and the other big spenders chose to try to reverse the sequester that was originally their brain child. It is revealing that the president refused to accept the authority to decide how best to accomplish spending a little less than originally envisioned, which was offered to him by U.S. Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA)  and James Inhofe (R-OK), who authored an alternative to give him discretion to allocate the sequester’s cuts largely as he sees fit. Mr. Obama, who never is responsible for anything bad, wanted no part of it, because then whatever pain couldn't be avoided would be his responsibility.

The president wants to blame new economic problems on the sequester. But the actual effects of the sequester are only to reduce budget increases by an amount small enough that competent managers could adequately and nearly painlessly deal with. But, of course, the president turned down that authority.

The real pain and suffering that occurs after the sequester took effect will have resulted primarily from decisions deliberately made to cause pain for no better reason than to allow the president and our other employees in government to create a situation that benefits them and their spending addiction.

This behavior is the antithesis of the ideal of public service and should earn every public servant who indulges in it a quick ejection from their job. Unfortunately, many Americans are more concerned with outcomes than with following an honorable process to achieve them.

Black & Tangerine




The main piece in today's outfit is a black velvet jumpsuit. I'm a fan of jumpsuits since high school and continue today as they are very easy to pull off.
Because the dominant color in this outfit is black, I couldn't resist and I paired it with this bright tangerine coat blazer and added just a few accessories to complete the look. A very contrasting look right?
Have a great Tuesday everyone!





                                                                                 Coat blazer: thanks to Sheinside/ Here
                                                                                 Jumpsuit: thanks to Sheinside/ Here
                                                                                 Heels: BCBGeneration/ option Here 
                                                                                 Necklace: French Connection
                                                                                 Ring: vinatge
                                                                                 Clutch: Forever 21



A “Mill Hill” Boy’s Reflection ... J. D. Longstreet

A “Mill Hill” Boy’s Reflection    ...   J. D. Longstreet
A “Mill Hill” Boy’s Reflection 
Life Lessons Learned  
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet 
 ******************



I spent my days as a wee lad in a company house on a company lot beside a company street in a company village.  The company furnished the water and electricity … and my dad’s job.



There were four of us in that house:  My mom and dad, my younger brother, and myself.



The house had three rooms and a path … literally.  No bathroom, but there was a toilet (an “outhouse” – a “privy”) down that path.  There was also a small stable for a milk cow.



Later, the company decided to bless its employees with a bathroom in, or on, the house.  In our case the bathroom was built on the back porch so that in order to use it one still had to exit the house and cross the porch to get to it.  It had the all too common porcelain toilet and a shower.  There was no lavatory, or sink, in that bathroom. There was a small push-out window near the ceiling of the room.   It was hot in the summer and absolutely frigid in the winter.



Between the house and the outhouse there was a huge cast iron wash pot in which mom did the laundry every Monday.  Wire clotheslines were strung across the backyard so that making an emergency trip to the outhouse at night was akin to maneuvering an army obstacle course -- blindfolded.  It was here that I learned the importance of having a flashlight readily available at night.  I do – to this day.    



The lighting in each room of the house was a single electric wire, hanging from the middle of the ceiling, with a socket for a single light bulb and -- a string attached to the pull chain -- as the only switch to turn the light on and off.  There were no electric receptacles anywhere in the rooms.  That single socket was the only source of electricity in every room.



As was everything in those latitudes (upstate South Carolina – the Piedmont/

foothills), the house was on the side of a hill. The front porch was at near ground level while a man of average height could walk, unstooped, underneath the back of the house.  In fact, that is where we stored our firewood for the stove and wash pot fires and coal for the fireplaces that had coal grates in them instead of dogs for burning wood.



As I mentioned, a good portion of the wood underneath the house was for mom’s huge cast iron wood range cooking stove.  It was a monster!  The thing would heat a city block when the fire got going. (The best food I have ever had, in my life, was cooked on that wood range.)



To get some relief from the heat in the kitchen in the summer, we had to raise the room’s two windows, one on the south side of the room and the other on the east side, and prop them open with pieces of firewood.



The kitchen table was rectangular and covered with an oilcloth tablecloth. That table was the center of our family universe.



There was an icebox.  I mean a REAL icebox.  It was my job to see that it didn’t run out of ice.  I had to walk a city block, and a bit more, to a community grocery store (every day) and purchase a block of ice (for five cents), which the grocer man placed in my little red Radio Flyer wagon that I used to haul that slippery, heavy, cargo. 



Then there was the drip pan beneath the icebox that had to be emptied at least once a day, or more, depending upon how hot the kitchen got on any given day. 



The kitchen was the family room.  The other two rooms were for sleeping.



The house was set back, ten or twelve feet, from the cement sidewalk.  My earliest memories have the street itself unpaved, but later it WAS paved with the old macadam mixture of round smooth river rock and tar.  It stunk to high heaven when it was hot and would blister the bottoms of your bare feet.



The rent was a dollar a day.



We were poor.  But then, so were all our neighbors -- so nobody seemed to notice.



It was on that block that I learned to fend for myself.  It was on that block that I learned to fight, lie, cheat, steal, curse, and the most wondrous thing of all … that girls are different from boys.  I also learned that I like girls … a lot!  



The block was awash in children, or “younguns,” as they were called in those days.  In my house, my younger brother and I were referred to as “chaps.”



It was on that block that I was cold-cocked, knocked unconscious, when I ran headlong into a China Berry tree while chasing a fly ball.



It was there that I learned, mostly, (I admit) by trial and error, right from wrong.  It was on that block that the basic building blocks of what passes today for my character were forever molded.



When we moved to a four-room house in another mill village across town, I wept. 



I will always be a Mill Hill boy.  It is in my blood and maybe -- in my DNA.



The Mill Hill is where I came to know and understand poor working people … people who live their lives on the very edge of out and out destitution. It is where I learned self-reliance.  It is also where I decided that I would claw my way to a better future through hard work; determination, stubbornness, and perseverance taught me by my father’s example.



It was on that Mill Hill where I learned that you must be ready to take a stand and defend your position from all comers regardless of the clamor of the opposition.



The Mill Hill was tough and it was not fair.  I learned, on that Mill Hill, that life is truly NOT FAIR.  But, most importantly, I learned that life is not supposed to be fair!! I learned that crying out for fairness was only an excuse for a shortcut to one’s goals.



That Mill Hill taught me that if one truly wants to make something of one’s self then you first must forget “fair.”  You play the hand you are dealt.  But you play it with cunning and skill and perseverance.  And you NEVER, EVER, QUIT because you are never beaten ‘til you quit!



And finally, I learned, on that Mill Hill, one should never compromise when one is satisfied that he/she is right.  Compromise neuters one’s self-reliance.  When you believe -- to an absolute certainty -- that you are right, compromise is nothing less than a personal sell-out.



Some will disagree with the life lessons I learned on the Mill Hill, but that’s OK.  They are MY lessons. And they have served me well.  After all, it was the hand I was dealt over 70 years ago, and I am still in the game!


J. D. Longstreet

Five

Five
I'm now in 5th place on Rocksmith's Scale Runner mini-game (PS3 version). My absence here has not gone unrewarded.

I ran scales for two hours on the couch yesterday while watching War of the Worlds (again). I also made two attempts to get a better score within the game. The first attempt earlier in the day was a dud. I played well but just couldn't find the speed. The second attempt paid off. Hit 272 notes in a row on two different scales, 271 on another, 270 notes on six more, and 268 on the remaining two. As seen in the link below, 268 notes in 100 seconds was my top speed just a few weeks ago.

Overall, that's nearly 8 hours of guitar practice in one day. Needless to say, my fingers sure are numb!

I don't know what my ultimate top speed will be, but I really don't think that I've peaked yet. If I can go just a fraction of one percent faster (while speeding up my slower scales, which will definitely happen with more practice), then I'll be a contender for the top spot.

See Also:
Nine

The Iron Lady Leaves Us ... J. D. Longstreet

The Iron Lady Leaves Us   ...   J. D. Longstreet
The Iron Lady Leaves Us


Margaret Thatcher Dies
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

*************

Margaret Thatcher, Former Prime Minister of Great Britain, has passed away leaving a vast void in the ranks of conservatives the world over.

Margaret Thatcher's political career has been one of the most remarkable of modern times. Born in October 1925 at Grantham, a small market town in eastern England, she rose to become the first (and for two decades the only) woman to lead a major Western democracy. She won three successive General Elections and served as British Prime Minister for more than eleven years (1979-90), a record unmatched in the twentieth century. 

During her term of office she reshaped almost every aspect of British politics, reviving the economy, reforming outdated institutions, and reinvigorating the nation's foreign policy. She challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline which had become rooted in Britain since the Second World War, pursuing national recovery with striking energy and determination.

In the process, Margaret Thatcher became one of the founders, with Ronald Reagan, of a school of conservative conviction politics, which has had a powerful and enduring impact on politics in Britain and the United States and earned her a higher international profile than any British politician since Winston Churchill.
  SOURCE:  http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp

Had Margaret Thatcher been born American and had she become a candidate for President of the United States, I would have supported her and voted for her.  She was a conservative.

Working closely with President Ronald Reagan,  the Iron Lady welded our two countries together as one. 

Her influence spread around the world.  Her plain spoken opinions made even the mighty squirm at times.  With Thatcher at 10 Downing Street the world never had to wonder where England stood.   

Her influence on US President George H. W. Bush was invaluable at times during his term in office.

Thatcher hated socialism.  She saw it for what it is and she loathed it.  Back in 1976 she said:  "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them." Speech, Feb. 5, 1976

She once said:  "Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State."

She didn't much care for socialized medicine either.  She had her own private health insurance.  When asked about that in a TV interview she said: "I, along with something like 5 million other people, insure to enable me to go into hospital on the day I want; at the time I want, and with a doctor I want. "

On socialism's effect on Great Britain, Baroness Thatcher said this:  "No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or a more prolonged experiment in a democratic country than democratic socialism received in Britain. Yet it was a miserable failure in every respect. Far from reversing the slow relative decline of Britain vis-à-vis its main industrial competitors, it accelerated it. We fell further behind them, until by 1979 we were widely dismissed as 'the sick man of Europe'...To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches."

Here is one of my favorite quotes from Margaret Thatcher:  "I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain." That was from a speech she made on Feb. 8, 1984.

Compare Thatcher's philosophy against that of the current President of the US and you will quickly see why America is in such deep trouble.  Thatcher had her priorities in the proper order. 

Obama wants to rid the world of Nuclear weapons.  Thatcher understood the need for nuclear arsenals.  She said this: "A world without nuclear weapons may be a dream but you cannot base a sure defense on dreams. Without far greater trust and confidence between East and West than exists at present, a world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us."   She made those remarks in a speech at a Soviet Official banquet, St George's Halls, the Kremlin (30 March 1987).  Thatcher had the courage of her convictions.

In her book  Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-095912-6,  she laid out a list of guidelines that speak volumes about her and the way she governed.  She wrote:  "I should therefore prefer to restrict my guidelines to the following:

Don't believe that military interventions, no matter how morally justified, can succeed without clear military goals
   
Don't fall into the trap of imagining that the West can remake societies
   
Don't take public opinion for granted -- but don't either underrate the degree to which good people will endure sacrifices for a worthwhile cause
Don't allow tyrants and aggressors to get away with it

And when you fight -- fight to win.

(You will find these guidelines on page 39 of the book.)

Can you see why I would have great admiration for this great lady? 

May God grant her eternal rest. 

J. D. Longstreet

The Bear Is Tromping The Woods Again! ... J. D. Longstreet

The Bear Is Tromping The Woods Again!   ...   J. D. Longstreet
The Bear Is Tromping The Woods Again!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

**************

The Russian  bear is raging around the globe again.  The "Russkies" are up to their old tricks once more.  Probing, tweaking, testing, aggravating, and in general -- making a complete nuisance of themselves as they strut across the world stage in what they hope is an intimidating posture to strike fear in the hearts of well, EVERYBODY. 

Russia is STILL so far behind the remainder of the world that they are pitiable.

However, if the Russians ever decide to climb out of the Vodka bottle and sober up, they could actually become the great country they SAY they want to be. 

They are a strange people.  Fearful of everything and everybody out side the borders of Russia.  As a country, they are convinced that someone is going to attack them and take their treasures. 

The United States has been the preferred target of their ire since, well, since we bade them leave the North American continent in 1867 with the purchase of Alaska from Russia's Emperor Alexander II.  They've seemed sour toward the US ever since.

OK. OK. So we DID invade Russia -- ONCE -- back during the First World War.   Oh, yes.  We did.

"Although few people know it, in 1918 President Woodrow Wilson sent 5,500 American soldiers — including some from Missouri and Kansas — to northern Russia in the last days of World War I. Thanks to harsh conditions that cut off communications, the troops were left there for eight months after the war ended."
SOURCE:  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/27/104384/think-us-troops-never-invaded.html#storylink=cpy

"President Woodrow Wilson was pressured by the British to send American soldiers to Russia to fight a new force called the Bolsheviks, an early name for Communists . Winston Churchill (then Britain's secretary of war) saw that the Bolsheviks were pulling the czar's forces — our allies — out of the war as they were taking over Russia. So Churchill thought that if we could amass forces in northern Russia, we could stop communism at its birth."  Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/27/104384/think-us-troops-never-invaded.html#storylink=cpy

The war ended about two months after the Americans got there -- but THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT!  They were left for eight months in sometimes waist deep snow.  Many died of exposure. So, believe me when I tell you --we REALLY don't want to invade Russia -- AGAIN!  Now, if we could only convince the Russians of that!

Lately, though, the Russian military has been probing US defenses around the world -mostly in the Pacific region and down the west coast of the US.

From the Free Beacon we learn:  "A Russian bomber recently carried out simulated cruise missile attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Asia, raising new questions about Moscow’s goal in future U.S.-Russian defense talks.

According to U.S. officials, a Russian Tu-22M Backfire bomber on Feb. 26 simulated firing air-launched cruise missiles at an Aegis ship deployed near Japan as part of U.S. missile defenses.

A second mock attack was conducted Feb. 27 against a ground-based missile defense site in Japan that officials did not identify further."
  SOURCE:  http://freebeacon.com/russian-bomber-roulette/ 

From the same article in the Free Beacon we also learn: "The bomber targeting of U.S. missile defenses also followed stepped up Russian bomber activities targeting other U.S. missile defense sites, including ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California. A large-scale Russian military exercise in the Arctic in June included flights by two Tu-95 Bear bombers that Russian military officials said had simulated attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Alaska.

Another pair of Tu-95s flew on July 4 the closest to the California coast that a Russian bomber had flown since the days of the Soviet Union, when strategic bomber flights near U.S. coasts were a routine feature of the Cold War." 


This is important.  While the US is cutting back it's military and nuclear arsenal, the Russians are building up their military preparing especially for war with the US. (So is China, but that is for another day, another column.)

Winston Churchill once said that "appeasement is nothing more than feeding the alligator in hopes that he will eat you last."

While the Obama Administration is busy feeding the Russian alligator the gator is growing bigger and meaner with every passing day.

Appeasement does not work with the Russians. They will bleed you dry then eat your bones.

It seems strange that the only US President able to handle the Russians would not appease them and he brought on the collapse of the old Soviet Union.  His name was Ronald Reagan. 

There is no Reagan to deal with the Russians today.  And THEY KNOW IT!  The Russians see Obama as a joke. They are happily running circles around Obama's diplomatic team and going hell bent for leather to build up their military while the US has such a weak administration in power.

Yes, the "Russian Bear" is back prowling and growling in the woods.  This time the US is too weak to contain the bear.  It will be decades until the US has another conservative president to order a huge build-up in America's military force.  Until then, the world cannot count on the US to counter the Russians as it did for the forty-year Cold War.   Besides, the US today more closely resembles the old Soviet Union -- with our current socialist President and government -- than we do the old America. Heck, we might even be invited to join the Russian Federation. 

© J. D. Longstreet 

ATF Revokes Federal Firearm License Without Giving Cause for Its Action...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Reuters - The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.

"We did revoke their federal firearms license," she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza's mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.

Nancy Lanza was her son's first victim in the December 14 attack. He shot her in their family home before driving to Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, where he gunned down 20 young children and six adults before shooting himself dead.

The weapons Adam Lanza, 20, used in the attack were all legally purchased and registered.

(Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Dale Hudson

Hm, revocation of firearm license without cause? If there was sufficient and proper cause for this revocation why isn't the government stating the reason for the revocation? Are such revocations going to become commonplace given the mood of the country and the Administration's position on 2'nd amendment rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms?

Reasonable people are on board with rational firearm control regulations, including firearm advocates and sportsman. Extensive background checks, extended waiting periods to allow time to accomplish thorough back ground checks, waiting periods when a firearm is purchased at gun shows, regulation of high cap magazines and extended clips are all reasonable. But revoking a businesses federal firearm license without issue a statement as to the reasoning behind such revocation? That's enough to start eyebrows to raise. Even for those who support reasonable regulation while at the same time supporting the 2'nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.

We are on a slippery slope and it seems it will only get slipperier given this report.

Via: Memeorandum


Update, from CNN

Responding to criticism from the National Rifle Association over Connecticut's new gun laws, Gov. Dan Malloy argued the pro-gun group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, is simply blowing smoke.

"Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus - they get the most attention. That's what he's paid to do," Malloy said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

The Democratic governor on Thursday signed into law some of the nation's strictest gun regulations, following the state's devastating school shooting in December in Newtown, which left 20 children and six adults dead.

The new Connecticut laws include the addition of more than 100 weapons to the state’s list of banned assault weapons - including the semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle, one of the firearms used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. The law also bans the sale of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, as well as armor-piercing bullets. Buyers will need a certificate to buy ammunition.

It also requires background checks for all gun purchases.

LaPierre said this week that the only people who will follow the new regulations are law-abiding gun owners, not criminals.

"I think the problem with what Connecticut did is the criminals, the drug dealers, the people that are going to do horror and terror, they aren't going to cooperate," LaPierre said on Fox News. "I mean, all you're doing is making the lawbooks bigger for the law-abiding people."

Asked who will be most affected by the new laws, Malloy said they'll be "probably a little tougher on everybody."

"This guy is so out of whack, it's unbelievable," Malloy told CNN's chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, referring to LaPierre.

Connecticut became the third state to pass tough measures since the December rampage in Newtown. New York and Colorado passed gun control legislation limiting magazine capacity, among other provisions.

Malloy pointed to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the idea of more background checks, a proposal found in legislation currently sitting before the U.S. Senate. The NRA, however, opposes that bill. {Continue Reading}

I agree, LaPierre can certainly be the clown.

Via: Memeorandum

North Korea ready to launch a missile



A top South Korean national security official said Sunday that North Korea may be setting the stage for a missile test or another provocative act with its warning that it soon will be unable to guarantee diplomats' safety in Pyongyang. But he added that the North's clearest objective is to extract concessions from Washington and Seoul.

Read Full Article Here