 |
| We da problem, boss. |
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Evidence of anti-white man thinking that is typical of liberalism
It is over at the Mahablog. Check it out. This post is up so that anyone who says that I'm full of it can see for themselves.
A good read
You have to read this on First Republic because the link doesn't work right.
Anyway, it is a good summary to what is going on with this same-sex marriage garbage.
By the way, it is well to remember that California voted for Proposition 8 despite going heavily for Obama in 2008. A lot of minority voters voted for it, and they have been taught to watch out for their own interests. Unfortunately for white people, they are called racists or bigots if they do the same. It is not in your interest no matter what race to vote for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a goal for communists, as is abortion and anything else that hurts this country. If communism prevails, you will suffer.
Anyway, it is a good summary to what is going on with this same-sex marriage garbage.
By the way, it is well to remember that California voted for Proposition 8 despite going heavily for Obama in 2008. A lot of minority voters voted for it, and they have been taught to watch out for their own interests. Unfortunately for white people, they are called racists or bigots if they do the same. It is not in your interest no matter what race to vote for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a goal for communists, as is abortion and anything else that hurts this country. If communism prevails, you will suffer.
New Nork leader is having a tantrum
In Blazing Saddles, the new black Sheriff isn't exactly well-received. He threatens to shoot himself, and it works.
Now, we've got something in the real world that looks just like what this black Sheriff did. He is threatening to destroy himself if we don't give him what he wants.
Maybe there's somebody dumb enough in DC that will accommodate him. Er, not to let him go ahead and destroy himself, that is. No, I mean give him what he wants, which is ridiculous.
10 Gauge Vs 12 Gauge Vs 20 Gauge Vs 410 (Common Shotgun Comparison)
Yeah, and the part where she says that "he'll start paying attention to you lickety split" sorta sounded funny to me.
Are homosexuals made or born?
It was a bit disappointing for me to see a conservative site accepting one of the premises of the left. That is, that homosexuals are born, not made.
This is likely to get some friction for me to write this, but so be it.
Let's look at that premise, shall we?
I'm relying upon memory here, so all of this isn't exactly a researched post.
You have to start with some postulates to build a system of thought. It is kinda like a mathematical proof.
Let's start with a few postulates of the pro-born argument:
As for number 2, religion is not superstition. It is an acknowledgement that some knowledge exists outside of our ability to know. For example, what happens when you die? The only way to know this is to die and then report your results. But how is this possible? Therefore, there is no way to know what happens. Here is where religion steps in and tries to fill in the knowledge gap. To call that superstition is a stretch. You have to make a leap of faith ( religion ) no matter how you answer that question. If you say that nothing happens when you die, how can you prove it, one way or the other? Therefore, a religious outlook on the question does not disqualify, nor marginalize those who take that path.
As for 3, since religion is not marginalized, a moral argument can be made on equal footing with a secular one. One can say that murderers are made and not born because people have free will to do evil or good. This is a moral argument. One can also say that a person can choose to be homosexual or not because homosexuality is immoral, just as murder is. You cannot allow murder to be excused simply because you claim that you were born that way. Same thing for homosexuality. Murder is a sin. The moral argument is to "go and sin no more"--- not to rationalize it away as a product of one's own heredity.
As for 4, it can't be a fairness issue either. One does not have the right to be immoral in the case of murder. Does one have the right to immoral in some cases? Unfortunately, yes. But it is not looked upon as a good way to behave. You can lie and not go to jail, for example. But your word will not be accepted. There are consequences for immoral behavior. While some behaviors are more serious than others, the behavior should not be considered acceptable just because it is legal. You can tolerate some immorality, but there's got to be limits and morality provides those limits.
So, what we have in effect is that the moral issue has been cast aside and it has been re-cast as a political argument.
This doesn't answer the born and not made argument sufficiently. But it doesn't need to. If you accept the moral argument, the rest follows. Otherwise, it is down the slippery slope into the immoral situation that we now observe.
This is likely to get some friction for me to write this, but so be it.
Let's look at that premise, shall we?
I'm relying upon memory here, so all of this isn't exactly a researched post.
You have to start with some postulates to build a system of thought. It is kinda like a mathematical proof.
Let's start with a few postulates of the pro-born argument:
- Every society has homosexuals in it. That leads to a genetic argument.
- Religion is a superstition, and not a science. That leads to a secular argument.
- Since religion is marginalized, it can't be a moral issue. This leads to a political argument.
- Since it isn't a moral issue, and should be a fairness issue, only superstitious hicks can believe that homosexuals are made, not born. The only rational basis for society is to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. This leads to a social argument in favor of same-sex marriage.
As for number 2, religion is not superstition. It is an acknowledgement that some knowledge exists outside of our ability to know. For example, what happens when you die? The only way to know this is to die and then report your results. But how is this possible? Therefore, there is no way to know what happens. Here is where religion steps in and tries to fill in the knowledge gap. To call that superstition is a stretch. You have to make a leap of faith ( religion ) no matter how you answer that question. If you say that nothing happens when you die, how can you prove it, one way or the other? Therefore, a religious outlook on the question does not disqualify, nor marginalize those who take that path.
As for 3, since religion is not marginalized, a moral argument can be made on equal footing with a secular one. One can say that murderers are made and not born because people have free will to do evil or good. This is a moral argument. One can also say that a person can choose to be homosexual or not because homosexuality is immoral, just as murder is. You cannot allow murder to be excused simply because you claim that you were born that way. Same thing for homosexuality. Murder is a sin. The moral argument is to "go and sin no more"--- not to rationalize it away as a product of one's own heredity.
As for 4, it can't be a fairness issue either. One does not have the right to be immoral in the case of murder. Does one have the right to immoral in some cases? Unfortunately, yes. But it is not looked upon as a good way to behave. You can lie and not go to jail, for example. But your word will not be accepted. There are consequences for immoral behavior. While some behaviors are more serious than others, the behavior should not be considered acceptable just because it is legal. You can tolerate some immorality, but there's got to be limits and morality provides those limits.
So, what we have in effect is that the moral issue has been cast aside and it has been re-cast as a political argument.
This doesn't answer the born and not made argument sufficiently. But it doesn't need to. If you accept the moral argument, the rest follows. Otherwise, it is down the slippery slope into the immoral situation that we now observe.
A Flyback First Stage
TransTerrestrial Musings
Cool.
During the NASA/SpaceX teleconference on the CRS-2 mission, Elon Musk confirmed the rumors that they will do a propulsive return test on the upcoming flight of the new Falcon V1.1. He expanded on this to say they will continue doing such tests until they can do a return to the launch site and a powered landing.
Cool.
WMD was found in Iraq, Bush didn't lie
Another example of losing the language. Everybody "knows" that there wasn't any WMD in Iraq, but there was, according to this article.
I'm going to believe that this part of the article is right, that there was WMD in Iraq. The media changed the story to fit their narrative and it got Obama elected.
Now we see the results of that--- full-scale destruction of the American society and economy.
Despite all that though, I didn't think that going in was a good idea because I knew that the left would turn against Bush on the first opportunity. That's exactly what they did.
I criticized Buchanan in one of my book reviews. Still think he was wrong.
Anyway, the reason Iran is going to go nuclear is because the left stopped Bush from dealing with Iran. Iraq was the first step. The election of Obama was the second.
The military reason for going into Iraq was to position yourself for going into Iran. Now that has been lost.
An air war won't end the nuclear threat. Iran is a big country. It will be much more of a contest than Iraq. This won't be an anti-septic war where nobody dies. This country has been hooked on that possibility, and that is wrong-headed.
If Russia gets involved, it could get really ugly. The Russians weren't ready to oppose us then, but they are now.
We have the left to thank for this. Plus all of the mush-brained people who listen to the media and believe their lies.
I'm going to believe that this part of the article is right, that there was WMD in Iraq. The media changed the story to fit their narrative and it got Obama elected.
Now we see the results of that--- full-scale destruction of the American society and economy.
Despite all that though, I didn't think that going in was a good idea because I knew that the left would turn against Bush on the first opportunity. That's exactly what they did.
I criticized Buchanan in one of my book reviews. Still think he was wrong.
Anyway, the reason Iran is going to go nuclear is because the left stopped Bush from dealing with Iran. Iraq was the first step. The election of Obama was the second.
The military reason for going into Iraq was to position yourself for going into Iran. Now that has been lost.
An air war won't end the nuclear threat. Iran is a big country. It will be much more of a contest than Iraq. This won't be an anti-septic war where nobody dies. This country has been hooked on that possibility, and that is wrong-headed.
If Russia gets involved, it could get really ugly. The Russians weren't ready to oppose us then, but they are now.
We have the left to thank for this. Plus all of the mush-brained people who listen to the media and believe their lies.
'Silence No More! Defend Dr. Ben Carson From The Pro Gay Thought Police!'
rpvnetwork via Free Republic
"Marriage is between a man and a woman," Carson said. "It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."As Limbaugh said, if you lose the language, you lose the fight. That goes for the rest of the culture war.
Iraq Didn’t Destroy the Republican Party … but Iran Might
Spengler via Instapundit
Comment:
Bush had a majority on Iraq, too. The backlash began after the bodies starting coming back. So, what if the Republicans do this and the bodies come back again?
Public opinion is fickle. Don't bet your future on it.
There are reasons to go after Iran, but public opinion isn't one of them.
By a margin of 63 to 28, the Pew Institute reported March 26, they favor military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 8% are undecided. There’s the Republican majority on foreign policy.
Comment:
Bush had a majority on Iraq, too. The backlash began after the bodies starting coming back. So, what if the Republicans do this and the bodies come back again?
Public opinion is fickle. Don't bet your future on it.
There are reasons to go after Iran, but public opinion isn't one of them.
Friday, March 29, 2013
NYT: Months After Newtown, Obama Se
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/politics/obama-makes-impassioned-plea-for-gun-control.xml
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
Never forget what the left really thinks of you
It's in the movie, The Matrix.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
Same-sex marriage, abortion, birth-control and the like represent the way to minimize and eventually eradicate the disease, which is YOU.
They say things like this from to time to time. You have to pay close attention to what they're saying in order to pick up on this belief of theirs, but it is there.
It seems inconceivable that people would vote for their own annihilation, but people did join in a suicide pact with a certain guy named Jim Jones. It has happened before.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
Same-sex marriage, abortion, birth-control and the like represent the way to minimize and eventually eradicate the disease, which is YOU.
They say things like this from to time to time. You have to pay close attention to what they're saying in order to pick up on this belief of theirs, but it is there.
It seems inconceivable that people would vote for their own annihilation, but people did join in a suicide pact with a certain guy named Jim Jones. It has happened before.
If ObamaCare was upheld, why strike down DOMA?
If you recall, the left was making a big deal out of the Supreme Court's upcoming decision at that time. ObamaCare had to be upheld because that was the will of a popularly elected government. By that same reasoning, DOMA should also be upheld, because it too was an act of Congress, which likewise represents the will of the people.
There may be a claim that times have changed, but if that's true, why not allow Congress repeal the law?
In other words, how can the Supreme Court remain consistent with itself and strike down DOMA, which is an act of Congress?
Proposition 8 was also an act of the people, which was expressed more directly. Should the courts interfere with that too?
Both should be upheld. Or the democratic process should be declared dead.
There may be a claim that times have changed, but if that's true, why not allow Congress repeal the law?
In other words, how can the Supreme Court remain consistent with itself and strike down DOMA, which is an act of Congress?
Proposition 8 was also an act of the people, which was expressed more directly. Should the courts interfere with that too?
Both should be upheld. Or the democratic process should be declared dead.
Snooze, you lose
There are multiple threats here. Same-sex marriage, gun-control, and bailouts. If you snooze on any of these, you lose.
The same-sex marriage issue can get your attention, but there are other things, too.
There are several articles about how the left is gearing up for more gun-control. Don't have time to link them up here.
There was the Cyprus bailout and somebody said it isn't over yet. They may need a second bailout. You may have to "go to the mattresses" in order to save your own money that was already supposed to be safe.
Perhaps the pace is quickening. Multiple threats, multiple issues. Every one of them vital in some way. You can't be prepared for everything, but there it is. Something is going to get you.
The same-sex marriage issue can get your attention, but there are other things, too.
There are several articles about how the left is gearing up for more gun-control. Don't have time to link them up here.
There was the Cyprus bailout and somebody said it isn't over yet. They may need a second bailout. You may have to "go to the mattresses" in order to save your own money that was already supposed to be safe.
Perhaps the pace is quickening. Multiple threats, multiple issues. Every one of them vital in some way. You can't be prepared for everything, but there it is. Something is going to get you.
What's the point of elections?
Another short ditty here.
It occurred to me that judges are deciding social issues, and elections are cast aside. Such is the case with DOMA and Proposition 8. These issues were decided by the democratic process. Now that is unsatisfactory to some and the courts are being dragged into the matter.
Whatever happened to letting the people decide upon their own forms? If DOMA is bad, let Congress repeal it. If Prop 8 is bad, let the people of California repeal it. What could be more simple than that?
Why does the Supreme Court have to decide same sex marriage?
It occurred to me that judges are deciding social issues, and elections are cast aside. Such is the case with DOMA and Proposition 8. These issues were decided by the democratic process. Now that is unsatisfactory to some and the courts are being dragged into the matter.
Whatever happened to letting the people decide upon their own forms? If DOMA is bad, let Congress repeal it. If Prop 8 is bad, let the people of California repeal it. What could be more simple than that?
Why does the Supreme Court have to decide same sex marriage?
On the cusp of very strange times
A short ditty here. Rush Limbaugh says we've lost on same sex marriage no matter what the court does. He says we lost it when the left took over the language.
Anyway, reflecting upon that shortly, it begins to appear that words won't win this match. It's going to take something else, but what?
You can let things go on as they are and they will collapse on their own. Or you can take matters in your own hands. If you take matters in your own hands, it means rebellion. That means fighting and that means people are going to die. This is very unlikely outcome. This country has become far, far too passive for that. So, it is going to be things going on as they have been. Rush is right, it has been lost because they have control over the levers and there's nothing that you could do about it short of violence, and nobody wants that.
Who will lead the rebellion if there is one? Certainly not Rush. He has already declared defeat. There are no leaders. People are arming themselves, but for what?
In the absence of leaders and the will to fight, things will go on as they are. Things are going to get very strange in the future.
Anyway, reflecting upon that shortly, it begins to appear that words won't win this match. It's going to take something else, but what?
You can let things go on as they are and they will collapse on their own. Or you can take matters in your own hands. If you take matters in your own hands, it means rebellion. That means fighting and that means people are going to die. This is very unlikely outcome. This country has become far, far too passive for that. So, it is going to be things going on as they have been. Rush is right, it has been lost because they have control over the levers and there's nothing that you could do about it short of violence, and nobody wants that.
Who will lead the rebellion if there is one? Certainly not Rush. He has already declared defeat. There are no leaders. People are arming themselves, but for what?
In the absence of leaders and the will to fight, things will go on as they are. Things are going to get very strange in the future.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The GOP Gets CPR
What Ben Carson, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz have done over the past few weeks is nothing short of administering CPR to a Republican Party on life support.
What has made Carson, Paul, and Cruz stand out is not just their opposition to tyrannical government. It’s that they are willing to aggressively state their opposition to it and not fall all over themselves trying to live up to the civility standards Democrats have set for them (standards from which the Democrats have exempted themselves).
First came Ben Carson, daring to speak out against Barack Obama’s dream of a socialist hell at the Annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. Left-wing media types like CNN’s Candy Crowley relished the opportunity to chastise Carson for having the temerity to criticize out-of-control government spending, political correctness, and Obamacare in the presence of the Delusional Despot.
No problem. After all, we expect the left-wing media to defend Obama. But when Carson got his comeuppance from conservative columnist Cal Thomas, that was a bit much. Thomas, you will recall, opined that Carson should apologize to BHO for making his remarks at a prayer venue. After all, we know what a devout Christian Obama is.
Then, along comes Son of Paul, Rand himself. Senator Paul had the audacity to filibuster another left-wing nomination by Barack Obama in order to get the presidential pretender to admit that he did not have the authority to kill Americans on American soil without a trial.
But in this instance, before the left-wing press could work up its usual histrionic sweat, Ludicrous Lindsey (Graham) and Moronic Mush (McCain) put Paul in his place. Moronic said that Paul had done a “disservice to some Americans by making them believe that somehow they’re in danger from their government.” Gosh, I can’t imagine why anyone would think the government might harm them.
Moronic then went on to say that “if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about.”
Taking a cue from the Dirty Dems’ playbook, Ludicrous indignantly chimed in, “I do not believe that question (Does the president have the power to kill Americans without a trial?) deserves an answer.”
Finally, the most galling of all, Ted Cruz. I mean, who the hell is Ted Cruz, anyway? Where does a freshman senator get off questioning a brilliant career politician like Diane Feinstein? After all, this is a woman who is going to allow us to keep more than 2,200 kinds of weapons. How generous can any one senator be?
Psst … Diane, we don’t need your permission to keep any kind of weapon. The Constitution already gives us that right.
Senator Feinstein reminded the upstart Mr. Cruz that she didn’t need a lecture, because she had been in the Senate for more than twenty years. Which is interesting, but Cruz didn’t ask her how long she’s been in the Senate. He asked her about the constitutionality of her proposed gun ban — and he’s still waiting for her answer.
Predictably, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell defended Feinstein by saying, “Ted Cruz somehow thought he was going to take on Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there?”
Again, no problem. Everyone understands that Mitchell is one of the Dirty Dems’ most useful idiots. But here’s where it gets depressing. Of all people, Charles Krauthammer — that’s right, the final word of the Republican Party — said that Cruz “overshot” and that the manner in which he spoke to Feinstein “appeared a little bit offensive.” I mean, let’s show a little respect here. Next thing you know, Cruz will be forgetting to address Feinstein’s pal, Babs Boxer, as Senator Boxer.
The result of all this is that the far left is becoming increasingly shaken by the sudden appearance of not one, not two, but three Republicans who refuse to follow the civility code laid down by the Democrats — a code that inevitably leads to the hysterical, tantrum-throwing, mudslinging, indignant left getting its way.
The radical left has been in existence since the founding, but people paid little attention to its members in the early days. Today, however, they have, through patience and relentlessness, taken control of the government apparatus, and they are masters at the vote-bribery game that keeps them in power.
Arguably, the Democrats’ greatest strength is that they all agree on almost all issues. Dissent is not tolerated in today’s Democratic Party. Virtually all Democrats believe that the United States is an inherently bad country. Virtually all Democrats believe that the Constitution is no longer relevant. Virtually all Democrats believe that they are not answerable to the citizenry.
The truth be known, their objective is a second bill of rights that would offset what Barack Obama has referred to as the “negative liberties” set forth in the Constitution. In other words, it would state what the government can do to you.
Of course, the very foundation upon which the Founding Fathers started this country was that the government should not be allowed to do anything to its citizens — the idea being that the government is of, by, and for the people. The government is given certain limited powers to protect people’s lives and property — and that’s it.
We shall see whether the Carson-Paul-Cruz offensive will give others in the Republican Party the courage to get tough with the enemy — and, make no mistake about it, those on the far left are the enemy.
Now, it’s up to a newer, younger, liberty-oriented Republican Party to trash the obscene notions of compromise and bipartisanship. You don’t compromise with people who are trying to destroy the country. You don’t compromise with people who violate the Constitution. And you don’t compromise with people who believe that some sort of collective rights trump individual rights.
If libertarian-centered conservatives have aspirations of rooting out the Marxists who now hold the reins of power in Washington, this is the moment. They need to stop Republicans from appeasing those on the left and talk openly about the real intentions of Obama and the Obamaviks —and how they intend to stop them.
But to be in a position to do that, they must first take control of the Republican Party and ideologically cleanse it of — in the words of Rand Paul — stale and moss-covered RINOs and liberals.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
What has made Carson, Paul, and Cruz stand out is not just their opposition to tyrannical government. It’s that they are willing to aggressively state their opposition to it and not fall all over themselves trying to live up to the civility standards Democrats have set for them (standards from which the Democrats have exempted themselves).
First came Ben Carson, daring to speak out against Barack Obama’s dream of a socialist hell at the Annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. Left-wing media types like CNN’s Candy Crowley relished the opportunity to chastise Carson for having the temerity to criticize out-of-control government spending, political correctness, and Obamacare in the presence of the Delusional Despot.
No problem. After all, we expect the left-wing media to defend Obama. But when Carson got his comeuppance from conservative columnist Cal Thomas, that was a bit much. Thomas, you will recall, opined that Carson should apologize to BHO for making his remarks at a prayer venue. After all, we know what a devout Christian Obama is.
Then, along comes Son of Paul, Rand himself. Senator Paul had the audacity to filibuster another left-wing nomination by Barack Obama in order to get the presidential pretender to admit that he did not have the authority to kill Americans on American soil without a trial.
But in this instance, before the left-wing press could work up its usual histrionic sweat, Ludicrous Lindsey (Graham) and Moronic Mush (McCain) put Paul in his place. Moronic said that Paul had done a “disservice to some Americans by making them believe that somehow they’re in danger from their government.” Gosh, I can’t imagine why anyone would think the government might harm them.
Moronic then went on to say that “if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about.”
Taking a cue from the Dirty Dems’ playbook, Ludicrous indignantly chimed in, “I do not believe that question (Does the president have the power to kill Americans without a trial?) deserves an answer.”
Finally, the most galling of all, Ted Cruz. I mean, who the hell is Ted Cruz, anyway? Where does a freshman senator get off questioning a brilliant career politician like Diane Feinstein? After all, this is a woman who is going to allow us to keep more than 2,200 kinds of weapons. How generous can any one senator be?
Psst … Diane, we don’t need your permission to keep any kind of weapon. The Constitution already gives us that right.
Senator Feinstein reminded the upstart Mr. Cruz that she didn’t need a lecture, because she had been in the Senate for more than twenty years. Which is interesting, but Cruz didn’t ask her how long she’s been in the Senate. He asked her about the constitutionality of her proposed gun ban — and he’s still waiting for her answer.
Predictably, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell defended Feinstein by saying, “Ted Cruz somehow thought he was going to take on Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there?”
Again, no problem. Everyone understands that Mitchell is one of the Dirty Dems’ most useful idiots. But here’s where it gets depressing. Of all people, Charles Krauthammer — that’s right, the final word of the Republican Party — said that Cruz “overshot” and that the manner in which he spoke to Feinstein “appeared a little bit offensive.” I mean, let’s show a little respect here. Next thing you know, Cruz will be forgetting to address Feinstein’s pal, Babs Boxer, as Senator Boxer.
The result of all this is that the far left is becoming increasingly shaken by the sudden appearance of not one, not two, but three Republicans who refuse to follow the civility code laid down by the Democrats — a code that inevitably leads to the hysterical, tantrum-throwing, mudslinging, indignant left getting its way.
The radical left has been in existence since the founding, but people paid little attention to its members in the early days. Today, however, they have, through patience and relentlessness, taken control of the government apparatus, and they are masters at the vote-bribery game that keeps them in power.
Arguably, the Democrats’ greatest strength is that they all agree on almost all issues. Dissent is not tolerated in today’s Democratic Party. Virtually all Democrats believe that the United States is an inherently bad country. Virtually all Democrats believe that the Constitution is no longer relevant. Virtually all Democrats believe that they are not answerable to the citizenry.
The truth be known, their objective is a second bill of rights that would offset what Barack Obama has referred to as the “negative liberties” set forth in the Constitution. In other words, it would state what the government can do to you.
Of course, the very foundation upon which the Founding Fathers started this country was that the government should not be allowed to do anything to its citizens — the idea being that the government is of, by, and for the people. The government is given certain limited powers to protect people’s lives and property — and that’s it.
We shall see whether the Carson-Paul-Cruz offensive will give others in the Republican Party the courage to get tough with the enemy — and, make no mistake about it, those on the far left are the enemy.
Now, it’s up to a newer, younger, liberty-oriented Republican Party to trash the obscene notions of compromise and bipartisanship. You don’t compromise with people who are trying to destroy the country. You don’t compromise with people who violate the Constitution. And you don’t compromise with people who believe that some sort of collective rights trump individual rights.
If libertarian-centered conservatives have aspirations of rooting out the Marxists who now hold the reins of power in Washington, this is the moment. They need to stop Republicans from appeasing those on the left and talk openly about the real intentions of Obama and the Obamaviks —and how they intend to stop them.
But to be in a position to do that, they must first take control of the Republican Party and ideologically cleanse it of — in the words of Rand Paul — stale and moss-covered RINOs and liberals.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Blog: Larry Grathwohl's Bringing Down America Re-Released
Blog: Larry Grathwohl's Bringing Down America Re-Released
It's about Bill Ayers, the guy who is said to have written Barack Obama's book.
But this is old news. It didn't matter in 2008 or 2012, so it probably won't matter now either.
Not to discourage anybody from reading it. But it is getting kinda late in the game.
Update:
Check out this post on American Thinker, too. By the way, I wrote about code-red fallacies in my book review. Fallacies abound.
It's about Bill Ayers, the guy who is said to have written Barack Obama's book.
But this is old news. It didn't matter in 2008 or 2012, so it probably won't matter now either.
Not to discourage anybody from reading it. But it is getting kinda late in the game.
Update:
Check out this post on American Thinker, too. By the way, I wrote about code-red fallacies in my book review. Fallacies abound.
Great quote
I gotta put this one up:
A bit of gallows humor, that.
…The problem with Obamacare is not that it is being badly presented; the problem is that there is a limit to how well you can present a law that is this bad. It’s like trying to put a positive spin on having your leg bitten off by a shark: sure, yes, in the long run you’re going to see a 50% saving on socks, but that’s not exactly comforting news while you’re watching the water around you go pink…
A bit of gallows humor, that.
[PJ Media]: Profiles of the Future That Never Was
Profiles of the Future That Never Was h/t Transterrestrial Musings
Comment:
Nice article. Well worth a read.
You can look at the past and see what never developed, but if you look at the present and project into the future, it appears that it may never happen at all. Sometimes an opportunity only comes once. The opportunity existed for grand projects in space in the sixties, but it may have been lost forever---just my opinion.
Let's hope that it doesn't turn out that way and that I'm wrong.
Comment:
Nice article. Well worth a read.
You can look at the past and see what never developed, but if you look at the present and project into the future, it appears that it may never happen at all. Sometimes an opportunity only comes once. The opportunity existed for grand projects in space in the sixties, but it may have been lost forever---just my opinion.
Let's hope that it doesn't turn out that way and that I'm wrong.
XCOR Press Release
XCOR.com h/t Transterrestrial Musings
Quote:
Saving weight is a great thing. Every pound saved will save an additional 50 pounds or more from the weight at launch. All that additional weight is fuel. Now on to the testing....
Quote:
XCOR Aerospace today announced a first in aviation and space history...It is a game changing technology...eliminate the need for heavy, high-pressure fuel and oxidizer tanks..“Unlike the expensive and finicky turbopumps on today’s rocket propulsion systems, XCOR’s piston pumps are designed to be as powerful in their thrust class as turbines, but as easy to manufacture, maintain and operate as an automotive engine,” said XCOR Chief Operating Officer Andrew Nelson.Comments:
Saving weight is a great thing. Every pound saved will save an additional 50 pounds or more from the weight at launch. All that additional weight is fuel. Now on to the testing....
No Island of Sanity
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Guest Post: A Sane Person Ought To Consider These Important Lessons
By Tyler Durden
Created 03/27/2013 - 16:49
One would think that certain truths are obvious by now. It should be obvious, for example, that there are consequences to living beyond your means. It should be obvious that there are consequences to a long history of spending unsustainably and accumulating mountains of debt. And it should be obvious that there are consequences to dealing with such problems by spending more and accumulating even more debt. It should be obvious. But it's not. Hyperinflation always starts with a surge in asset prices. And as I see stock markets at new highs, property prices posting big increases, and bond yields of the greatest debtor nations in the world hover at just over ZERO, a sane person ought to consider these important lessons from history.
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-27/guest-post-sane-person-ought-consider-these-important-lessons
Looked for signs that I was right about Supreme Court
And I can't find any.
From all of what I've read, it doesn't look like there's anything suggesting that the Court finds anything wrong with the procedures of how this case even got to them in the first place. It got to the Court because of a violation of separation of powers, in my opinion.
So the case is going to be decided on some other grounds. This is supposedly a conservative court. Just wait until the leftists get control over it.
From all of what I've read, it doesn't look like there's anything suggesting that the Court finds anything wrong with the procedures of how this case even got to them in the first place. It got to the Court because of a violation of separation of powers, in my opinion.
So the case is going to be decided on some other grounds. This is supposedly a conservative court. Just wait until the leftists get control over it.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Supreme Court conservatives target Obama on marriage law
I found this article on Reuters Mobile (us.mobile.reuters.com) and thought you might find it interesting:
Supreme Court conservatives target Obama on marriage law
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92P04820130327
Justice Kennedy sings a different tune today. This appears not about same sex marriage, but separation of powers.
Supreme Court conservatives target Obama on marriage law
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92P04820130327
Justice Kennedy sings a different tune today. This appears not about same sex marriage, but separation of powers.
Supreme Court reconvenes for second gay marriage case
I found this article on Reuters Mobile (us.mobile.reuters.com) and thought you might find it interesting:
Supreme Court reconvenes for second gay marriage case
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92P04820130327
Why not dismiss this case too? They must hear this case.
Supreme Court reconvenes for second gay marriage case
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92P04820130327
Why not dismiss this case too? They must hear this case.
A note about California's Proposition 8
Before this gets flushed down the memory hole, it should be pointed out that California probably has the most "progressive" state constitution in the country. This term "progressive" should be especially well-defined in terms of what "progressive" really means, or what it meant in the early twentieth century. It needs to be because it doesn't mean what it used to mean.
California's electorate has the right to recall public officials. This happened in 2003 or so with the removal of then Governor Gray Davis in favor of the actor Arnold Schrazennegger. But they also appear to have the initiative and referendum. That means the public can propose and pass constitutional amendments, which become the law of that state. I'm not sure about referendum, but if they have it, it means they can repeal laws not their liking.
Now, Proposition 8 is one of those laws that the people passed by voting upon it. The reason that this case is in front of the Supreme Court of the United States is because one of the lower courts decided that the California law, thus passed by the people of that state, was against the constitution of the United States.
Now, it was progressives who nominated these judges, and the judges themselves are presumed to be progressive, but it is not in the sense of "progressive" of the early twentieth century, as described above. For if it were, the people of that state could remove the judges who violated their will when they voted for this proposition.
The word "progressive" therefore, has been hijacked by the left. As they have hijacked a lot of the language we use today. An example of that is the word "gay", which now means homosexual. Forty years ago, if you said the word "gay" you weren't talking about sexuality.
But that has changed.
The idea then was to get people to change their views towards homosexuals by de-stigmatizing the word associated with that group of people, and placing the stigma instead upon the current culture which disapproved of the practice. This was done by calling those people "bigots". The culture has been reversed 180 degrees and the left is behind the entire enterprise.
But they needed to redefine who they were, so they wouldn't be stigmatized any longer either. So they somehow became known as progressives.
Meanwhile, our society is crumbling. It wasn't by the people's will. If it were by the people's will, it would have been truly progressive. Instead, it was done by the ones who are at the very top of our civilization, and these people are helping destroy the very civilization that they were sworn in to defend. They are able to do this with words that they have hijacked. With a media that they have hijacked. With an educational system that they have hijacked.
When the civilization finally falls, you don't have to ask why. The evidence is all around. Just open your eyes and ears. Remember that language is the tools of thought, and the left has hijacked the language. Progressive isn't what it used to be, just like gay isn't what it used to be. Our culture isn't what it used to be, but that change has occurred against our will. It wasn't a progressive act, it was a leftist act.
California's electorate has the right to recall public officials. This happened in 2003 or so with the removal of then Governor Gray Davis in favor of the actor Arnold Schrazennegger. But they also appear to have the initiative and referendum. That means the public can propose and pass constitutional amendments, which become the law of that state. I'm not sure about referendum, but if they have it, it means they can repeal laws not their liking.
Now, Proposition 8 is one of those laws that the people passed by voting upon it. The reason that this case is in front of the Supreme Court of the United States is because one of the lower courts decided that the California law, thus passed by the people of that state, was against the constitution of the United States.
Now, it was progressives who nominated these judges, and the judges themselves are presumed to be progressive, but it is not in the sense of "progressive" of the early twentieth century, as described above. For if it were, the people of that state could remove the judges who violated their will when they voted for this proposition.
The word "progressive" therefore, has been hijacked by the left. As they have hijacked a lot of the language we use today. An example of that is the word "gay", which now means homosexual. Forty years ago, if you said the word "gay" you weren't talking about sexuality.
But that has changed.
The idea then was to get people to change their views towards homosexuals by de-stigmatizing the word associated with that group of people, and placing the stigma instead upon the current culture which disapproved of the practice. This was done by calling those people "bigots". The culture has been reversed 180 degrees and the left is behind the entire enterprise.
But they needed to redefine who they were, so they wouldn't be stigmatized any longer either. So they somehow became known as progressives.
Meanwhile, our society is crumbling. It wasn't by the people's will. If it were by the people's will, it would have been truly progressive. Instead, it was done by the ones who are at the very top of our civilization, and these people are helping destroy the very civilization that they were sworn in to defend. They are able to do this with words that they have hijacked. With a media that they have hijacked. With an educational system that they have hijacked.
When the civilization finally falls, you don't have to ask why. The evidence is all around. Just open your eyes and ears. Remember that language is the tools of thought, and the left has hijacked the language. Progressive isn't what it used to be, just like gay isn't what it used to be. Our culture isn't what it used to be, but that change has occurred against our will. It wasn't a progressive act, it was a leftist act.
Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality
Dennis Prager
It's just more stuff that runs counter to our politically correct, increasingly dysfunctional society.
You'd think that it would be celebrated, but no. It will be delegated to the rear of the bus, thank you very much.
It's just more stuff that runs counter to our politically correct, increasingly dysfunctional society.
You'd think that it would be celebrated, but no. It will be delegated to the rear of the bus, thank you very much.
How Proposition 8 passed in California — and why it wouldn’t today
Washington Post
The Post claims that a similar election held today in California that would ban same sex marriage would not pass. If that is true, why is the case being heard in the Supreme Court? Why not hold another election and repeal the ban if they've got the votes?
Everything you hear from the media is suspicious. Everything that comes from Washington is suspicious, and the ruling that eventually is handed down will be tainted, in my opinion.
The only right thing to do is to uphold the election, but they'll never do anything like that.
The Post claims that a similar election held today in California that would ban same sex marriage would not pass. If that is true, why is the case being heard in the Supreme Court? Why not hold another election and repeal the ban if they've got the votes?
Everything you hear from the media is suspicious. Everything that comes from Washington is suspicious, and the ruling that eventually is handed down will be tainted, in my opinion.
The only right thing to do is to uphold the election, but they'll never do anything like that.
Bet you won't read this
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Guest Post: 'Available'
By Tyler Durden
Created 03/26/2013 - 17:27
It is clear now that we must have been wrong about the economy. No more proof is needed than the fact the Dow has gone up 1,500 points. Everyone knows the stock market reflects the true health of the nation – multi-millionaire Jim Cramer and his millionaire CNBC talking head cohorts tell us so. Ignore the fact that the bottom 80% only own 5% of the financial assets in this country and are not benefitted by the stock market in any way. It is time to open your eyes and arise from your stupor. Observe what is happening around you. Look closely. Does the storyline match what you see in your ever day reality? It is them versus us. Whether you call them the invisible government, ruling class, financial overlords, oligarchs, the powers that be, ruling elite, or owners; there are powerful wealthy men who call the shots in this global criminal enterprise. No amount of propaganda can cover up the physical, economic, social, and psychological descent afflicting our world. There's a bad moon rising and trouble is on the way.Quote:
It is time to open your eyes and arise from your stupor. Observe what is happening around you. Look closely. Does the storyline match what you see in your ever day reality? It is them versus us. Whether you call them the invisible government, ruling class, financial overlords, oligarchs, the powers that be, ruling elite, or owners; there are powerful wealthy men who call the shots in this global criminal enterprise. Their names are Dimon, Corzine, Blankfein, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, Bernanke, Obama, Romney, Bloomberg, Fink, among others. They are using every means at their disposal to retain their control and power over the worldwide economic system and gorge themselves like hyenas upon the carcasses of a crippled and dying middle class. They have nothing but contempt and scorn for the peasants. They’re your owners and consider you as their slaves.
- Auto Sales
- Ben Bernanke
- Best Buy
- BLS
- Bureau of Labor Statistics
- China
- Comcast
- Commercial Real Estate
- Debt Ceiling
- default
- Fail
- Federal Reserve
- fixed
- Free Money
- GMAC
- Great Depression
- Gross Domestic Product
- Guest Post
- Housing Market
- Housing Starts
- JC Penney
- Jim Cramer
- John Hussman
- Karl Denninger
- Macys
- Main Street
- McDonalds
- National Debt
- New Home Sales
- NFIB
- Obama Administration
- Obamacare
- Personal Consumption
- Purchasing Power
- Real estate
- Reality
- Recession
- recovery
- Sears
- Student Loans
- Time Warner
- TREPP
- Unemployment
- Viacom
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Supreme Court seems wary of broad gay marriage ruling
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supreme-court-gay-marriage-20130326,0,727855.story
"Supreme Court seems wary of broad gay marriage ruling."
Comments:
I was hoping for more encouraging news than this. Keep prop 8.
Update:
Surely, the Supreme Court can find a justification for hearing this case.
Based upon admittedly very sketchy knowledge of the California situation, it looks like the state won't enforce its own laws even though they have sworn to do so. Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, which should mean that the laws will be enforced. The Supreme Court may be their only redress for grievances against a state that is running rampantly over the law.
Update:
Same-sex marriage is based upon a flawed 2003 Supreme Court decision which overturned the anti-sodomy laws, according to the linked article. Justice Antonin Scalia predicted this outcome, and he was right. That case, which was decided 6-3, was based upon a lie, according to the author of the piece.
Update:
There's no point in making a new post on this subject, so I'll update it instead. Based upon my reading, I expect that thre will be two possible outcomes, neither of which are good. It is just a matter of how bad it will get.
Number 1 is that they will let the lower court decision remain in place somehow. Or,
Number 2: they will nationalize the issue and make same-sex marriage the law of the land.
There's no way they are going to do the right thing. We are far past that.
"Supreme Court seems wary of broad gay marriage ruling."
Comments:
I was hoping for more encouraging news than this. Keep prop 8.
Update:
Surely, the Supreme Court can find a justification for hearing this case.
Based upon admittedly very sketchy knowledge of the California situation, it looks like the state won't enforce its own laws even though they have sworn to do so. Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, which should mean that the laws will be enforced. The Supreme Court may be their only redress for grievances against a state that is running rampantly over the law.
Update:
Same-sex marriage is based upon a flawed 2003 Supreme Court decision which overturned the anti-sodomy laws, according to the linked article. Justice Antonin Scalia predicted this outcome, and he was right. That case, which was decided 6-3, was based upon a lie, according to the author of the piece.
Update:
There's no point in making a new post on this subject, so I'll update it instead. Based upon my reading, I expect that thre will be two possible outcomes, neither of which are good. It is just a matter of how bad it will get.
Number 1 is that they will let the lower court decision remain in place somehow. Or,
Number 2: they will nationalize the issue and make same-sex marriage the law of the land.
There's no way they are going to do the right thing. We are far past that.
"Faster please?"---More like "any time, sweetheart"
One of Glenn Reynold's favorite sayings. In this context, it is space colonization. I think that it is time to recognize that it isn't a matter of "faster please". It is a matter of "any time, sweetheart". It isn't going to happen at all if we continue on our present course.
In 1969, while men were standing on the moon, this country starting pulling in its horns. The Saturn V assembly line was canceled. The nuclear upper stage, the Nerva, was about to be. That was the hardware that could have taken us to Mars---scrapped like so much trash. We were closer to the asteroids, planets, and stars then than we are now. We had the means to get to Mars then, but we can't get to low earth orbit now. We aren't going forward into space, we are in full retreat. Not only in space, but every-damned-where else as well.
The private Pyle analogy is apt. People need to get that stupid grin off their faces and get with the damned program, or forget about it, sweethearts.
In 1969, while men were standing on the moon, this country starting pulling in its horns. The Saturn V assembly line was canceled. The nuclear upper stage, the Nerva, was about to be. That was the hardware that could have taken us to Mars---scrapped like so much trash. We were closer to the asteroids, planets, and stars then than we are now. We had the means to get to Mars then, but we can't get to low earth orbit now. We aren't going forward into space, we are in full retreat. Not only in space, but every-damned-where else as well.
The private Pyle analogy is apt. People need to get that stupid grin off their faces and get with the damned program, or forget about it, sweethearts.
Another non-post?
Not this time. Something is going to get said.
I once wrote a post that said nothing, and guess what? It is the most popular post that I have ever written. At least according to the stats that Google provides.
I believe that I was expressing the disbelief of what was happening all around us.
Now I am back to that point where I am taking all this information in so that I can make a post, and I am at a loss of words to express myself.
Then you make some space posts, but is that just a way of escaping the horrid truth of our situation? It is certainly more pleasant to dream of a brilliant future than to contemplate the awful reality of our situation now. Come to think of it, that is what everybody is doing just by continuing to do what they usually do each day. For if they were to study in depth what we all take for granted as true, they'd recoil in horror at how untrue everything is. And at that point, the whole world could come to a halt.
We live in a world of untruth, but we require belief in something to continue to live. It is a paradox.
Consider this movie clip ( A Few Good Men ):
Note who the actors are and what they are attacking. The movie is written by a leftist. The actors are most likely in sympathy with that. Note what is being defended--- honor. Note how honor is being defended---with a lie. It is a paradox.
I am experiencing that same paradoxical feeling. Here are these leftists attacking the Marines and succeeding, albeit in a movie. In the real world, they are succeeding as well.
Now the left is manning that wall while continuing to attack it. On the other hand, I, who consider myself to be a conservative, am attacking that wall while believing that I am defending it. The irony of it all. To tell the truth about is to attack it. To attack it may bring it down. Those in the role of defending it are destroying it. Those who are trying to defend it with truth may be bringing it down. It confounds the mind.
The left is manning that wall today with the efforts at defending an economic system that is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. By telling the truth about it, one can bring the whole system down.
The raises a question. If such be the case, can a system be built that is based upon truth?
You may not be convinced of the falsity of our situation. But I think that the truth is this: falsity is necessary for this system to work as it is constituted now. Does that mean that I should shut up?
Something has to give. The falsity will give, or the insanity will engulf us all permanently.
Consider this Zero Hedge post here. It reminds me of a number of elements that I've written about on this blog. If you take this as truth, what reason do you have to continue to work in this economy which will steal the fruits of your labor? I'm thinking of Cyprus here, in case you are wondering.
If enough people recognized that their labor can be rendered into meaninglessness as the truth of their existence, the economy as we have known it is sunk. Such is our condition today. Such is our peril.
I realized that this past weekend. It stunned me. What do you do about this? Discuss it or shut up?
Or just go into denial and dream pretty thoughts. It is a paradox.
If we are all living in A Brave New World, we cannot ask why. To do so is a revolutionary act. In such a case as that, you may be required to shut up. Then you will be rehabbed and drugged until you conform, or you may well die.
It all reminds me of this scene from Blade Runner.
Something is dying, but that reality may be too hard to accept now. And so it goes on.
I once wrote a post that said nothing, and guess what? It is the most popular post that I have ever written. At least according to the stats that Google provides.
I believe that I was expressing the disbelief of what was happening all around us.
Now I am back to that point where I am taking all this information in so that I can make a post, and I am at a loss of words to express myself.
Then you make some space posts, but is that just a way of escaping the horrid truth of our situation? It is certainly more pleasant to dream of a brilliant future than to contemplate the awful reality of our situation now. Come to think of it, that is what everybody is doing just by continuing to do what they usually do each day. For if they were to study in depth what we all take for granted as true, they'd recoil in horror at how untrue everything is. And at that point, the whole world could come to a halt.
We live in a world of untruth, but we require belief in something to continue to live. It is a paradox.
Consider this movie clip ( A Few Good Men ):
Note who the actors are and what they are attacking. The movie is written by a leftist. The actors are most likely in sympathy with that. Note what is being defended--- honor. Note how honor is being defended---with a lie. It is a paradox.
I am experiencing that same paradoxical feeling. Here are these leftists attacking the Marines and succeeding, albeit in a movie. In the real world, they are succeeding as well.
Now the left is manning that wall while continuing to attack it. On the other hand, I, who consider myself to be a conservative, am attacking that wall while believing that I am defending it. The irony of it all. To tell the truth about is to attack it. To attack it may bring it down. Those in the role of defending it are destroying it. Those who are trying to defend it with truth may be bringing it down. It confounds the mind.
The left is manning that wall today with the efforts at defending an economic system that is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. By telling the truth about it, one can bring the whole system down.
The raises a question. If such be the case, can a system be built that is based upon truth?
You may not be convinced of the falsity of our situation. But I think that the truth is this: falsity is necessary for this system to work as it is constituted now. Does that mean that I should shut up?
Something has to give. The falsity will give, or the insanity will engulf us all permanently.
Consider this Zero Hedge post here. It reminds me of a number of elements that I've written about on this blog. If you take this as truth, what reason do you have to continue to work in this economy which will steal the fruits of your labor? I'm thinking of Cyprus here, in case you are wondering.
If enough people recognized that their labor can be rendered into meaninglessness as the truth of their existence, the economy as we have known it is sunk. Such is our condition today. Such is our peril.
I realized that this past weekend. It stunned me. What do you do about this? Discuss it or shut up?
Or just go into denial and dream pretty thoughts. It is a paradox.
If we are all living in A Brave New World, we cannot ask why. To do so is a revolutionary act. In such a case as that, you may be required to shut up. Then you will be rehabbed and drugged until you conform, or you may well die.
It all reminds me of this scene from Blade Runner.
Something is dying, but that reality may be too hard to accept now. And so it goes on.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Mining asteroids
About the near Earth objects
:thing is, if it has enough water, it could be very attractive for development of its resources.
The trip to Ceres is very far. On the other hand, Near Earth objects are going to be easier to access, but you may not be able to stay very long. Because if you do , you going to be stuck there because you can't get back to Earth easily if you stay very long at all.
Either way , it seems you're going to spend a lot of time at an asteroid in order to mine it, or to do anything besides a short mission.
The next problem is how do you get situated on an asteroid so that you can work there effectively.
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
Update:
A long essay on Ceres in available on Daily Kos. For those of you who are Republican and Conservative, you may not want to go on that site. If you just stick to the science part of this essay, you needn't be offended.
Comet Tempel 1 is a bit far out there too. Anyway, the idea of finding water in such vast quantities in space is tantalizing. If there are any extinct comets like this one that is more readily accessible to us, it could be worthwhile to do it. If is a very big word, though.
:thing is, if it has enough water, it could be very attractive for development of its resources.
The trip to Ceres is very far. On the other hand, Near Earth objects are going to be easier to access, but you may not be able to stay very long. Because if you do , you going to be stuck there because you can't get back to Earth easily if you stay very long at all.
Either way , it seems you're going to spend a lot of time at an asteroid in order to mine it, or to do anything besides a short mission.
The next problem is how do you get situated on an asteroid so that you can work there effectively.
Sent from my Virgin Mobile Android-Powered Device
Update:
A long essay on Ceres in available on Daily Kos. For those of you who are Republican and Conservative, you may not want to go on that site. If you just stick to the science part of this essay, you needn't be offended.
Comet Tempel 1 is a bit far out there too. Anyway, the idea of finding water in such vast quantities in space is tantalizing. If there are any extinct comets like this one that is more readily accessible to us, it could be worthwhile to do it. If is a very big word, though.
Nuclear Thermal Rocket to Ceres
An earlier post speculated about colonizing the largest of the asteroids in the asteroid belt.
The main problem is how to get there. The delta-v is 4k km/sec more than a Mars roundtrip mission.
One possibility is to use a nuclear thermal rocket to get there. The ISP is nearly double that for LH2/LOX, so you need less fuel for the same payload.
According to something I heard on the space show with one of the guests, a nuclear thermal rocket could make a big difference in a Mars mission. It could make a big difference in a mission like this too, at least I suspect that it would.
Here's the previous post on the subject.
The main problem is how to get there. The delta-v is 4k km/sec more than a Mars roundtrip mission.
One possibility is to use a nuclear thermal rocket to get there. The ISP is nearly double that for LH2/LOX, so you need less fuel for the same payload.
According to something I heard on the space show with one of the guests, a nuclear thermal rocket could make a big difference in a Mars mission. It could make a big difference in a mission like this too, at least I suspect that it would.
Here's the previous post on the subject.
It may not be only the economic statistics that are fictional
Vox Populi via Instapundit
Excerpt
Comment:
Managing perceptions on a systemic level. Things aren't what they appear to be.
Anyway, I linked to this because of the mention of a "cult" like mentality. Indeed. I've dubbed it the Death Cult.
Excerpt
...book has become a national bestseller tends to indicate that there is something amiss with regards to the reported French criminal statistics, especially since we know that the FBI's criminal statistics are less than entirely consistent where racial matters are concerned.
Comment:
Managing perceptions on a systemic level. Things aren't what they appear to be.
Anyway, I linked to this because of the mention of a "cult" like mentality. Indeed. I've dubbed it the Death Cult.
Japan breaks China's stranglehold on rare metals with sea-mud bonanza - Telegraph
Rare earths without thorium. Sounds like good news, but it is not clear why thorium is a problem. It is radioactive, but only mildly so. It won't hurt anybody. There's a lot of fear out there of thorium, but that is hard to understand.
There was a lot of coverage on the subject of thorium in prior posts. My recollection was that thorium is found with rare earths. Thus, the monopoly is entirely avoidable. Makes me wonder why the monopoly was allowed to exist in the first place.
Summary:
There was a lot of coverage on the subject of thorium in prior posts. My recollection was that thorium is found with rare earths. Thus, the monopoly is entirely avoidable. Makes me wonder why the monopoly was allowed to exist in the first place.
Summary:
Japan breaks China's stranglehold on rare metals with sea-mud bonanza - Telegraph. Japanese scientists have found vast reserves of rare earth metals on the Pacific seabed that can be mined cheaply, a discovery that may break the Chinese monopoly on a crucial raw material needed in hi-tech industries and advanced weapons systems.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Don't take your eye off of Cyprus
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
Why Cyprus Matters (And The ECB Knows It)
By Tyler Durden
Created 03/23/2013 - 18:21
Many have asked why the bondholders have not been tagged in the Cyprus fiasco. That answer is simple. Most of Cyprus's bonds are pledged as collateral at the ECB or in the Target2 financing program. Then one may also ask why the bonds of the two large Cypriot banks are not being hit. The answer is the same; most are held as collateral at the ECB or Target2. In both cases, remember uncounted liabilities, the government of Cyprus has guaranteed the debt. Consequently if the two Cyprus banks default it is of small matter as the sovereign has guaranteed the debt. However if the country defaults and leaves the European Union then it will matter and matter significantly as the tiny country of Cyprus would wipe out the entire equity capital of the European Central Bank. While it is not a matter of public record it is estimated that Cyprus has guaranteed about $11.6 billion of collateral at the ECB.Update:
 |
| You're gonna need a bigger boat. |
Or try this:
 |
| Very sensible proposition, that's why it will never happen here. |
According to Instapundit, they've reached a deal. My impression is that it is sufficient to end the crisis if it raises enough money, and the Russians don't raise too much hell. Fear not, Western Civilization has been saved, for the moment at least.
AOSHQ: The 2012 Primaries Could Have Been Worse
Ace of Spades, HQ
Quote:
Comment:
That must have been about the time that I soured on Romney. He completely misrepresented what Newt said in the Florida debate, with respect to a Moon base. As far as the ad goes, it was Romney's style to attack, but strangely enough, he pulled his punches on Benghazi in the general election. Newt would have pummeled Obama on this. Santorum too, most likely.
As for the statement that "it could have been worse"--- meh.
Reading through my analysis, I am very pleased with what I wrote at that time.
Update:
It looks like I'm starting to be a little critical of what has been considered stalwarts of conservatism, like Ace.
Here's something else that has gotten my attention on that blog: Liberal Writer: Reports of the GOP's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.
Rather than defend the culture, they are abandoning it because they feel that they can't win with the issue. Rather than admit their failings in losing what was winnable, they are blaming it on something external to themselves, like "low-information voters", and drawing the wrong conclusions.
It's not the low-information voter, it is a stultifying effect that Romney's attack on Gingrich demonstrated. Romney attacks something new, which could solve a problem, like NASA's lack of direction, while failing to attack the problem of big government itself. The failure in attacking big government comes from accepting the other sides' premises. Gingrich didn't accept the big government premise, he was attacking it. Yet, somehow, he became the big government advocate. In the case of the Moon base, the other side's premise which was accepted was that it would take a big government project that would cost a trillion dollars.
Paul Spudis has claimed that a cislunar transportation system ( Moon base ) can be built for about $90 billion. It is far less than a trillion and would fit into existing budgets. It would only take a different set of priorities to achieve this---not additional spending. The numbers have been vetted by none other than NASA's own people in Huntsville. So, when Romney says it would cost a trillion, he has thrown cold water on something that is a real proposal and deemed it "grandiose" and "zany". It was no such thing.
So, what we end up is with a guy like Romney, who either doesn't know this or doesn't care. This is the kind of thinking that has kept America back for the last 40 years in space, and it is not confined to space, I suspect. In addition to space, there's an invention called a molten-salt reactor that's been around that long too, but hasn't gotten support.
All we need is some new thinking and Romney killed that. Along with that, he killed the GOP's chances to win last year.
It makes little sense to take the wrong lessons from this defeat, which is to accept even more of the premises of the opposition.
But that may take some new thinking, which is too hard for some people, I suspect.
Quote:
If you haven't totally suppressed your memory of the 2012 primaries, you'll recall that Mitt and Rick split Iowa, Mitt took New Hampshire, and Newt won big in South Carolina. Newt looked to solidify himself as the one and only viable not-Mitt candidate in the race. But, an awful debate performance and a Mitt Romney attack ad barrage sealed Newt's fate[ emphasis added]
Comment:
That must have been about the time that I soured on Romney. He completely misrepresented what Newt said in the Florida debate, with respect to a Moon base. As far as the ad goes, it was Romney's style to attack, but strangely enough, he pulled his punches on Benghazi in the general election. Newt would have pummeled Obama on this. Santorum too, most likely.
As for the statement that "it could have been worse"--- meh.
Reading through my analysis, I am very pleased with what I wrote at that time.
Update:
It looks like I'm starting to be a little critical of what has been considered stalwarts of conservatism, like Ace.
Here's something else that has gotten my attention on that blog: Liberal Writer: Reports of the GOP's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.
I don't think the GOP has to be pro-gay marriage.*...* You may have guessed my own position has shifted from "I'm against it" to "I no longer care." I think it's a rather undemocratic situation to have so many millions of people be completely unrepresented by either party on an issue of importance to them.Now, here's the GOP, losing an election that they could have won, and drawing the wrong conclusions from it. It looks like Ace is doing the same danged thing.
Rather than defend the culture, they are abandoning it because they feel that they can't win with the issue. Rather than admit their failings in losing what was winnable, they are blaming it on something external to themselves, like "low-information voters", and drawing the wrong conclusions.
It's not the low-information voter, it is a stultifying effect that Romney's attack on Gingrich demonstrated. Romney attacks something new, which could solve a problem, like NASA's lack of direction, while failing to attack the problem of big government itself. The failure in attacking big government comes from accepting the other sides' premises. Gingrich didn't accept the big government premise, he was attacking it. Yet, somehow, he became the big government advocate. In the case of the Moon base, the other side's premise which was accepted was that it would take a big government project that would cost a trillion dollars.
Paul Spudis has claimed that a cislunar transportation system ( Moon base ) can be built for about $90 billion. It is far less than a trillion and would fit into existing budgets. It would only take a different set of priorities to achieve this---not additional spending. The numbers have been vetted by none other than NASA's own people in Huntsville. So, when Romney says it would cost a trillion, he has thrown cold water on something that is a real proposal and deemed it "grandiose" and "zany". It was no such thing.
So, what we end up is with a guy like Romney, who either doesn't know this or doesn't care. This is the kind of thinking that has kept America back for the last 40 years in space, and it is not confined to space, I suspect. In addition to space, there's an invention called a molten-salt reactor that's been around that long too, but hasn't gotten support.
All we need is some new thinking and Romney killed that. Along with that, he killed the GOP's chances to win last year.
It makes little sense to take the wrong lessons from this defeat, which is to accept even more of the premises of the opposition.
But that may take some new thinking, which is too hard for some people, I suspect.
Walter Russell Mead's Blog: Medical Breakthroughs And Smart Policy
Via Meadia
Quote:
The Blue Social Model has failed. Just another example of how and why this is true.
Quote:
The combination of rapid change with rigid policies and institutions is a recipe for disaster...The age of static institutions and stable bureaucratic organizations has gone for good, and we have to figure out what comes next.Comment:
The Blue Social Model has failed. Just another example of how and why this is true.
PJ Media: Obama Pressures Netanyahu into Humiliating Apology to Terror-Supporting Turkey Over Flotilla Confrontation
Quote: "Israel will come to regret this capitulation."
Comment:
Obama strengthens the hand of the jihadists and weakens Israel and the United States. It is part of his War on America under an Orwellian guise of peace.
Comment:
Obama strengthens the hand of the jihadists and weakens Israel and the United States. It is part of his War on America under an Orwellian guise of peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)