Daily news sites| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates

US negligence in securing the southern border puts us all in danger

US negligence in securing the southern border puts us all in danger


Do you have locks on the doors to your home and/or business, and do you lock them? Do you lock your car when you park it at work, at the mall, and other places? Do you insist that people who come to your home knock on the door or ring the bell and be invited in before entering? Would you be offended or angered if people set up housekeeping in your basement or outbuilding without your permission? Would you order them to leave and call the police to have them removed if they refused?

If so, you are among the scores of millions of sensible Americans who understand why we must strengthen border security and revamp our dysfunctional immigration system. And that must be done before taking any sort of action to give illegal immigrants legal status of any description.

The administration wants us to believe that the border is really not so bad: "I can tell you having worked that border for 20 years, it is more secure now than it has ever been. Illegal apprehensions are at 40-year lows," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. Please forgive some cynicism, but that could be achieved by ordering the Border Patrol to apprehend fewer illegals.

But as it turns out, she's just wrong. Customs and Border Protection released data showing that arrests are actually up 13 percent compared with the same time last year when the number was 170,223. It is 192,298 this year. 

This begs the question of where Ms. Napolitano -- who "worked the border" as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, the state's Attorney General, and its Governor -- gets her information. But perhaps it’s not the source of information that is Madam Secretary's problem; instead it is her perverse perspective. In 2009 she said on CNN's "State of the Union" that entering the country illegally is not a crime. No, really. That's what she said. That statement should have sunk her as Homeland Security secretary.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said her state’s border with Mexico is still not secure and called for additional resources to improve border security. Following what she termed an "extensive" aerial tour, she said the border with Mexico continues to be “a gateway” for drug smuggling and unlawful crossings. She called for more fences, drones, Border Patrol agents and National Guard troops.

“The ranchers will tell you, if you sit down and talk to them, that they’re fearful, that the Border Patrol is too far north,” Gov. Brewer said. “They need to get closer to the border because they let [illegal immigrants] go so far [into the state], and then they just sort of blend in." "They’re destroying their land and destroying their cattle, they’re destroying their water. They’re frustrated.”

Texas Senator John Cornyn agrees: "People are coming from around the world through what they know is a porous border to come to the United States without us knowing who they are, what their motives are," he said. "This is a national security problem."

The Boston Marathon bombing reminded us that the threat of terrorism is very real. And the negligence of the federal government in handling border security provides no assurance that along with people looking for work and a better life, and the drug cartels and thugs looking for markets and victims, there are not also terrorists slithering across the border while the government is busy not paying attention.

About the only people who do not acknowledge the disgraceful state of border security are those in Washington like Secretary Napolitano whose responsibility it is to secure it. A March poll of 1,014 adults by ABC News and The Washington Post reflects that eight-in-ten Americans support stronger border security.

But of course the "everybody who disagrees with me is stupid" crowd demurs. They not only think lax border security is a good thing, but also believe that those who think we should actually control who comes into the US are racists. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 22 percent of liberal participants hold that view.

These folks believe that it is racist to control who gets into the US, and that the country would be better off if we just opened the borders and let anyone in who wants to come in. They may also believe that if you disagree with Barack Obama about anything, you are also a racist. It has been found that these beliefs were arrived at using a very high level of third grade playground logic.

Perhaps since the feds won't block illegal immigrants from crossing the border we should round them up and send them to live with those 22 percent who hate secure borders and love lawbreakers.

The feds get a big fat F in "paying attention to important things." They've allowed millions to expend minimal effort to illegally enter our country; they designed and carried out the deadly "gun walking" fiasco known as Fast and Furious; they ignored numerous warnings about rising danger in Benghazi that ultimately killed four brave Americans; and did not pick up on clear indications of radicalization of the accused Boston Marathon bombers. And next year Obamacare takes effect.

Blossom Moment





          ... and my week couldn't get any brighter than this! Fresh lilac blossoms & new white pointed-toe pumps... mmm... YES please!
Hope you're having an fun week as well!





                                                                               Pointed-toe pumps: BCBGeneration/ Here




Russia Probes US Air Defenses AGAIN! ... J. D. Longstreet

Russia Probes US Air Defenses AGAIN!   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Russia Probes US Air Defenses AGAIN!
A Not So Subtle Reminder
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

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

According to the Washington Free Beacon -- "Two Bear H nuclear-capable bombers were detected flying into the military’s Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) near the Aleutians, where a strategic missile defense radar is located, and Alaska’s North Slope region by the Arctic and Chukchi Seas on April 28 and 29, military officials told the Washington Free Beacon."  SOURCE:  http://freebeacon.com/bears-buzz-alaska-again/

It would appear "ole Vlad" is turning up the pressure on Obama to show some of that "flexibility" he promised Putin he would have after he was elected to a second term.

Those of us who remember the "Cold War," and even served in the US Military during the Cold War, recognize this behavior by the Russians as a form of bullying at which they are past masters.  It was fairly common to see Russian Bear bombers cruising just off North Carolina's coast.

Now that Putin is feeling his oats and endeavoring to reconstitute the old Soviet Union, he has begun showing off Russia's military power and his ability to project same around the world.

"It was the fifth incident of Russian strategic bombers flying against the United States since June, when Bear bombers were intercepted near Alaska during a large-scale Russian strategic nuclear exercise that Russian military officials said involved practice strikes against U.S. missile defense sites in Alaska.
Less than a month later, on July 4, two more Bears flew the closest to the northern California coast that Russian aircraft have flown since the days of the Soviet Union.

Then in February two Bears circled Guam, a key U.S. military hub in the Pacific.

Additionally, Backfire strategic bombers flew simulated strikes against U.S. missile defenses and bases in Japan last month."
  SOURCE:  http://freebeacon.com/bears-buzz-alaska-again/

Russia continues to rebuild their armed forces while the US -- under Obama -- continues to, basically, disarm its military.

The US can expect more of these probes by Russia, and soon, we expect, from China, as well. 

Obama projects weakness.  Maybe that is because he IS a weak leader. NOTHING invites trouble more than the the appearance of weakness.

Now that Obama has announced the US will focus on the Pacific region, the US is squared -off with Russia and China. Problem is -- we don't have the wherewithal to go toe to toe with those two arch enemies of the US -- not any longer.

There is an expression used in the popular HBO series Game of Thrones -- "The night is dark, and full of terrors."  This descriptive phrase could easily be adapted to  read: "The WORLD is dark and filled with terrors"  and be accurate and applicable to the world we live in today.

Those of us who live in the real world know and understand this and we attempt to take every precaution available to us to protect against such terrors.

The folks on the political left, however, (at least in America) don't live in the same world as the rest of us.  The world in which they live is a fairy-tale land where everyone sits around in a circle and sings "kumbaya." 

Theirs is a world in which all danger can be neutralized by talking out differences and negotiating.  It is a land of group hugs where everyone is equal, everyone is a part of the collective, and the world and life is always "fair." 

In their world war does not exist.  In their world there are no terrorists.  They don't even use the word "terrorist." 

Their world is a utopia. In other words, it doesn't exist.  It is a true "pipe" (as in opium pipe!) dream. "Utopia" is a book of fiction written by Sir Thomas More (1516) describing the perfect society on an imaginary island.  It isn't REAL!

But they don't dare give up their pharmaceutically induced visions of Utopia.  For the moment they do, they will have to face the real world and THAT they cannot do. They are as children in a grownup's world.

One of the less pleasant tasks of the political right, is taking care of the political left. Left on their own they would soon be extinct.  The bullies of the world would have them for lunch. If you question this, I invite you to observe how Mr. Putin will play Mr. Obama like a Stradivarius.

The Bear bomber fly-bys, the probes of our air defenses, all are a part of Putin's reminding Mr. Obama of his promise of more flexibility.  And Putin WILL get it.

Any negotiations with Russia will see the US get the short end of the stick -- or no stick at all.  Expect Putin to make no concessions.  If Obama's record in negotiating with Russia is any indicator, we can expect Obama to make concessions as a form of appeasement.  Appeasement never works, at least not for long.  All it does is move your day in the barrel back a few days. 

Ronald Reagan knew and understood that you only negotiate with Russia from a position of strength.  Even if Obama understood that, he couldn't do it.  It just isn't in him. He is weak and indecisive.  He is often referred to as "Hamlet on the Potomac."

None of this has gone unnoticed by the Russians.  So, we can expect to receive more of these not so subtle reminders from Putin through out the remainder of the Obama administration.

© J. D. Longstreet

visiting at classically b

Happy Monday all! First I want to say thanks for all of your kind words on Friday. I managed to stay off the computer all weekend (no small feat I assure you) which gave me more time to work on projects. Not quite the healing I think I was supposed to be after, but I enjoyed it. Be sure to come back on Wednesday when I'll be sharing a little before and after I recently added to the house.

Today though I'm hanging out with Brittany over at Classically B, talking about some of my favorite finds. And just in time for Mother's Day (hint hint hubs).

Stop by and say Hi!



Obama Brokering Deal To Contain Nuclear Iran? ... J. D. Longstreet

Obama Brokering Deal To Contain Nuclear Iran?   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Obama Brokering Deal To Contain Nuclear Iran?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

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

Just a few days ago, we published a piece entitled: "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran."  The thrust of the piece was that Obama will not make any attempt to stop Iran from developing an atomic bomb or a missile delivery system for nuclear warheads, but will, in fact, allow Iran to continue their endeavor for nuclear weapons.  We hypothesized in that commentary that Obama was developing a strategy of "containment" of a nuclear Iran -- because he knows he is not going to make an attempt to stop them and indeed, doesn't want Israel to stop them, either.

Here is just a snippet of what we said in that writing:  "...  it provides no comfort knowing that Iran is closing on its desire to have its very own nuclear bomb, which it intends to drop on Israel and the United States at the earliest opportunity.

It should come as no surprise when the Obama administration rolls out their plans for "containment of a nuclear Iran."  Many have felt for some time that was Obama's ultimate goal all the while.

Understand: The Arab nations are scared witless of the Persian nation. If Iran is allowed to possess a nuclear bomb, expect all the Arab nations in the region to go nuclear almost overnight -- in self defense.  They won't waste time with developing their own nuclear programs, they will simply purchase nuclear bombs and missiles and be done with it.

Now -- allow me to ask you -- how much safer will YOU feel if and when the entire Middle East is armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs and missiles?"
We encourage you to read the entire article at: http://insightonfreedom.blogspot.com/2013/04/get-ready-for-nuclear-iran-j-d_25.html


Today, Sunday May 5th, 2013, at Israelnationalnews.com there is an article by Gil Ronen  entitled:  "Israel 'Opting to Contain' Nuclear Iran?" Report in Sunday Times says U.S. is brokering a deal between Israel, Saudis, Jordan, Turkey and UAE."

The opening paragraph of Mr. Ronen's pieces says the following:  "Israel is considering partnering with several Sunni-Muslim Arab states in a U.S.-brokered defense alliance that would be aimed at containing a nuclear Iran, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unnamed Israeli official." (Emphasis by underlining is mine.) SOURCE: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167735#.UYZ4-0qcNIx

If the Obama administration is seriously thinking they can be successful at containing a nuclear Iran, they are kidding themselves.  And it is a dangerous joke.

Look. The US has been attempting to "contain" Iran since the Carter administration and we see where that has gotten us.  Even today we have an iron wall of naval warships stationed just off shore of Iran.  We have forward deployed troops in neighboring countries on continuous alert. We have satellites, drones, recon aircraft of every kind, plus electronic surveillance 24-7, all aimed at containing a NON-nuclear Iran. Plus, all the sanctions on Iran by the UN.  It hasn't phased them, at all.

In an article at the Heritage Foundation website they plainly state the following:  "While the Obama Administration maintains that the military option is on the table, it has done little to convince Tehran that it is serious. If this trend continues, containment of a nuclear Iran will become the default option for the United States. Before this happens, the Administration should carefully weigh the costs, risks, benefits, and feasibility of such a policy."  (Emphasis by underlining is mine.SOURCE:  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/containing-a-nuclear-iran-difficult-costly-and-dangerous


The very same article goes on to say:  "The manifest failure of U.S. efforts to contain Iranian influence and deter attacks on Americans in the past 30 years should raise alarms about the much greater difficulty inherent in containing and deterring Tehran after it acquires nuclear weapons. To argue the merits of containment now that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons is to argue for a policy that has been tried for decades— a policy that is now close to an enormous defeat because of the progress of Iran’s nuclear program." SOURCE:   http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/containing-a-nuclear-iran-difficult-costly-and-dangerous

Obama continues to promise, publicly anyway, that "all options are on the table."   That phrase is SUPPOSED to mean a military strike is an option.  The problem is -- nobody believes Obama anymore -- especially the mullahs in Iran.  Heck, I don't even believe him -- as you can plainly see from this commentary.

President Theodore Roosevelt is credited with saying:  "Walk softly -- and carry a BIG stick."  Mr. Obama would do well to heed Teddy's advice.  It is not helpful when the President publicly threatens to act when certain degrees of hostility have been reached by the offending force ... as in Obama's recent back-down when the Syrians boldly crossed the "red line" Obama, himself, imposed.

A Commander-in-Chief should never threaten unless he intends to act to back up his threat.  Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has now told the world that America's word cannot be trusted, that America issues empty threats, and Obama has underscored the belief by many nations around the globe today that America, today, is a nation of lions led by a sheep.

This bad, very bad.

© J. D. Longstreet

R.E.D.



A first step to bare legs this Spring in today's outfit post. As a first look I chose this red dress and "Go bold or go home"stands as motivation. Just the color itself speaks for the whole outfit so accessories are reduced to minimal, almost nonexistent. Voila!!
Happy Easter everyone!


                                                                             


                                                                                    Drees: thanks to SugarlipsHere
                                                                                    Coat: Kenneth Cole New York/ a great option  Here 
                                                                   Heels: BCBGeneration/ another great version Here
                                                                                    Clutch: thanks to Me Char/ Here
                                                                   Sunglasses: Ralph Lauren
                                                                                    Necklace: c/o TellStyleHere




The Heresy of Universal Reconciliation ... J. D. Longstreet

The Heresy of Universal Reconciliation   ...   J. D. Longstreet
The Heresy of Universal Reconciliation
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

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

You probably already know what universal reconciliation is, but have never heard it's proper nomenclature. 

Allow me to define universal reconciliation.  Simply put,  it is -- "every soul eventually winds up in heaven."    That's the definition.  It is also a lie, but it is the current lie some modern religionists are promulgating these days.

Oh, it's not new.  This "feel good work around" to actually having to face the fact of eternal punishment for one's sins has been around since before the American Revolution.  

“It’s a heresy that goes back all the way to the third century of the Church. It came to America in 1740 and was propagated among the churches of New England, where it found fertile ground and has been never totally eradicated.”  SOURCE:  http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2013/April26/263.html

Universalism, as universal reconciliation is sometimes called, was brought to the American colonies by the English-born physician George de Benneville.  (Just so you know.)

Here of late, some of America's more, uh, "modern" denominations have accepted this heresy as truth. See, it FEELS good.  and after all, isn't religion supposed to make us feel good?

Actually, the answer is no -- not exactly.  Religion should not make us feel good.  In my opinion, religion should comforted the afflicted and afflict the comfortable to be effective.  That's my opinion, of course.    

" ... no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment."  SOURCE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

I bring the subject up today because in nearly every TV drama and Hollywood movie we see some reference to universal reconciliation.  No matter how bad the bad guy -- or the GOOD guy -- was, inevitably his final destination, we are assured, is (you've got it!) Heaven.  

You'd think red flags would go up the instant the promotion of some supposed article of faith comes from the political left.  But -- it is reinforced from the pulpits of some of the most prestigious religious denominations in America.

They are both wrong.    

OK.  So, I'm an old fuddy-duddy, an old moss-back, who won't "get with the program."  I'll admit to that.  I'll even tell you I didn't "get with the program" when I was a child OR a young man.  It ain't in my nature.

I'm not into moral relativism and that, so far as I am concerned, is the root of universal reconciliation.  Moral relativism is the belief that there is no black and white.  No absolutely right and no absolutely wrong.  Everything is relative. Everything is in a state of "gray."

Moral relativism should be filed under "Bovine Scatology."

Allow me to inquire:  What was the purpose of Christ's visit to earth, his death, burial, and resurrection, if all human souls will eventually get to heaven anyway?  Makes absolutely no sense to this ole country boy.

Something else troubles me about universal reconciliation:  What is the point in living a good, decent, law-abiding life?  Why not live like the devil -- raise hell, and be a "Good-time Charlie" for your life span on this earth IF- you're are going to heaven anyway.

Where's the incentive for good morals?

Here's the thing, as I see it.  I believe not in the basic "goodness" of man but the basic "evil" of mankind.  In my view, man is a creation of God that went rogue.

We are a sorry lot, we humans.  We rebelled against our Creator  -- and you don't get much lower than that.   We burned our bridges to God and He set us loose with the burden of free will.  We were shown to the gates of the Garden of Eden and tossed out on our derrieres and forbidden to ever return.

From that point things went from bad to worse for man.  It became so bad, that God repented that he had ever made man in the first place. He sent a global flood and wiped all humans from the earth -- save for a single eight person family.

It was time to start over.

And WE screwed it up again, and again, and again.

So the Creator offered us a way to clean the slate, begin again, and reconnect with our Creator, our God -- now and forever.  That was through the sacrifice of his on Son Jesus, the Christ.

The down side? As always, and in all things, there are those who just refuse to (as I said earlier) get with the program.  Humans like to play the odds, to hedge their bets, etc..  It is a form of thinking and behavior that is born of arrogance.  (Man is nothing if he is not arrogant.)

The scriptures make it extraordinarily plain that God created TWO places of eternal residence for human souls after life on this earth. The good news is -- we get to choose where we will spend eternity -- in Heaven or in Hell. 

See, I know Hell exists as surely as I know evil exists.  We saw evil at work just a few days ago in Boston, at the school in Connecticut, and numerous other places where Satanic inspired deeds bring pain, death, destruction, horror, and terror to our world.

I ask you -- what's the purpose of a place of punishment IF no one is to be punished?

Then there is the prospect of living for eternity in a heaven along side Hitler, Stalin, John Dillinger, Osama bin Laden, and, well,  the list of evil-doers just goes on and on.

I must tell you, I have serious reservations about coexisting with the aforementioned crowd of evil doers in the same city, behind those Pearly Gates -- golden streets, or not!

No.  I am not buying universal reconciliation, at all. I believe it is a lie ranking right up there with the lie that "there is no Devil" -- Satan's greatest trick! 

Old Nick must be truly proud of the universal reconciliation crowd.

© J. D. Longstreet

Worse Than Watergate! ... J. D. Longstreet

Worse Than Watergate!   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Worse Than Watergate!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

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

Four Americans are dead and the American people are being lied to as to how and why they got that way. 

Either the President is lying - and needs to be impeached, or he's NOT lying -- and needs to be impeached -- because he DIDN'T know what was happening!

Repeat:  Four Americans are DEAD. And as much as it pains me to say it -- it doesn't look as if our government made a genuine effort to save them.

I have watched, listened, and read as much as we have been allowed to know -- plus -- information gleaned by non-mainstream media sources,  and I  concluded -- long ago -- that there is a major cover-up at the top levels of the US government over the incident in Benghazi.

Now, let me be clear:  I am not an investigative reporter. That is not what I do.  I am a commentator -- an opinion writer ... nothing more.   I have deliberately "hung back" on any in-depth comments on the Benghazi affair simply because there always seemed to me to be more THERE there.  In other words, it was obvious, at least to me, that we were only getting drips and drabs of what really happened and, I felt (and still do) that we have been told nothing of WHY it happened.   But, dear reader, even Helen Keller could see there is a major cover-up surrounding the incident in Benghazi! 

That CIA "safe-house" has troubled me from the very beginning of this horrible story.  What was the CIA doing there?  There was no embassy in Benghazi.  In fact, the building attacked was not even a consulate.  If anything, it was a "mission."   Had it been an embassy, I'd not question a CIA presence.  They are practically a part of the furniture in any US Embassy.  But, as I said,  this was NOT an embassy.

Remember too, the last person our ambassador met with the evening of the attack was a Turkish diplomat.  What was a Turkish diplomat doing in Benghazi, Libya, meeting with Ambassador Stevens at an unprotected site?  Why not meet in the embassy in Tripoli? 

It now seems that the ex-SEALS were not attached to the consulate, but were assigned to the CIA "safe-house." They (laudably) went against orders and made a rescue attempt of the US officials and staff at the consulate/mission -- and lost their lives in the attempt.

There was quickly a fog of misinformation spewed up and out by the Obama Administration in what -- in my opinion -- is an attempt to cover-up an on-going scheme/operation to smuggle weapons into Syria through Turkey.

A few weeks ago, there was a report that Libyan militia members had been ordered to turn-in the weapons that had been supplied them in their struggle to overthrow Qaddafi. That report confirmed that many of those weapons had been turned in.  Where did those weapons go?  Perhaps, to the Syrian rebels?

It has been suspected for some time now that the US has been supplying small arms to the rebels in Syria for a while -- even though the Obama Administration denies it.

It is the kind of operation the CIA would be up-to-their-necks in and it would explain their presence on the ground in Libya in a safe-house just a mile away from the consulate/mission.

For the sake of argument, suppose the guns gathered from the Libyan militia were being covertly sent to Turkey and then smuggled across the Turkey/Syrian border to the Syrian rebels.

I continue to cycle back to the question -- WHY was the Ambassador THERE , alone, without a security detail, at that particular time, meeting with a high Turkish diplomat.  Remember, this was on September 11th.  If there was going to be an attack by terrorists -- September 11th would be the day for it.

Now, I'm just hypothesizing here.  I have no idea, at this point, what was really going on. But, I am confident there was a covert operation underway -- one so black that sacrificing the lives of four Americans was deemed "worth it" by our leaders in Washington. 

For whatever reason, the Obama Administration has chosen to tell the world a bald-faced lie about what happened in Benghazi. 

So politicians lie, right? Yeah, they do. But this time -- four Americans are dead and the country wants to know why that happened and why the Obama Administration chose to lie to us about it. 

It is clear now, that all the warnings from the political right about the penchant of this President and his administration for lies was absolutely correct. If they are lying about the "Incident in Benghazi," what else are they lying about?

It is clear the Mainstream Media is NOT going to cover this story.  They are not going to investigate what happened for fear that it will drive down support for Obama.  They seem to have taken the attitude:  the truth, the welfare of the country, be damned.  Keeping their man, Obama, afloat is the most important thing, bar none.  Nothing can be allowed to interfere -- not even the truth!

Look.  The cover-up of "Benghazigate" is far more important that Watergate ever was! 

We need a "Congressional Investigation" of the incident at Benghazi and we need it post haste!  If ever an incident deserved investigating by the Congress this horrible event in Benghazi is it. Too, it is looking more and more as if grounds for impeachment proceedings are present.

Whistle blowers, witnesses who claim to know the truth, are standing by having already stated their willingness to testify before Congress, but they are enjoined from such as a result of having signed documents that prevent them from discussing the event(s) in Benghazi.  They need to be released from those bonds so we can get to the truth.  One phone call from the President would take care of it.  Will he make the call?  Don't hold your breath.  

Yes, if only Obama was a republican, there would be no need for commentators to be begging the Congress to investigate or opining at the reluctance of the MsM to investigate.

It is what it is.  The Mainstream Media in America is an organ of the political left -- as is President Obama.  There is simply no way we are going to get anythng approaching impartial reporting or a REAL investigation of Benghazigate from the MsM. 

For me, it is not just a matter of trust, it is a matter of honor -- NATIONAL HONOR. 

America deserves better than we have gotten, or, are likely to get from Obama. 

© J. D. Longstreet

The "Free Lunch" Weight Loss Plan v.023


Click to enlarge.

I went 13 straight days at 211. I made an attempt to hold the line once 210 was breached. Some might argue that the seasonal peak is in. Others might argue that my girlfriend made a batch of brownies a few days ago though and they are all gone now. You'll see that damage in May's chart. Oops. :)


Click to enlarge.

I'm not at all worried about the long-term trend. That's all that really matters to me. I'm confident it is still down, especially if this is factored in. Further, hiking season is officially here. I intend to do some this weekend. The weather is predicted to be fantastic.

May 3, 2013
No school due to great weather: Seattle principal gives students rare ‘sun day’ off

“In a world that’s got a lot hard things going, its’ fun to create a moment joy,” Sampson said.

No joke.

See Also:
The "Free Lunch" Weight Loss Plan v.000

April Job Numbers Appear Improved... Are They Really?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Lib
erty -vs- Tyranny


The April job reports are out. The good news is unemployment fell to a four year low, certainly at year six in Obama's Presidential tenure strikes a positive note. Or does it? At the same time the number of people employed part time rose as well as strong indications are showing the Affordable Care Act (ACA aka ObamaCare) will have a long term negative impact on the USA economy.

The following is an interesting analysis and one that certainly has some credibility.

AEI - US job growth in April beat economist expectations as nonfarm payrolls rose 165,000, and the jobless rate fell to a four-year low of 7.5%. But the report contained worrisome signs that President Obama’s health care reform law is hurting full-time, high-wage employment.

While the American economy added 293,000 jobs last month, according to the separate household survey, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons — “involuntary part-time workers” as the Labor Department calls them – increased by almost as much, by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These folks were working part time because a) their hours had been cut back or b) they were unable to find a full-time job. At the same time, the U-6 unemployment rate — a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig – rose from 13.8% to 13.9%.

What’s more, there wasa 0.2 hour decline in the length of the average workweek. This led to 0.4 percentage point drop in the index of average weekly hours, “equaling the largest declines since the recovery began,” notes economist Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Let’s see, more part timers and fewer hours worked. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin says what we’re all thinking: “This is not good news as it reflects the reliance on part-time work. … the decline in hours and rise of part-time work is troubling in light of anecdotal reports of the impact of the Affordable Care Act.”

Anecdotal reports like this one from the Los Angeles Times: “Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average. City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.”

Now, there is the possibility that government furloughs are affecting the length of the workweek. (Though at the same time, steady if unspectacular private-sector job growth shows the Fed may be continuing to effectively offset any negative sequestration impact.) Here is JPMorgan on the subject:

Government shed a trend-like 11,000 jobs last month, a number which bore little evidence of a meaningful sequestration impact. Similarly, it is hard to directly link the decline in the average workweek to furloughed government workers, as the workweek only measures private industry hours. It’s conceivable the decline in the workweek may be related to the Affordable Care Act, but a simpler explanation is that it had jumped two ticks in the prior two months, and through the month-to-month noise is just settling into a stable trend.

We’ll see. But the combo of data and anecdotes should at least raise red flags about how health care reform could be permanently altering the structure of the American labor market. {Read More}

I report, you decide...

The Charts... (click to enlarge)





Via: Memeorandum

Dazzling Blue



   From the "monochrome outfits" series I have for you today another example - Magic Blue -
I love wearing blue along with gold accessories, but this time I paired it with metallics. It has that futuristic feeling , maybe because I added the Pop Art clutch.




                                                                                  Shirt: vintage
                                                                                  Pants: Zara/ great option Here
                                                                                  Pointed-toe shoes: Zara/ Here
                                                                                  Clutch: 3.1 Phillip Lim
                                                                                  Watch: Mondaine/ option Here 
                                                                  Necklace: vintage
                                                                                  Sunglasses: Ralph Lauren
                                                                                  Bracelet: vintage/ great option Here





healing and a blog party

Sorry for the radio silence my friends. It appears that I've developed a case of carpal tunnel and it has totally ruined my quality blogging time. I'll be back at it next week but was told to take the next few days off. (I'm going to pretend that doesn't include being on my iPhone). 

In the meantime, head over to the Simply Baby's spring blog party today. My fellow style contributors Cindi and Emily from Scrappy Love are hosting today and I can't wait to see what they put together. And look forward to these style contributors in the weeks to come too.




Have a great weekend!

Déjà vu All Over Again? The Audacity of Truth ... J. D. Longstreet

Déjà vu All Over Again?  The Audacity of Truth   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Déjà vu All Over Again?
The Audacity of Truth
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


I recently had a “commenter” question my loyalty to America as a result of my hypothesizing that we, as a nation, may be headed for another civil war.  It was an honest appraisal of our current situation, as I see it, and one at which I gingerly arrived with a great deal of uncertainty and tentativeness. 

The commenter was from a northern state, which lies on the US/Canadian border.   So far as I am able to determine, his state has never been invaded, conquered, and occupied by a foreign power. Mine has.

Now let’s be clear:  We southerners still, to this day, bear the scars of that conflagration.  A hundred and fifty years is but as a moment in time here in the South.

On May tenth, we Tar Heels will celebrate Confederate Memorial Day.  The National Flag of the Confederacy will fly over our State Capitol Building.  Celebrations will be held all over the state as well as memorial services to honor our Confederate ancestors.

We lost – yet – we celebrate the effort, the fight for “The Cause.”

Now, maybe it is because it is a part of who we are as southerners, that the past remains so alive, so vibrant here. Maybe it is because so many of us have bothered to look at what actually caused the break-up of the Union in the first place.

When one’s ancestors are referred to as “traitors” one is often compelled to investigate in an attempt to learn WHY. 

We quickly learn the accusation is a lie.  But -- we also learn of the circumstances in the United States in the 1800’s that practically insured the southern people would have to separate from the US in order to preserve the form of government given us by the Founding Fathers.

The result of the war would -- and did -- insure that the United States would have a STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and NOT a government answerable to the states and subject to the states as the Founders intended.


The original Constitution of the United States of America died at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, on the afternoon of April 9th, 1865 when Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia in the parlor of Wilmer McLean’s home. 

When one lends oneself to a study of the period one cannot help but see the similarities of the relationship between the US government and the people of the US – especially the people of the southern states -- then and now.  I must tell you it is chilling!

It was the study of the circumstances leading up to the "War for Southern Independence," as we southerners like to call it, that prompted me to point out that the US finds itself, today, in similar circumstances that might lead to another civil war in the country.

At CNSNEWS.COM on May 2nd, 2013, there is an article entitled: "Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years."  The article was written by Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.  The lead-off paragraph says:  "Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University." SOURCE:  http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

(Fairleigh Dickinson University is the largest (12000+ students) independent university in New Jersey.  Source:  http://www.fdu.edu/ )

So, it would seem this old scribe isn't alone in worrying about the possibility that the nation may go to war with itself in the near future. 

Here in the southeast, it is likely we recognize the signs far more quickly that folks from other regions of this great country.  If so, then it is simply because we have been there (here?)  before.

In my home state of South Carolina cannon balls from Sherman's artillery can still be seen embedded in the walls of the State Capitol Building.

As I write, I sit a few minutes drive from the last Confederate fort to fall to the Union, Fort Fisher.  It was the death knell for the Confederacy.  Resupply for the Confederacy was ended.  The Union siege of Fort Fisher, especially the ship to shore bombardment,  was not equaled until the Second World War.

On a drive through the American Southeast you will see multiple flagpoles in the front yards of many homes flying Old Glory from high atop the pole.  Granted, you may see a state flag, or even one or more of the Confederate national flags, or even the Confederate Battle Flag or the famous Gadsden Flag (The “Don’t Tread On me Flag) flying BELOW Old Glory… on the same pole.  To a Southerner that is not the least bit confusing.  We are proud Americans, Southern Americans, to be sure, proud of our heritage. But our allegiance, first and foremost, is to the United States.

Yes.  We DO worry that it could all happen again.  And I remain convinced that the possibility grows greater every time the federal government accrues more power to itself.

Sort of like the canary in the mine shaft, we southerners might be a bit more sensitive to overbearing government simply because our region has experienced it before.  For instance, it can be argued that "Reconstruction" of the South, after the war, actually did MORE harm to the South than the war itself.  (The US sucked at nation building even then!)

I'm not sure, exactly, what it says about a nation, when the direct descendent of a host of Confederate soldiers steps forward to warn America against making the same mistakes America made in the mid 1800's (which led to a civil war) and he is denigrated for having the audacity to draw attention to obvious preparations being made by both citizens and government for just such an horrendous event.

Seems to me, we should be able to analyze what went wrong then and, at least, make an attempt to avoid making the very same mistakes.  We already know where that road leads. If we can't do that, then we are already lost.

© J. D. Longstreet 

Christian Monsters

Senate Gungrabbers Not Done Yet! ... J. D. Longstreet

Senate Gungrabbers Not Done Yet!   ...   J. D. Longstreet
Senate Gungrabbers Not Done Yet!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

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

Senator Joe Manchin, a democrat of West Virginia, says there was confusion about the gun control bill he and Senator Pat Toomey, a republican of Pennsylvania, introduced in the US Senate recently.  It, of course, failed.

We have warned our readers umpteen times that the leftists are relentless in their grab and grasp for power -- and so it is with gun control.

In a television interview a few days ago, Senator Manchin said he would re-introduce the bill (or a bill similar to the original) that would require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers at shows and online.  He appeared convinced that once senators read the bill they will vote in support of it.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw this interview was:  "What was the Senator smoking?"  It is clear as a bell that once senators actually read the bill, more will refuse to support it than refused the first time around.  A NEW bill, however, might be something else, altogether.  In any event, gun owners would be wise to stay abreast of the gun control debate going on "sub-Rosa" in the Senate -- and elsewhere -- on Capitol Hill.  

It is also clear that the bill will not be introduced immediately.  Obama and his henchmen need time to beat, bash, and coerce those in the Democratic Party who had the temerity to vote against the Manchin/Toomey Bill.  They will need to be brought back in line by whatever threats -- or bribes -- are necessary.  (Remember how Obama got support for Obamacare???)

So, it is back to the barricades for gun owners in America.  Once again we must man freedom's ramparts to defend our own constitution from the very people who gave us an oath, swore on the Bible, not to do exactly what they are doing.

It is a sad day for America -- and a sad day for the world -- when Americans have to defend themselves -- and their rights -- from their very own government.

Consider this:  "According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep citizens safe."  SOURCE:  http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americans-fear-government-more-than-terror/

Even after the Boston bombings, the article goes on the say:  "the polls indicate Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”

Look.  Even before the Declaration of Independence was written American colonists were reluctant to go against their government.  In that case it was King George and the British Parliament.  The colonists bent over backwards, at least in their own estimation, to avoid a confrontation with the crown.  But it did not work.  It never does when dealing with a tyrant and/or a despot.

Dealing with Obama, and his Marxist/Labor/Democrat Party, modern day Americans have finally arrived at the very same conclusion their ancestors did in the 1700's, which is: this far -- and NO FARTHER!   

By now we are all aware of something one of our esteemed Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin,  wrote:  “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I'd like to take Franklin's statement a bit farther and quote Edward Gibbon:  “In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”  -- Edward Gibbon (27 April 1737  – 16 January 1794) was an English historian and Member of Parliament.

No matter how many times I read the quote above, I catch myself nodding my head in agreement with the sentiments of Gibbon. It is as though someone held a mirror up to all of America and in it we can clearly see our current reflection.

I invite you to re-read the Gibbon's statement above and instead of the words "Athenians" and "Athens" insert the words "Americans" and "America."  No further explanation is necessary, is it? 

Does it not send cold chills up and down your spine? 

Here's another observation by Edward Gibbons.  It was made concerning the Roman Empire but, much as the quote above, this one, too, looks as if it were actually describing modern day America: 

“The five marks of the Roman decaying culture:

Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;

Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;

Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;

Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;

Increased demand to live off the state.”

― Edward Gibbon
SOURCE:  http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/11628.Edward_Gibbon

Another quote from Gibbons comes to mind as I reflect on the under-handed way so much of our legislation is rammed through Congress these days.  It is this: “Corruption, the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty.”
It would seem corruption is something we who live in a constitutional representative republic must expect -- and guard against -- incessantly.

© J. D. Longstreet

Sailor s t r i p e s





  Another weekend look, having a striped sailor moment with easy to wear pieces in a navy-white-red combination. 
STRIPES are not just for sailors and I totally embrace this trend!




                                                                                       Top: vintage/ option Here 
                                                                                       Necklace: thanks to Arthur and Livingston/ Here 
                                                                      Pants: H&M/ option Here 
                                                                                       Sunglasses: Ray Ban/ similar style Here 
                                                                                       Shoes: Mango/ Here 
                                                                                       Bag: Margot/ option Here