Daily news sites

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle




The Obama Regime's policy of Appeasement is coming along nicely with the latest pronouncements to the Iranians.

From Debka

The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran: “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.

debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.

And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.

Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.

They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.

This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.

Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:

1. Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
2. Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
3. Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
4. Termination of plutonium production at Arak.

Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

Who but an idiot would actually believe that Iran would not weaponize any nuclear components that they have in their possession?  Once again Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus.  But will Netanyahu let him do this to Israel?  Members of the Obama Regime have quietly told Netanyahu that if Israel attacks Iran the US will NOT block any sanctions and/or boycotts done to Israel by the UN Security Council.  Blackmail is the Obama way.

Israel will soon be standing alone in the world without a friend.  The perfect solution for his Muslim Brotherhood Masters.  Isolate Israel, destroy Israel then finish the job started in 1933.  Problem solved and World Peace reigns.

I for one do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would believe anything Obama or Kerry is saying to him.  I do believe he is buying time, but will it be time enough to prevent a nuclear bomb being exploded over Tel Aviv?  I pray it is.

I've got vessel sinks on the brain.

Pinterest via Passion Decor

Pinterest via South Shore Decorating Blog

Mark D Sikes

Andrea May

via Pinterest

via

Sarah Richardson

What do you think?  Do you have one? Are they messy/hard to keep water contained? Any you recommend?

Tropical storms Ingrid and Manuel hit Mexico from the Atlantic and the Pacific causing major flooding in 20 states, including Guerrero.

Gill Roberto Morales, Miguel A. Mercado and Jordan Henderson

Many people who have influence with President Barack Obama have gotten relief from the terrors of the Affordable Care Act we now know as Obamacare, but the great majority of the American people are still expected to follow the dictates of the healthcare “reform” law next month.

The administration’s announcement July 2 delaying the employer mandate was the first in a series of goodies provided to favored constituencies. And, about 20 percent of waivers went to gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, and fancy hotels in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Cal.) district.

But as maddening as this discrimination is to us common folk, exempting Members of Congress and their staffs is far worse.

Under heavy pressure from Democrat leaders, Mr. Obama agreed to ignore the terms of the law that he pushed so hard for and now requires taxpayers to subsidize coverage for representatives, senators, and their employees to lessen the financial burden of Obamacare.

What a hardship these taxpayer-supported elected officials and employees suffer: The Office of Personnel Management reported that as of September 2012, the average salary for a full-time, permanent, non-seasonal government position was $78,467, and rank and file members of Congress make $174,000. The average American in the private sector makes less than $50,000.

It is possible for others to receive subsidies, too, and the key is income level. But, typical of this law’s rampant failures, there is no mandate to verify eligibility for a subsidy, virtually guaranteeing extensive fraud, and an additional expense burden on taxpayers.

Only about 36 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the law, and now even Mr. Obama’s strong union supporters are calling for repeal or major repair of this debacle because it is decimating the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of unionized labor.

Throughout the debate over Obamacare, a major claim was that it would cover the 30 million people that at the time did not have some sort of health insurance, ignoring the fact that a significant number chose not to have insurance. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that over the next decade there will never be a point where the number of Americans who remain uninsured will drop below 30 million. In other words, the main reason for ramming Obamacare down the throats of 270 million people who were happy with their health insurance is a falsehood.

Other of the President’s promises also have been broken:

Promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
Truth: As many as 30 percent of employers will stop providing their existing health care coverage, while many are reducing employee hours below the 30-hour/week full-time level, or are trimming total employees to fewer than 50 to escape the crushing costs imposed by Obamacare.

Promise: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”
Truth: We now know that health care “reform” will cost a trillion dollars.

Promise: “I will protect Medicare.”
Truth: Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it by imposing, among other things, severe reimbursement cuts that threaten access to care for seniors.

Promise: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Truth: There are at least 12 ways that Obamacare will increase premiums instead of reducing health care costs.

Promise: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”
Truth: Obamacare includes tons of new taxes and tax hikes. One that began this year is the 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices that will raise $20 billion by 2019.

It’s not that Barack Obama deliberately misleads; it’s just that so much of what he says isn’t true.

Few people now defend Obamacare besides the Congressional Democrats who participated in the dishonorable process of throwing it together, voting for a 2,700-page bill they had never read, and which had zero bi-partisan support.

Many believe that Barack Obama never really cared what was in the Affordable Care Act or if it ever makes it to implementation, and in fact wants it to fail miserably. And that’s because once it becomes law, replaces the prior system, and causes mass chaos, the stage would be set to move to a single payer, government healthcare system as the only way to fix the resulting mess.

In his worldview, socialistic/communistic systems are the solution to all the country’s problems, and that is how he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

The best thing for the country is to repeal Obamacare and begin again to make the several relatively minor adjustments to the current system that should have been done several years ago. Short of that, delay implementation for everyone until the numerous problems can be addressed and repaired.

Neither is likely to happen, of course, because too many people can’t admit they made a mistake, or they truly want government controlled health care.

After spending more than a week mostly in heels, here is an outfit in flats! This is what I wore on my last day in New York, while I was doing some last minute shopping.
P.S. right after we did this photo shoot in Soho, the extraordinary American Photographer Mark Fisher approached us and we spend a few good minutes speaking about fashion and photography... You never know who you will see next time on these streets...

So Much For The 1st Amendment!
Feds To Determine Definition of Journalist
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*****************
"A long life in journalism convinced me many presidents ago that there should be a large air space between a journalist and the head of a state." ... Walter Lippmann
*****************
I was a member of "the press" for a number of decades.  I carried press credentials in my wallet at all times. Even after retirement I carried that press card for many years, reluctant to part with it. Once a "news hound" always a news hound as the expression goes.  (If you have not heard THAT one, you were never a reporter.)

Even in retirement, it was many, MANY,  years before I could comfortably allow a flashing red or blue light, or the sound of a wailing siren, pass me by without acquiescing to the overwhelming urge to grab the closest form of transportation and give chase like a bat from the lower climes. 

Even today, some thirty years after I hung up my pencil and pad, my recorder, my
microphone, I still get a jolt of adrenalin at the sight and sound of emergency vehicles racing toward the scene of human catastrophe and misery.

As I write these few lines, a police scanner sits flashing and alternately burping out -- or spewing out -- info from the various first responders from the sparkling Atlantic ocean -- to my east -- to the picturesque rolling hills of the piedmont -- to my west.

My inbox is filled, most all the time, with breaking news from uncounted news sources, based all over the globe,  and available on the Internet.

In retirement, I chose to spend my time commenting on current events and politics.  It is something I did as a part of my "job" when I was "active" as a reporter, or a journalist. 

Yes, I have a blog (INSIGHT on Freedom at:  http://www.insightonfreedom.blogspot.com/) But, I don't particularly consider myself a "blogger" so much as a "commentator" who happens to have a blog.

Each day, in the wee hours, I post -- and I send by e-mail -- my latest rant, or commentary, to multiple news and commentary sites on the web and to private subscribers who have asked to receive it.

So.  Am I a journalist?  I have a journal ... a blog.  Was I a journalist back when folks actually PAID me for doing what I did/do?

What's the difference between what I, and thousands of others, do today and what Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams did back in the 1700's? 

... And why the dickens am I even asking?

As you might have suspected, it's the federal government ... again!

The claim, up front, anyway, is that this is the government's way of defining who, exactly, IS a journalist and who, exactly, IS NOT a journalist.

We see it a tad differently, however. From our perspective, they (the government) detects a chink through which they believe they can curb the press in America and bring it to heel -- and in doing so -- virtually crush the 1st Amendment.

It's called a "Shield Law."  And, in our estimation it is extremely dangerous to a free press.  A free press is absolutely necessary for the survival of this constitutional, representative, republic.   I am convinced a federal shield law would endanger a free press in America.

Consider this: "On its face, the proposed shield law doesn’t affect the First Amendment, which at any rate doesn’t guarantee anybody’s right to publish whatever they want. The bill simply adds extra protections against being forced to testify about sources for established reporters and freelancers with a “considerable” amount of publishing experience. It also allows a judge to make a declaration as to who’s a journalist and who’s not in an attempt to build the shield as wide as possible."  SOURCE:  http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0914/Drudge-hates-new-shield-bill-but-is-defining-journalist-really-fascist

Here in North Carolina,we already have a press shield law, thank you very much. North Carolina's "reporter's privilege" or "shield law" is codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.11. 

Under NC law a journalist is defined as: 

(1) Journalist. - Any person, company, or entity, or the employees, independent contractors, or agents of that person, company, or entity, engaged in the business of gathering, compiling, writing, editing, photographing, recording, or processing information for dissemination via any news medium. - SOURCE: http://www.rcfp.org/north-carolina-privilege-compendium/shield-law-statute#sthash.TU2rPAlX.dpuf 
   
"The shield law became effective October 1, 1999, and applies only to information or documents prepared while acting as a journalist on or after that date.

In summary, the shield law grants journalists a broad but qualified privilege against disclosure of newsgathering information. The protection extends to virtually everyone connected with the publication or distribution of news information, including, but not limited to, reporters, photographers, stringers, and freelance reporters. All newsgathering activity is protected, so long as the activity is related to the business of publication or distribution of news via print, broadcast, or other electronic means. In addition, the statute protects all newsgathering information, regardless of whether the information is confidential or non-confidential. Finally, the protection extends to all legal proceedings, including criminal, civil, grand jury and quasi-judicial (i.e., administrative) proceedings."  SOURCE: http://www.rcfp.org/north-carolina-privilege-compendium/shield-law-statute#sthash.TU2rPAlX.dpuf
     
So what's wrong with having a federally codified definition of who, exactly, is a journalist? (I mean, of course, other than the troubling fact that once there is a federal definition of journalist, most states with shield laws will move to change their individual state laws to align with the federal code.)

Think about it for a moment.

The first amendment says the government cannot abridge the freedom of the press.  BUT -- if the government defines who IS a journalist -- and who ISN'T -- then they have just abridged that freedom.

In an article entitled:  "Don’t let the government define who’s a journalist,"  Mark B. Evans, writing for http://tucsoncitizen.com  says the following:  "The First Amendment says the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. But if the government defines who’s a journalist, all those outside that definition are having their free press rights abridged." SOURCE: http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/865  

See the problem?

Mr. Evans goes on to say: "Democracy requires a free press. A bill – no matter how valuable to news gathering – that opens the door to the government defining who gets to be a journalist is a bill that appears to protect a free press but in fact endangers it."  SOURCE:  http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/865

In his excellent article Mr. Evans explains:  " ... If journalists give in to government definition of journalist in order get the federal shield law they’ve long sought, they may soon get government regulation of the press they never thought possible."  SOURCE:  http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/865
 
And what of Bloggers?  Want to bet which side of the definition of "journalist" bloggers will be assigned by a new federal shield law? 

Pardon my paranoia, but this shield law business doesn't pass the smell test.  I am convinced it is contrived (as so much is these days) by the government as a means to by-pass the 1st Amendment and effectively gag conservative bloggers who have proven to be thorns in the side of big Marxist government in the US.

I expect such a law will pass the democrat controlled US Senate.  It has a much less chance of survival in the US House of Representatives where the people still have SOME say in their government. 

I will, however, be contacting my Representative and insisting that he vote against any such bill should it reach the House floor for a vote.

© J. D. Longstreet

Click to enlarge.

It's an exponential trend failure two-fer.

No-fly zone


No matter how hard we try (and we have made so many attempts), we cannot seem to punch through the record high set in July of 2008. Seriously. So close and yet so far!

I find it very hard to believe that the PPI will permanently hug the border of the no-fly zone. Then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps there is a relationship between hugging and ZIRPing. Japan faced 20+ years of flat consumer inflation. We've seen roughly 2 straight years of flat PPI inflation.

The Fed's ZIRP is the largest monetary operation ever mounted. Quite frankly, this kind of thing's never been attempted before in the United States.




The operation will continue until all the bridges can be secured. I have no doubts about that. Sigh.

This is not investment advice.

Update:

I wasn't happy with the ending point I chose on the second exponential trend in red. It's been updated to end at the short-term peak set in July of 2011.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Producer Price Index: All Commodities

Federal agents have taken over the investiagtion of a massive killing spree by a gunman near the White House.

Congratulations to Stefanie Gladden for winning the AO at Home giveaway!


Stefanie, check your mailbox. You've got a $200 Target gift card on the way.

Happy Monday y'all!

Click to enlarge.

Perhaps I should have asked a different question.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Capacity Utilization: Total Industry

This is an update to Friday's industrial production post.


Click to enlarge.

The correlation is the same 0.985 it was on Friday. If you squint, you can see that August was a good month. It did come in slightly above trend, but not by all that much in the grand scheme of things.

Since all I really care about is the underlying long-term trend, let's eliminate much of this monthly noise by using 12-month moving averages instead.


Click to enlarge.

I have rarely seen a more perfect parabola in all of economics; and we are currently riding right on top of it.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Industrial Production Index

What Is This "Honor" Stuff, Anyway?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*******************************

"Honor is simply the morality of superior men."   ... H. L. Mencken.

"National honor is the national property of the highest value." ... James Monroe

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

Honor was a big thing in my family.  Many were the times my father lectured me on family honor, on "reputation," and maintaining a "good name."  He often explained to me that when all the extraneous stuff is finally boiled away, all a man really owns is his "good name." 

I am sorely afraid we Americans, as a people, have forgotten the importance of honor.  In fact, I sometimes feel we have lost our connection to honor, somehow, and we don't even understand the concept of principled uprightness of character and personal integrity. 

We southerners seem to no longer have a connection to our oft-touted "Code of Honor."  When we refer to the Field of Honor these  days folks automatically think of an athletic field rather than a remote area reserved for a contest of honor, a duel, to defend one's honor, or the honor of a maiden fair, or something equally as important.

The Southern Code of Honor was a code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men -- but -- it most assuredly applied to our women folk, as well.

The North had its code of honor, as well  -- "the Northern code of honor was very much like that of Victorian England: a standard predicated on civility, piety, morality, Stoicism, and hard work."  Source:  http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/11/12/manly-honor-part-iv-the-gentlemen-and-the-roughs-the-stoic-christian-code-of-honor-in-the-american-north/

True to the multiple differences that divided the northern and southern cultures, however, there was a HUGE difference.  The northern code allowed for a man to walk away from a fight with his honor undented, while just the opposite was true for the southerner.  As we shall see, once challenged, for a southerner to walk away from a fight, a duel, was for more damaging to him, his reputation, and that of his family, than showing up for the duel and getting himself killed.  Having a family member killed in a duel was a badge of honor for some southern families.

During the early days of the War for Southern Independence, a moderately sized town just twenty miles, or so,  from my hometown was forced to establish what were then known as "Honor Courts," in which disputes between two men -- about to duel to the death -- were tried. Both parties swore to abide by the Court's ruling.  The town's crop of young men was dangerously close to being wiped-out by the combination of the war and duels.     

To understand the importance of honor amongst the southern gentry, one must understand southern society. 

Southern aristocracy was about one notch below European nobility.  Some would argue it was certainly the equal of European aristocracy.

There was very little cash money circulating within the southern plantation system.  Monetary worth was based on ownership of land, on crops, cattle, and yes, slaves. Financing such huge operations often relied upon the barter system.

Contracts were often sealed with  a promise (a man's word) and a handshake.  THAT was considered sacred.  That promise, a man's word, and that all important handshake, crossed all societal lines in the south. It was a measure of a man's honor, his good name, how well he kept his word.  Southern culture was, indeed, a culture of honor. 

A southern gentleman exuded courtesy.   Status, courage, family, and the all important relationship between shame and pride were all integral parts of the formula for the character of a true southern gentleman.

And there was something else, something we have way too little of today.  It was something called "R E S P E C T."  Respect is a form, a way, if you will, of demonstrating one's honor for someone, some thing, or some entity, idea, or what not.  Among men, respect is earned and not easily -- or carelessly -- given.  It has often been said that to gain respect one must give respect.
Lest you think the southern code of honor is a myth, consider this:  "Laboratory research has demonstrated that men in honor cultures perceive interpersonal threats more readily than do men in other cultures, including increases in cortisol and testosterone levels following insults."  SOURCE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_%28Southern_United_States%29   

A true Southern Gentleman would never insult a woman.  He was/is always careful to be chivalrous towards women, in words and deeds.  Insulting a lady in the presence of a Southern Gentleman has been known to bring violent retribution down on the heads of the offending low-life.   Those who understand the southern culture of honor understand that the kind, courteous, respectful gentleman can, in the twinkling of an eye, bring down retributive violence -- with great alacrity -- and -- without notice.  He is ALWAYS prepared to resort to violence if, and when, the situation requires it.  

Now, gentle reader, all the above is from the perspective of a born and bred, very proud, southern male ... namely -- me.

C. S. Lewis once said:  "We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." (The Abolition of Man)   How apropos for twenty-first century America!


I broach the subject of honor to remind us all that there is such a thing as national honor, too.

I have often thought that courage and honor are forever linked to one another.  That would apply to national courage and honor as well as to that of individuals.

 Aristotle  said:  "You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind NEXT TO HONOR."

The state motto of the state of North Carolina is:  "To be, rather than to seem."  I have often wondered if that motto was based upon one of Socrates' pearls of wisdom -- namely -- this one: "The greatest way to live with HONOR in this world is to be what we pretend to be."

It pains me to acknowledge that America's national honor has been badly besmirched in the last few days by the actions -- and inactions -- of the one man responsible for protecting that honor.  

It is our contention, President Obama should offer his resignation and step down from office.  In doing so he would preserve SOME of the respect his fellow Americans had for him prior to the Syrian/Russia debacle. 

Doug Patton, in an article published at Canada Free Press entitled:  "The Most Embarrassing President of My Lifetime" says the following:  "Obama is a symbol of much of today’s generation, which accepts no responsibility for anything. Therefore, when something goes wrong among his cockamamie plans, it must be someone else’s fault. Usually, of course, it would be George Bush’s fault, but even Obama couldn’t bring himself to tell that one again, not in this case. No, this time it’s the whole world’s fault. And Congress. And America. It’s American credibility that will suffer, he told the world, not his. Unbelievable."  SOURCE:  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57727

Mr. Patton is spot-on!  Mr. Obama demonstrates ZERO knowledge of honor, personal and/or national honor.

Friedrich Schiller reminded us all that: "That nation is worthless which does not joyfully stake everything on her honor." 

America's debasement in the eyes of the world is a stinging insult, a back-handed rebuke to every citizen of America. 

Honor demands Mr. Obama step down.

© J. D. Longstreet

The following chart shows the annual growth in quality nonfarm employment. I am excluding retail trade and food services and drinking places jobs, as these are relatively low paying jobs (and generally do not require a college degree).


Click to enlarge.

1. As seen in red, we're currently attempting to hug the high point long-term declining trend.
2. As seen in blue, the overall long-term declining trend has finally reached 0% growth.

How can one not be optimistic when wearing the proper spectacles? Don't even look at the blue trend line. Just stare at where we are on the red trend line! It's still positive! The glasses are therefore still half full!

Seriously, this economy is to dye for! There's no need to be chicken. Swing for the fences! The Fed has permanently put a stop to recessions! What's the worst that could happen?



Chicken Eyeglasses


Yes! More grain! Less life blood!

This is not investment advice. Don't be a victim of sarchasm!

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

                        When you wear a skirt like this one and you are on a sky terrace hotel... do a twirl (or more)!!! I was doing that in my last day in New York at the Hudson Hotel Sky Terrace :)
                                                                                      Happy Sunday everyone!



                                                                                     Top: Sisley/ option Here 
                                                                                     Skirt: Sparkle & Fade/ similar style Here Here  and Here 
                                                                    Sandals: Prada/ option Here 
                                                                    Belt: Calvin Klein
                                                                                     Sunglasses: Ralph Lauren/ option Here