Thursday, June 2, 2011

Impeach him, try him, hang him! No guts, no glory!

“Frankly, it is not up to the president whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up ‘no-fly’ zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.” ~ Senator Rand Paul
We know that senator!  Just what are you going to do about it?  There's not enough intestinal foritude in the entire Congress (both the Senate and the House) to cough up a stale french fry never mind doing the job you're suppose to do...impeach him, try him, hang him! 
“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist,”
It is alarming how casually you politicians talk about the Constitution as though you never took an oath to uphold it...  I guess Oliver Cromwell described you best...
"...ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money."  (See entire quote below)
 Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it... just as politicians talk about the Constitution and never do anything about enforcing it.  The country is going down the drain and the politicians are holding the plug.  No, its not all their fault, you idiots who did the voting can blame yourselves. (Now nobody going to read this because they don't like the truth of being called idiots.) ~ Norman E. Hooben


Source: Newsmax

Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense'
By: Jim Meyers and Dan Weil

Nine liberal Democrats have found something they agree with Republicans on: President Barack Obama’s authorization of military strikes on Libya without congressional consent is unconstitutional.

Those Democrats join GOP critics, including Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. And Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio even suggested that Obama’s action could be an “impeachable offense.”
Rand Paul
Sen. Paul points out that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to declare war.”

“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist,” the freshman senator says in a statement on his congressional website.
“Frankly, it is not up to the president whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up ‘no-fly’ zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution.”

Obama has no authority to launch military attacks under the War Powers Resolution, Paul argues, because the United States has not been attacked.

“This is not our fight,” he adds. “If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.”

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, echoes Paul’s view. “The United States does not have a King's army," he said in a statement Monday. "President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution."

As for Sen. Lugar, he said in a congressional hearing last week, “If we are going to declare war against Libya, we ought to have a congressional declaration of war.”

And Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, tweeted on Sunday that the president is treating Congress as a “potted plant.”

Hard-Core Liberals

On the Democratic side, nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.

One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.

“I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

That doesn’t mean Obama should in fact be impeached and removed from office, Kucinich said. “That's a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about."

Kucinich now says he plans to offer up a measure that would defund U.S. efforts in Libya.

Another Democrat, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia — a former Marine and Navy secretary — complained on Monday on MSNBC that Congress has “been sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress.”

An Obama Flip-Flop

As an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama himself strongly stated that the president can’t authorize military action without congressional approval unless it’s necessary to stop an imminent attack on the United States.

In a December 2007 interview, a Boston Globe reporter asked Obama under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

But apparently his view has changed. On Monday, Obama sent Congress a letter stating that as commander-in-chief, he has constitutional authority to authorize the Libya strikes, which were made in concert with our allies. The White House also noted that Obama met with congressional leaders to consult about the Libya situation Friday.

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, asked about Obama’s 2007 statement, said the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support,” according to The New York Times.

But he insisted Obama could authorize the action on his own. “This is a limited — in terms of scope, duration and task — operation, which does fall in the president’s authorities,” Donilon said.

Most constitutional scholars agree that our founding fathers purposely separated the power to decide to start a war from the power to conduct it. But since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without going to Congress first.

The split between presidents’ actions over the last 60 years and the Constitution’s text makes it difficult to conclude whether the attack on Libya is lawful, constitutional experts tell The Times.

Budget Buster

On the budget front, the attacks on Libya could erase much of the budget cuts Republicans pushed through Congress recently.

GOP leaders say those reductions have totaled $285 million a day since March 1. But defense analysts tell The Hill that the Libya action could be draining the Defense Department of more than $100 million per day.

“We are working on cost estimates,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. For now, the Defense Department is “cash flowing the Libyan operations out of funding available under the [2011] continuing resolution.”
Sen. Lugar says his colleagues should discuss the cost issue.

“Congress has been squabbling for months over a budget to run the federal government for a fiscal year that is almost half over,” he said in a statement Monday. “We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many people like. So here comes an open-ended military action with no end game envisioned.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
___________________________
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are you yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! ~ From Oliver Cromwell's speech on the dissolution of the Long Parliament given to the House of Commons 20 April 1653

More proof that the dollar is worthless...aah maybe not worthless, how 'bout wallpaper

Picture from Artifacts | Greenbacks at the Guggenheim
Hans-Peter Feldmann, above, with the installation of 100,000 one-dollar bills dressing the walls of the Guggenheim.

I guess this is next...
__________________________________________________________

Obama is anti business...Obama is destroying America...Obama the Marxist, Fanatical, Brown Shirt ~ Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce

"He (Obama) wants the price of gasoline to go to six or seven dollars a gallon."
"Hope isn't hiring. Hope isn't lowering the price of gasoline." 
Laura Ingraham: Marxist?  But you voted for him... Why did you vote for him? 
Harry Alford: "Because he was black. The worst mistake I ever made in my life."

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

So you are in full control...no one can manipulate you...right! Think again!

Dead Letter

A true story...

Is killing forbidden in Islam?

"Is killing forbidden in Islam? Only if you're a gullible idiot."

"...because what both of these idiots, Obama and our Muslim friend from Tennessee, quoted is not in the Quran"

Source: Planck's Constant

There are so many Muslim deceptions and lies that I have made a category called Islamic Myths specifically to contain them. One of those lies is that the Quran condemns killing.

Infidels are easily deceived when Muslims quote Sura 5:32 - "... whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.." In fact, our own President quoted this very line in his speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009.
A reader from Tennessee calling himself "Light" left this comment in response to my article Only Arabs Can Truly Be Muslims:
is not that people dont understand the quarn,but are not willing to read it.When you read it, it speacifly says nothing negative that you hear from the media,or from others.For example about killing,it speciafly states if you intentionaly kill somone then it is like killing the whole of humanity so killing of any sort disqualifies you from islam and people who commite this error are not ignorent about islam but are catorgorized as islam just becuase of where they are from.
Now either he is purposely being deceptive or he may be an ignorant Muslim who has never actually read the Quran and simply repeats what others tell him is in the Quran because what both of these idiots, Obama and our Muslim friend from Tennesse, quoted is not in the Quran.
Here is what the Quran actually says at Sura 5:32:
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
Even a casual reader will note that this injunction applies only to the “Children of Israel,” which is to say, the Jews. This is not meant for nor does it apply to Muslims.
This verse allows Jews to kill someone if that person is a murderer or if that person has spread mischief in the land, such as adultery, fornication, waylaying, etc. It should be noted that Obama was wrong, the word "innocent" is nowhere in that verse.
And how should those who spread mischief be punished? What Muslims will not quote to infidels is the very next verse, 5:33:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Ah, no wonder Muslims omit the next verse, it is a prescription for violence and savage butchery. Fornicators, adulterers, thieves, and others are to be killed or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides. Now I want you to think about that last part. Allah does not want your right hand and foot to be cut off, or your left hand and foot, but opposite sides. Left hand and right foot or right hand and left foot. The God of Islam wants mischief-makers to suffer lop-sided. Is there anything more cruel and barbaric than Islam?
Is killing forbidden in Islam? Only if you're a gullible idiot.

For more interesting reading about Islam click here Planck's Constant

Scare Tactics 101...leave your carbon footprints at the door

Note: See important Update below.
 
Recently I attended a graduation ceremony where all the usual speeches were about all the usual things professors talk to all their usual departing students...but there was one thing that was a bit unusal.  The last guy standing (lets call him professor Know Nothing) at the podium spewed forth a bunch of verbiage that for a moment there I thought he was trying to be inspirational.  That is, until professor Know Nothing dipped into his politcal indoctrination and told the graduating class (imagine that, he told them as if it were some scientific fact!) that they should be concerned about what kind of carbon footprint we leave behind.  Well fortunately the students were anxious to get on with their celebration lunches and parties and proceeded to march out of the auditorium...(Does marching leave carbon footprints?) 
All this talk about carbon footprints and climate change has nothing whatsoever to do with science or anything close to the definition of the word, "fact".  The scare mongers who invented these scare tactics all originated with the New World Order clan...most notably, the United Nations.  The United Nations is in the climate change game for one and only one reason...money! period!  Of course you would have to study a little science especially that field of expertise called, political science in order to find the real facts of the matter.  The UN has been playing this game since it's founding...and long before that, indoctrination publications such as Time magazine got in the game early (and you thought Time was a news magazine...they went into publication for one and only one reason, to indoctrinate!)
Meanwhile, I could go on but professor Know Nothing needs to decide where he'll leave his carbon footprint.  Shall it be in the snow and ice?  Or the scorched earth?  Here's a couple of videos to help him make up his mind.  ~  Norman E. Hooben June 1, 2011
video 1 ↓                                                                                        video 2 ↓
video  video
Update (October 2014): ...simply more proof that I'm right, they're wrong, end of story!
Source: The Register
Antarctic sea ice at ALL TIME RECORD HIGH: 'We have more to learn' - scientist
Four-deviations-above-average figures defy climate models
by Lewis Page 9 October 2014
 
The climate science community has confessed itself baffled yet again by another all-time record area of sea covered by ice around Antarctica (emphasis mine, NEH).
"What we're learning is, we have more to learn," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, announcing the latest annual sea ice maximum for the austral continent. According to the NSIDC:
Sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average. Antarctic sea ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the month of September. This new record extent follows consecutive record winter maximum extents in 2012 and 2013. The reasons for this recent rapid growth are not clear. Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.
Climate scientists have been puzzled by the behaviour of the southern ice for many years now. The most commonly used models say that its steady growth should not be happening in a warming world (though the warming of the world is also in doubt, as air temperatures have been steady for the last fifteen years or more - and it turns out that deep ocean temperatures are not increasing either, leaving the "mystery" of the apparent end of global warming "unsolved").
This failure of reality to match up with climate modelling has, as some eminent climate scientists have noted, had the effect of "limiting confidence in the predictions" of severe warming and associated disasters this century.
Meanwhile at the other end of the planet the Arctic sea ice has covered lesser areas in recent times. The lowest Arctic area seen in the era of satellite measurements was in 2012, but the three consecutive record-high Antarctic maxima of 2012, 2013 and now 2014 have resulted in global sea ice levels this year and last year coming out pretty much normal. ®

 
_______________________
The Weather...
"It must be watched, of course, but it is well to remember that Nature has a way of her own in adjusting these matters..." ~ Mark Twain

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Will flag waving become shameful?

"...yet we close our eyes to a daily onslaught of foreign invaders"


Mending Our Flag

Source: Planck's Constant
Here we see Norman Rockwell’s cover illustration for the Literary Digest celebrating Memorial Day, 1922, entitled “Mending the Flag.”
I doubt if anyone mends flags anymore; hell, another few years of Liberals like Obama in the White House and flag-waving itself may be looked upon as a shameful thing.
On this Memorial Day, I believe this nation needs mending. Our country is broken. Liberal policies, entitlement programs, confiscatory taxes, support of unions, etc., are bankrupting cities, states, and this nation.
While I myself will profit immensely from the coming economic collapse (see my articles Why I`m a Gold Bug and President Barack H. Obama will make me Rich), it does sadden me that our fallen heroes gave their lives for a country that in another few decades may no longer exist.
They gave their lives to prevent foreign invaders from reaching our shores yet we close our eyes to a daily onslaught of foreign invaders although today we call them undocumented aliens.
Hitler wasted time, money and effort building up a military to take over the world. Instead all he needed to do was donate to the campaigns of Liberal Democrats who would have gladly done the business of destroying our country as they are doing now.

Monday, May 30, 2011

The Push For School Voucher Programs

Wealthy Families, Corporate-Backed Foundations Behind Push for School Vouchers
Source: SourceWatch.org
 
The sudden, rapid push for school voucher programs nationwide is not due to any public outcry or grassroots uprising for these programs. For decades these programs have been a hard-sell with the American public. Instead, a small group of wealthy individuals and corporate-backed, private foundations have been behind these efforts to divert public taxpayer dollars to private and religious schools. Among them is the son of the billionaire co-founder of Amway, Richard "Dick" DeVos, Sr., who advocates dropping the term "public schools" in favor of the term "government schools" and who has poured millions of dollars into groups that advocate "school choice," the term often used to refer to voucher programs. Dick DeVos's wife, Betsy DeVos, who is also the sister of Erik Prince of Xe, the private mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater, has been even more aggressive than her husband at promoting voucher programs. She launched the pro-voucher group "All Children Matter" in 2003, which spent $7.6 million in its first year alone to promote the adoption of state voucher programs. Betsy DeVos also founded The American Federation for Children in 2010. A PAC of the same name spent $820,000 on Wisconsin state legislative races to elect pro-voucher candidates. The Alliance for School Choice is another DeVos-funded group that promotes vouchers. The Walton Family Foundation (of Wal-Mart fame) has also given millions to push school voucher programs. These are just a small sample of the private, corporate-backed forces working to undermine public schools.
The following chart is from BalancedPolitics.org

Should Government Vouchers Be Given to Pay for Private Schools, Even if They're Religious Schools?

In a Nutshell
  1. Rich parents have a choice of schools for their kids; poor parents should have the same choice.
  2. Competition between schools is increased, leading to greater efficiency and results in all schools.
  3. Private schools have a better history of getting results in teaching information and values than public schools.
  4. Those parents who send their kids to private schools must in effect pay twice; i.e. their taxes pay for public schools that their children don't even attend.
  5. More private schools would provide opportunities for specialization; for example, schools could provide extra expertise in math, science, sports training, liberal arts, college preparation, and so on.
  6. Providing private school access to everyone will increase diversity.
  7. More money is put back into the private sector rather than squandered at the Department of Education and other wasteful government bureaucracies.
  8. The parent makes the choice between religious or non-religious schooling; thus, the government isn't imposing religion.
  1. Since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st Amendment separation of church and state.  (Note from Norm: I disagree with this argument wholeheartedly! )
  2. Vouchers take funds away from already under-funded public schools. (Note from Norm: Public schools are not under funded…just mismanaged.)
  3. Private schools aren't subject to as rigorous of oversight; thus, they may not act responsibly. (Note from Norm: This is a poor argument. You get what you pay for and if you’re not satisfied you stop paying…just how long do you think a private school would last if they did not produce results.)
  4. Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students.
  5. The quality of education at the private schools may be brought down by new students that aren't as gifted. (Note from Norm: Another poor argument!  All I can say is, "You gotta be kidding me! Who thinks these things up?")

Sunday, May 29, 2011

"Husbands are a degree above their wives."...says so right here! [Sura 2:228]

Source: Planck's Constant

The Rights of Women in Islam

By Bernie

Info-ad on the London Underground - Mohammed believed in women's rights
Info-ad on the London Underground - Mohammed believed in women's rights
Photo Credit:
Inspired by Muhammad

In order to improve the public understanding of Islam among the ignorant British public, taxpayer-funded Muslim organizations in the UK last summer launched a campaign called “Inspired by Muhammad” on buses and tube trains.

Actually this campaign is not to inform but to counter what the majority of Britons think about Islam and Muslims. A YouGov poll found that:
  • 58 per cent of people associate Islam with extremism
  • 50 per cent associate Islam with terrorism
  • 69 per cent believe that Islam encourages the repression of women
Of course in a perfect world with perfect knowledge, 100% of the British public would know that Islam incites terrorism and encourages the repression of women.
Blogger Pastorius at Infidel Bloggers Alliance lists the Top 10 Quran quotes every woman MUST SEE:
  1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls [Sura 65:1, 4 ]
  2. Husbands may hit their wives [Sura 4:34]
  3. A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives [Sura 4:129]
  4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives [Sura 4:3]
  5. Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners [Sura 4:24]
  6. A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man and then this second man divorces her [Sura 2:230]
  7. A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony [Sura 2:282]
  8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female [Sura 4:11]
  9. Husbands are a degree above their wives [Sura 2:228]
  10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field [Sura 2:223]
Now one may argue that these are passages written over 1400 years ago, surely modern Islamic societies have advanced the rights of women even more.
OK, let's consider how modern Muslims apply Shariah today:
Freethought Nation, Women's Rights in Islam
We hear so much these days about the rights of women within Islam. Following is a list of the fabulous and amazing rights Muslim women possess! This list is based on the Saudi Arabian version of Islam (Wahhabism), which strictly follows the teachings of the Koran, Mohammed, etc., and which is being spread all over the world largely because of oil riches. The Arabian peninsula is where Islam arose, and the Saudis consider themselves the keepers of true Islam. Others adhering to similar "religious" female enslavement and oppression include the Iranians, Afghanis and Pakistanis.

  • Muslim women have the right never to associate or even speak to a man who is not related to them by genetics or marriage.


  • Muslim women have the right to be beaten if they associate with unrelated men.


  • Muslim women have the right to be segregated based on their gender.


  • Muslim women have the right to be enslaved by a man they don't love, forced into "arranged marriages" at a young age, against their wills.


  • Muslim women have the right to call their enslaver "husband."


  • Muslim women have the right to obey their enslavers/husbands.


  • Muslim women have the right to endure regular beatings by their husbands.


  • Muslim women have the right to reproduce continually after forced into an arranged marriage and raped against their wills by their husbands."

  • Muslim women have the right to be denied divorce from violent and abusive husbands.


  • Muslim women have the right to lose their children if their husbands divorce them.


  • Muslim women have the right not to marry a non-Muslim.


  • Muslim women have the right to be beaten if they don't cover themselves up.


  • Muslim women have the right to stay out the life-giving sunshine by being forced to cover up.


  • Muslim women have the right to become deficient in vitamin D and develop osteomalacia from sunshine-deprivation.


  • Muslim women have the right to dress in black so they become overheated in the hot desert sun of Arab countries.


  • Muslim women have the right not to be educated. (Pakistan, Afghanistan)


  • Muslim women have the right never to operate a car.


  • Muslim women have the right never to leave their houses without a male relative accompanying them.


  • Muslim women have the right to be gang-raped if they are caught alone on the street.


  • Muslim women have the right to be stoned or hanged for being raped.


  • Muslim women have the right to be brutally murdered for dishonoring" their families.


  • Muslim women have the right to be murdered for leaving Islam.


  • Muslim women have the right to have their genitals cut off.

  • Two weeks after I started blogging in January of 2006 I wrote Muslims have no Sense of Humor. But after looking at the poster at the top of this article declaring that Mohammed believed in women's rights, I laughed so hard I almost passed out. Mohammed believed in women's rights - damn these Muslims can be hilarious when they want to.


    Story Source UK Telegraph

    This just in: The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.”

    Source: Liberty Ledger

    Terror threat spawns heightened security status
    Published on May 26, 2011 by James Shott 
    IN 2011 EUROPE

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated,” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

    The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbor” and “Lose.”

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

    Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is canceled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

    Attributed to John Cleese

    Hat tip to Rick.