Saturday, November 29, 2014

Air Force Colonel With No Personal Constraint Lowers the 'STANDARD'

In what looks like a 'filler' for some editorial space (see below) in a base newspaper, Colonel Kevin Glasz writes a flowery commentary on adhering to 'the' standard.  There are words of encouragement for those under his command to keep up the standards in order to accomplish the mission.  There's one thing wrong though...he forgets what the mission is all about.  No where in the mission (see Mission of the United States Air Force below) does it say anything about encouraging those under him to learn about an ideology that is antagonistic to American values.  His comments were published on the 29th of August 2008, but in an about turn he lowers himself to the unacceptable standard for those who want to destroy us.  He writes again in another directive that was published by on September 8, 2014 (see below) knocking the hell out of his flowery editorial.
Just to let you know that I posted the following comment on his "Adherence to the standard" column but if you go there you'll see that they were too chicken to publish it (note the "Hold on..." comment by the adminstrator):

Ref:"“This is a period of great personal restraint and commitment in addition to renewed focus on worship,” Brigade Commander Col. Kevin Glasz wrote. “I’d like to encourage you to learn just a little more about this religion, but more importantly, I’m asking you to be considerate and do not consume food or drink in front of our Muslim colleagues; it is a simple, yet respectful action.”" ~ You just lowered the standard! Wake up Colonel!
Norman E. Hooben
ps I kept the standards for 21 years while in the United States Air Force

Source for the following U.S. Air Forces Central Command
Adherence to the standard

Southwest Asia -- One of the topics I frequently address with members of the 379th 

Colonel Kevin Glasz
Expeditionary Medical Group is "adherence to the standard." In order to accomplish the mission with power and precision, we must adhere to the standard at all times without hesitation or question.

A standard can often be found in guidance documents, such as our Air Force Instructions. Standards may also be in technical orders, operating instructions, commander's policy statements, or written into our nation's laws. There are many other sources of standards which guide and govern our professional work. Duty/work section checklists are a good place to start when looking for applicable guidance documents.

As you orient your replacement for this upcoming Air and Space Expeditionary Force rotation, and you find yourself saying "we don't do it that way here because we are deployed," you are probably not adhering to the standard. Standards exist for your safety and the safety of others and must produce a consistent, expected outcome with very little if any variation. It is not up us to determine which standards we will adhere to; we need to adhere to all of them. As we transform from expeditionary to enduring, be ever mindful of taking a different approach "because we are deployed."

Something as simple as walking past a piece of trash without picking it up or not addressing someone correctly, or wearing the uniform incorrectly lowers the standard. Don't allow the standard to be set lower because of your actions. As Airmen, we need to constantly strive to raise the standard.

Our Air Force core values are integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do. Rely on your core values as guiding principles while you "adhere to the standard." We live in, and must demand, a culture of excellence and accountability.

Above all, be proud of your accomplishments; they are simply amazing.

Then there's this...

Muslims Fight To Ban Christianity From The Military
You learn a lot of things in the United States military. Including not to eat or drink in front of Muslims, and to learn more about their religion. At least, that’s according to recent reports from Fox News.
Apparently, that directive was released to active duty military personnel at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, which is a Department of Defense medical and graduate school in Maryland. The instructions were released just before the start of Ramadan.

“This is a period of great personal restraint and commitment in addition to renewed focus on worship,” Brigade Commander Col. Kevin Glasz wrote. “I’d like to encourage you to learn just a little more about this religion, but more importantly, I’m asking you to be considerate and do not consume food or drink in front of our Muslim colleagues; it is a simple, yet respectful action.”

In his email, the brigade commander provided a link to a website about Islam.
The announcement received some backlash from some of the officers and doctors who were in training.
“I respect the intention behind this email, but note that there is no similar call honoring other faiths,” one Marine told a Fox News reporter. “There is no similar invitation for non-Jewish colleagues to refrain from eating leavened products during Passover, or non-Christian colleagues to refrain from eating meat during Lent.”
The Marine continued on to conclude, “Our veterans have sacrificed too much blood, sweat and tears to have their own rights and freedoms be sacrificed on the altar of progressive political correctness.”
“Our troops are being told to respect the Muslim Ramadan and encouraged to say ‘Ramadan Kareem,’ while at the same time they cannot have a cross on chapels, display a manger scene or say ‘Merry Christmas’ for fear of offending,” another officer said. “There is something wrong with this picture.”
While we are not against religious tolerance, if the institution is attempting to make a statement, shouldn’t it be supporting all religions equally?

See also...
Washington Times article U.S. troops told not to eat, drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan
US Military Highlights Respect for Muslims @
Mission of The United States Air Force
The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight and air, space and cyberspace.

To achieve that mission, the Air Force has a vision:

The United States Air Force will be a trusted and reliable joint partner with our sister services known for integrity in all of our activities, including supporting the joint mission first and foremost. We will provide compelling air, space, and cyber capabilities for use by the combatant commanders. We will excel as stewards of all Air Force resources in service to the American people, while providing precise and reliable Global Vigilance, Reach and Power for the nation.

The Air Force has three core competencies: Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting and Integrating Operations. These core competencies make our six distinctive capabilities possible:

Air and Space Superiority : With it, joint forces can dominate enemy operations in all dimensions -- land, sea, air and space.

Global Attack: Because of technological advances, the Air Force can attack anywhere, anytime -- and do so quickly and with greater precision than ever before.

Rapid Global Mobility: Being able to respond quickly and decisively anywhere we're needed is key to maintaining rapid global mobility.

Precision Engagement: The essence lies in the ability to apply selective force against specific targets because the nature and variety of future contingencies demand both precise and reliable use of military power with minimal risk and collateral damage.

Information Superiority: The ability of joint force commanders to keep pace with information and incorporate it into a campaign plan is crucial.

Agile Combat Support: Deployment and sustainment are keys to successful operations and cannot be separated. Agile combat support applies to all forces, from those permanently based to contingency buildups to expeditionary forces.

The Air Force bases these core competencies and distinctive capabilities on a shared commitment to three core values --
integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do.

See also...

Thursday, November 27, 2014

A Nation In Peril... Plus, you won't see Bill O'Reilly on this list!

Most of what I post here on this blog comes from others who, I think, have more time on their hands to compose their thoughts and transform them into commentary worthy enough for others to read.  The 'others' are more than likely people of the same or similar mindsets of that of the author.  Certainly the majority of Obama supporters will not entertain the idea perusing anything that might prove that their holy-one has any faults.  We can be assured that this is so because the real smart supporters, which there are few, have already declared the majority, "Stupid."  In fact they're so stupid they don't know they're stupid because the main stream media (MSM) won't let them know...conservative bloggers and FOX News were the only ones reporting the Gruber confession.  Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D., the smart one who wrote most of the Obamacare fiasco knew that the stupidity of the voter was pertinent in getting the law passed ( Liberal view here / Conservative view here ).  But enough of Gruber.
The nation is in peril and the stupid voters don't care. 
The following editorial by Stephen Stone discusses the impeachment of Barack Husein Obama and suggests that...I'll just quote him, "...Americans need to hear a harmonious chorus from our nation's conservative spokespersons calling for impeachment."  The list includes some very prominent conservatives but noticeably absent was, Bill O'Reilly.  Not that I considered (maybe some years ago I did) O'Reilly a conservative but most of the stupid voters think he and most everyone else on FOX News is.  Earlier this week I mentioned Bill O'Reilly in another post regarding a landfill named in Obama's honor...let me repeat that here:
Unlike Bill O’Reilly who has nothing but respect for Obama, my disdain for the guy he thinks is deserving some kind of presidential homage is certainly warranted by everything un-American this poor excuse for a resident of the White House manifests on a daily basis. Never in my wildest dreams would I consider some national, state, or even local monument be erected or named after this piece of garbage… Whoops! What did I say? Did I say, “Garbage”? Well there may be an exception to my injudiciousness. There are apparently some who mirror my reverie and have come up with what I think “is a pile of garbage is a fitting tribute to Obama’s presidency.” The state of North Dakota has named a new publicly-owned landfill after President Barack Obama. North Dakota is apparently more astute than Bill O'Reilly. Good for them! (click anywhere on the link to read the full story)

So for whatever reason Mr. Stone omits O'Reilly from his list certainly would fall in line with my thoughts about the big guy on prime time.
Before I sign off and let you get to Stone's commentary I have one disagreement with him.  Under The sole remedy section he says, "The president's "executive amnesty" (which, now imposed, will be impossible to undo), ..."   If I were in charge, I could undo it in a heartbeat!  ~  Norman E. Hooben

The following from Renew America
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress?
November 12, 2014
Stephen Stone, RenewAmerica President
[Updated Nov. 22, 2014]

Shortly after communist-mentored Barack Obama was elected to the White House in 2008, I asked a brother at a family gathering, "Who's going to be president of the United States in 20 years?" Without hesitating, he said, "Barack Obama."
More informed than most people I'd asked, he instantly got the drift of my question.

As I was thinking through the implications of the de facto communist coup that precipitated the question, however, I was struck with a realization that gave me some degree of hope in the face of our nation's heightened peril.

Although no major communist strongman in the world's history had ever walked away from ultimate power on his own, I noted that the USA was unlike any other country in its heritage of constitutional self-governance — and it would be interesting to see how well the charismatic, deceptive Marxist just elected would do in forcing his promised "transformation" (writ: destruction) of our country down the throats of unsuspecting Americans.

I foresaw an unprecedented cultural clash that in time could well disprove Hegel and Marx's naive vision of history, with the U.S. refusing to ingest the Machiavellian fare of Mr. Obama and his minions and instead convulsively regurgitating it up.

The 2014 midterms resoundingly confirmed my suspicions. After six tumultuous years of lawless deception and anti-American deceit, the doctrinaire community organizer was repudiated in shocking fashion by the American public.

No mas, as Sarah Palin would say.

Which brings us to the crucial question: What do the American people want to do with this opportunity?

Most dangerous time in 150 years

The midterm election unquestionably showed that most Americans want Obama stopped, not appeased. Yet Republican congressional leaders like presumptive Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner appear not to have gotten the message. They think the election was about them — not about Barack Obama.

Both have indicated they plan to "work with" Obama to "govern" jointly. This, despite the president's
defiant words that he will not change course nor back down from his radical agenda.

The only way Republicans will govern jointly in the face of such intransigence is to willfully capitulate to the president's demands. That's not what voters elected them to do in sweeping Obama's collaborators out of office. They want the GOP to stand firm and put an end to Obama's inroads — not cooperate with him in furthering his anti-American purposes.

Somebody needs to wake up the dreamers in the GOP leadership. Have them read Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt's recent article "
America faces most dangerous two years in 150 years."

The fact is, while voters — by the grace of God — gave our country a historic reprieve from deliberate ruin at the hands of the tyrant in the White House, if congressional leaders ignore the will of the people and instead push the GOP's presidential aspirations in 2016 ahead of corralling Obama, the momentous election just passed will be wasted — and not only will Republicans face a backlash in 2016, and with it the loss of the House, the Senate, and any presidential aspirations they may hold, but our country's lawless transformation could soon afterward be all but complete and unstoppable.

Future generations will look back on the current GOP leadership with contempt — naming names.

This is it, folks. This is likely our last providential opportunity to stop the Marxist transformation that Obama and his anti-American cohorts seek to force, cleverly and deceitfully, upon our nation.

"Impeach me if you can"

For months, Obama has dared Republicans to hold him to account for his open disdain for the Constitution by impeaching him. Understandably, Republicans have been reluctant to take the president up on his dare as long as the Democrats controlled the Senate and could easily block conviction and removal.

That response is no longer valid now that the GOP controls both houses of Congress — and also in view of Democrats' public distancing of themselves from Obama during the midterms, revealing disaffection with the man and his policies, reinforced by similar disaffection by many in the media, some of whom say Obama is "more dangerous to the media" than any president in history. (See
here, here, and here.)

Republicans are thus without excuse if they don't take the current opportunity to put a timely end to Obama's dangerous, repeated dereliction of duty and abuse of authority, before he does our nation further harm.

How soon before Congress should begin impeachment hearings?

In August, I
    Regarding [the] timing of [impeachment], many who support impeaching Obama are waiting to see if the GOP takes control of the Senate Nov. 4 before they weigh in openly in support of impeachment. This way of looking at the matter is consistent with what Ambassador Alan Keyes has written: we must elect an "impeachment Congress" this fall so we will have a better chance of removing Obama than we have right now.

    This practical consideration suggests at least two things: (1) the number of [GOP House and Senate members] who support impeaching Obama is likely much higher than current estimates, and (2) those running for election to the House or Senate this season are being counted on by the conservative base of the GOP to honor their sworn oath to defend the Constitution against the likes of Obama if they are elected.

    As far as timing goes, the optimum timetable — considering how lawless Obama has increasingly become — would be for impeachment hearings to begin in the House immediately after the election, and for Obama's trial to begin not long after a new Senate convenes in January 2015.
No matter the exact timing, it should come reasonably soon. The longer Congress waits, the more mischief Obama will predictably do, placing our nation's security, solvency, and well-being at even greater risk.

The sole remedy
The president's "executive amnesty" (which, now imposed, will be impossible to undo), his reckless endangering of our nation through opening wide our borders, his infamous trading of dangerous Taliban commanders for a U.S. deserter in Afghanistan, his obvious scheme to allow Iran to have the bomb, his treasonous arming of Jihadists in the Middle East (including ISIS), his treacherous ties to terrorist sponsor the Muslim Brotherhood, his deceitful cover-up of Benghazi, his illegal Fast and Furious gunrunning scheme — these and other unAmerican or derelict actions make impeachment an increasingly urgent imperative.

No longer can the GOP simply rattle sabers and issue empty words while failing to invoke the Constitution's sole remedy to stopping the dangerous, lawless behavior we are witnessing almost daily in Mr. Obama, that being impeachment and removal.

CNN lied

Before saying another word, let me take a moment to debunk a widely circulated media myth regarding impeachment.

Last July, CNN ran a poll that falsely claimed two-thirds of Americans oppose impeachment. The claim was based on demonstrably flawed data meant purposely (it would appear) to defuse the growing grassroots impeachment drive.

Given the favorable response of both parties and the media to the bogus poll, the poll seemed to work. It had the effect of shutting down nearly all serious talk of impeachment from that point on, even in the conservative media.

Obviously, if two-thirds of the country are opposed to impeaching Obama, there is little point in pursuing it.

Just days before the CNN poll was conducted, the Huffington Post released its own impeachment poll — a more reliable measurement that showed an overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT OPPOSE IMPEACHMENT.

According to the HuffPost poll, 44 percent oppose impeachment, 33 percent support it, and 21 are unopposed — for a total of 56 percent either supporting impeachment or having no firm opposition to it.

(We might add that a large number of the 21 percent who were reported as unopposed would now likely support impeachment — since Obama has continued to push his lawless agenda without letting up, even announcing he will
go further now the midterms are over.)

In any case, there's no reliable data showing that two-thirds of the public oppose impeaching the lawless inhabitant of the White House, and there never was. The clever CNN poll was merely an attempt to counter the HuffPost poll with false methods and false data, and it arrived at its exaggerated number by counting those who had no strong opinion on impeachment as firmly opposing it. If you take the 44 percent HuffPost found to be opposed to impeachment and add the 21 percent it found unopposed ("not sure"), you get exactly the 65 percent CNN reported as firmly "opposed."

That's sheer deception on the part of CNN, and the poll should be discarded. (For a detailed analysis of the poll, see "
A path to impeachment.")

Out-of-touch Republicans

Unfortunately, even without a false poll to mislead them, some in the GOP leadership appear not to perceive the dangerously subversive tenure of team Obama.

Back in April, as impeachment talk was growing nationally, I took the occasion at a Western Republican Leadership Conference to hand-deliver impeachment packets to several GOP leaders who attended.

Among those I gave packets to were Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, GOP National Chairman Reince Priebus, and a handful of congressional candidates. The packet included my March article "
Do your part to impeach and remove Obama" and a few other items, including a column by Alan Keyes, a list of impeachable offenses by Obama, and a Pledge To Impeach that some of us at RenewAmerica and Dr. Keyes' Conservative Majority PAC had drawn up.

As I gave these out, I had positive conversations with these leaders or their staffers, and I felt my efforts were reasonably productive. I had an especially productive discussion with the campaign manager of a well-known congressional candidate.

I then approached our state's moderately conservative Republican governor, a longtime friend, and gave him a packet to look over and think about, expecting he'd take an interest. I was surprised at his hostile reaction: "What would you impeach him for."

Mind you, this was in the earlier stages of the growing movement to impeach Obama — before Obama's lawlessness had become widely acknowledged — and from a chief executive who was preoccupied with governing his state.

To bring him up to speed, I named off Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and few other impeachable offenses that immediately came to mind, and was met with resistance similar to that expressed by Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who
told the press Obama "has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for [impeachment]."

With his nervous bodyguard hovering close, I did my best to educate the governor, and left.

Several weeks later, when Obama's treasonable Bergdahl swap was announced to public outrage, I wondered if my friend the governor was paying enough attention to know that his question had been definitively answered.

That was six months ago, as the impeachment movement was just gaining steam. At this late point in America's crisis — with Obama's unconstitutional lawlessness unquestionably surpassing anything ever seen in our nation's politics — the growing sense among conservatives is that Obama definitely deserves impeachment.

In its July Poll, HuffPost found that fully 68 percent of Republicans favor impeachment, with 90 percent saying Obama had exceeded the limits of his constitutional authority. These numbers — undoubtedly higher now — indicate the GOP leadership,
which generally opposes impeachment, is out of step with its base on so vital an issue as stopping the president's unlawful usurpation of power.

Time for GOP leaders to speak out

With Obama increasingly daring to be impeached, and a majority of Americans either supporting impeachment or being open to it, what our nation needs from the new GOP-led Congress is leadershipnot "cooperation" with Obama's disastrous, transformative agenda.

Since current GOP leaders can't be relied on to do what's constitutionally required to stop the president, new members of Congress — from both chambers — need to take the lead and boldly call for impeachment hearings. They can do so even before they're sworn in, to rally conservatives in the lead-up to impeachment.

Members of the Senate who weren't up for re-election likewise need to proclaim the same message with clarity.

For the sake of their own posterity, and out of respect for the electorate who put them in office, Republican legislators need to come together and get ready for the only real option left if America is to survive in liberty: impeachment hearings that are timely and competently conducted in the glare of public scrutiny.

All that's required for this to happen is for enough Republicans in Congress who have not been misled or intimidated by the media, the Democrats, or their own leadership about Obama's treasonable actions — or who are not in denialto speak out plainly and forcefully in favor of impeachment and removal NOW.

For starters, Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, James Inhofe, Pat Roberts, and their conservative peers should immediately stand up and — in accordance with their sworn duty — demand impeachment of Barack Obama and his innermost co-conspirators, including Vice President Biden.

Likewise, Representatives Trey Gowdy, Steve King, Steve Scalise, Walter Jones, Louie Gohmert, Jim Bridenstine, Dana Rohrabacher, and other House conservatives need to do the same, undeterred by self-serving members in leadership.

Newly-elected members of both houses — including Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, David Perdue, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, Cory Gardner, Dan Sullivan, Mike Rounds, James Lankford, and Shelley Moore Capito in the Senate; and Dave Brat, Mia Love, John Ratcliffe, Will Hurd, Brian Babin, Alex Mooney, Barry Loudermilk, and other new conservatives in the House — also need to show voters they're serious about holding Obama accountable for his flagrantly unlawful, dangerous actions.

Beyond conservatives in the House and Senate, Americans need to hear a harmonious chorus from our nation's conservative spokespersons calling for impeachment. In addition to those already on record as doing so — such as Sarah Palin, Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo, Joseph Farah, Allen West, Bryan Fischer, Judge Jeanine Pirro, and others — the leadership-starved public need to hear the following respected voices unequivocally affirm the urgency to expose, impeach, and remove the usurper in a timely, decisive manner:

    Andrew McCarthy

    Richard Viguerie

    Rush Limbaugh

    Michelle Malkin

    Ann Coulter

    Sean Hannity

    Megyn Kelly

    Phyllis Schlafly

    Glenn Beck

    Dick Morris

    Tom Fitton

    Pat Buchanan

    Donald Trump

    Mike Huckabee

    Gov. Rick Perry

    Brent Bozell

    Laura Ingraham

    Dinesh D'Souza

    James Dobson

    Tony Perkins

    Jim DeMint

    Matt Hoskins

    Tom DeLay

    Floyd Brown

    Wayne LaPierre

    Ben Carson

    Cleta Mitchell

    Phil Robertson

    ...and others who wield influence among Republican leaders and the conservative grassroots.
Again...all that's needed for impeachment hearings to get under way — and thereby expose Obama's treasonable deeds and anti-American designs in wide-open House investigations in front of the entire country, with the prospect of convicting him in the Senate — is for enough respected conservative voices to insist on it, until Boehner, McConnell, and others in the GOP leadership are forced to act.

A matter of sacrifice and decency

Where are the professing leaders who care as much about their country as their career, acceptance, or security — or better yet, who "more than self their country love"? The public needs to hear from those who still have the decency, and courage, to take on the most lawless president in history and hold him to account — along with errant GOP officials.

Our country's future, and that of the rest of the world, hangs tenuously in the balance. Let's proceed.

A caveat

The weakest link in the above scenario is Speaker John Boehner, slated to be the president if Obama and Biden are removed. The new House of Representatives needs to give SERIOUS thought to replacing Boehner with someone capable of standing up to the administration's deceitful, fatal agenda.

For the sake of our nation's indentured posterity, as well our republic's very continuance in decent liberty, newly elected — as well as long-time — members of the House of Representatives must ensure that impeachment and removal are indeed possible, by choosing someone more attuned to the will of the people for their leader, one who might also be ours as a nation.
Under the Constitution, the Speaker does not even need to be a member of the House, so Republicans have wide latitude in choosing someone to lead the country, provisionally, during these difficult times until the 2016 election, when voters themselves can again choose a president.

Exceptional times call for exceptional measures, as well as exceptional wisdom. No matter who is chosen to replace Speaker Boehner—from within the House or from without—it’s imperative that House members take their sworn duty to preserve the Constitution seriously enough to act boldly and decisively in choosing a Speaker who could possibly be the next president.

A further caution

We end by raising again the specter of Obama's insatiable lust for power, with which we began this discussion. As we contemplate the compelling need to impeach and remove the president, consider the
following exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy and a witness before Congress in December 2013, as Rep. Gowdy wondered aloud if Obama planned to stay on indefinitely:
    "If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?" Gowdy asked of Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, who was giving testimony.

    "If you can dispense with immigration laws or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you also dispense with election laws?" Gowdy asked Lazarus.

    For his part, Lazarus said that Obama couldn't do such a thing. But Gowdy pressed on and asked the logical question, "Why not?"

    "Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them," Lazarus replied.

    But Gowdy wasn't to be so easily pushed off point.

    "Well he's not applying the ACA, and he's not applying immigration laws, and he's not applying marijuana laws, and he's not applying mandatory minimums. What's the difference with election laws?" Gowdy asked pointedly.

    Of course, all Obama's supporters blithely assure us that Obama wouldn't be so anti-American, anti-law, and anti-Constitution as to ignore his lawful duties in the way Gowdy suggests. But the fact is he's already done it dozens of times before. So, why not again?
Prudence requires that we give Obama no further opportunity to weaken or destroy the Constitution, including the prospect of imposing, with his phone and pen, a change in term limits — or otherwise unilaterally altering the rules of governance. The best way to ensure he can't do so is to remove him post-haste.
Note: Permission is granted to use this article, all or in part, with appropriate attribution, and to disseminate it widely. Please share it with anyone who may be interested.
© Stephen Stone
This video ↓ from Rebel Pundit (Note: While Stephen Stone says, "...Americans need to hear a harmonious chorus from our nation's conservative spokespersons calling for impeachment."   It would be far more effective if Americans heard more from folks like this.)
↓    ↓    ↓


Have you ever heard that expression, "Watch your back."?  I appears that America hasn't.


100% Cotton ...and Made In The U.S.A

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Message to the Ferguson folks... Al Sharpton, take note!

Video may take a moment to load.

Then there's this...

Monday, November 24, 2014

Something Very Bad Is Happening In Illinois? Spiking Radiation Levels Causing Concern!

Something Very Bad Is Happening In Illinois? Spiking Radiation Levels Causing Concern!

“We wanted to do something to honor the president...”

Unlike Bill O’Reilly who has nothing but respect for Obama, my disdain for the guy he thinks is deserving some kind of presidential homage is certainly warranted by everything un-American this poor excuse for a resident of the White House manifests on a daily basis.  Never in my wildest dreams would I consider some national, state, or even local monument be erected or named after this piece of garbage… Whoops!  What did I say?  Did I say, “Garbage”?  Well there may be an exception to my injudiciousness.  There are apparently some who mirror my reverie and have come up with what I think “is a pile of garbage is a fitting tribute to Obama’s presidency.”  The state of North Dakota has named a new publicly-owned landfill after President Barack Obama.  North Dakota is apparently more astute than Bill O'Reilly.  Good for them! ~ Norman E. Hooben
North Dakota Names Landfill After Obama
Source: The Currant
In an overwhelming 35-10 vote, the state Senate advanced a bill naming a 650-acre site currently under construction after the nation’s 44th president. Governor Jack Dalrymple is expected to sign the measure into law Tuesday.

When completed, the Barack Obama Memorial Landfill will be the largest waste disposal site in North Dakota, and the 17th largest in the United States. It will be especially rich in toxic waste from the local petroleum and medical industries.

“We wanted to do something to honor the president,” says Republican State Senator Doug Perlman, who was the lead sponsor of the bill. “And I think a pile of garbage is a fitting tribute to Obama’s presidency.

“We originally planned on naming it after a nearby mountain. But then someone jokingly suggested we name it after Obama. I never thought and idea like that would actually pass. But I was pleasantly surprised.”

The president is hardly popular in North Dakota. The most recent poll in December 2013 found that Obama has a 35% approval rating in the state, although that figure may have fallen further in the year since. Yet even considering the political climate, seasoned observers are surprised that two Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill’s passage.

“I supported Obama because I thought he would end the wars in the Middle East;” says Allison Mitchell, a progressive Democrat from Grand Forks. “But he decided to fight new wars abroad instead of fighting for single-payer health care and jobs here at home.

“I guess people expected me to oppose this landfill thing because I’m a Democrat. But honestly I don’t really care anymore. Maybe this small act of protest will wake him up.”

Ordinary citizens in the state also seem to approve of the government’s choice.

“I can’t think of a better name,” says Joe Blough, a plumber from Minot. “It’s darkly colored and it's full of shit. That pretty much sums up Obama.”

Sunday, November 23, 2014

A Case For Public Owned Banks...the privately-owned major media have tried to sweep under the rug

"...the public banking model is simply more profitable and efficient than the private model."

WSJ Reports: Bank of North Dakota Outperforms Wall Street
by Ellen Brown @ The Web Of Debt
While 49 state treasuries were submerged in red ink after the 2008 financial crash, one state’s bank outperformed all others and actually launched an economy-shifting new industry. So reports the Wall Street Journal this week, discussing the Bank of North Dakota (BND) and its striking success in the midst of a national financial collapse led by the major banks. Chester Dawson begins his November 16th article:
It is more profitable than Goldman Sachs Group Inc., has a better credit rating than J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and hasn’t seen profit growth drop since 2003. Meet Bank of North Dakota, the U.S.’s lone state-owned bank, which has one branch, no automated teller machines and not a single investment banker.
He backs this up with comparative data on the BND’s performance:
[I]ts total assets have more than doubled, to $6.9 billion last year from $2.8 billion in 2007. By contrast, assets of the much bigger Bank of America Corp. have grown much more slowly, to $2.1 trillion from $1.7 trillion in that period.
. . . Return on equity, a measure of profitability, is 18.56%, about 70% higher than those at Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. . . .
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services last month reaffirmed its double-A-minus rating of the bank, whose deposits are guaranteed by the state of North Dakota. That is above the rating for both Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and among U.S. financial institutions, second only to the Federal Home Loan Banks, rated double-A-plus.
Dawson goes on, however, to credit the BND’s remarkable performance to the Bakken oil boom. Giving his article the controversial title, “Shale Boom Helps North Dakota Bank Earn Returns Goldman Would Envy: U.S.’s Lone State-Owned Bank Is Beneficiary of Fracking,” he contends:
The reason for its success? As the sole repository of the state of North Dakota’s revenue, the bank has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the boom in Bakken shale-oil production from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. In fact, the bank played a crucial part in kick-starting the oil frenzy in the state in 2008 amid the financial crisis.
That is how the Wall Street-owned media routinely write off the exceptional record of this lone publicly-owned bank, crediting it to the success of the private oil industry. But the boom did not make the fortunes of the bank. It would be more accurate to say that the bank made the boom.
Excess Deposits Do Not Explain the BND’s Record Profits
Dawson confirms that the BND played a crucial role in kickstarting the boom and the economy, at a time when other states were languishing in recession. It did this by lending for critical infrastructure (roads, housing, hospitals, hotels) when other states’ banks were curtailing local lending.
But while the state itself may have reaped increased taxes and fees from the oil boom, the BND got no more out of the deal than an increase in deposits, as Dawson also confirms. The BND is the sole repository of state revenues by law.
Having excess deposits can hardly be the reason the BND has outdistanced even JPMorganChase and Bank of America, which also have massive excess deposits and have not turned them into loans. Instead, they have invested their excess deposits in securities.
Interestingly, the BND has also followed this practice. According to Standard & Poor’s October 2014 credit report, it had a loan to deposit ratio in 2009 of 91%. This ratio dropped to 57.5% in 2014. The excess deposits have gone primarily into Treasuries, US government agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities. Thus the bank’s extraordinary profitability cannot be explained by an excess of deposits or an expanded loan portfolio.
Further eroding the Dawson explanation is that the oil boom did not actually hit North Dakota until 2010. Yet it was the sole state to have escaped the credit crisis by the spring of 2009, when every other state’s budget had already dipped into negative territory. Montana, the runner-up, was in the black by the end of 2009; but it dropped into the red in March of that year and had to implement a pay freeze on state employees.
According to Standard & Poor’s, the BND’s return on equity was up to 23.4% in 2009 – substantially higher than in any of the years of the oil boom that began in 2010.
The Real Reasons for Its Stellar Success
To what, then, are the remarkable achievements of this lone public bank attributable?
The answer is something the privately-owned major media have tried to sweep under the rug: the public banking model is simply more profitable and efficient than the private model. Profits, rather than being siphoned into offshore tax havens, are recycled back into the bank, the state and the community.
The BND’s costs are extremely low: no exorbitantly-paid executives; no bonuses, fees, or commissions; only only one branch office; very low borrowing costs; and no FDIC premiums (the state rather than the FDIC guarantees its deposits).
These are all features that set publicly-owned banks apart from privately-owned banks. Beyond that, they are safer for depositors, allow public infrastructure costs to be cut in half, and provide a non-criminal alternative to a Wall Street cartel caught in a laundry list of frauds.
Dawson describes some other unique aspects of the BND’s public banking model:
It traditionally extends credit, or invests directly, in areas other lenders shun, such as rural housing loans.
. . . [R]etail banking accounts for just 2%-3% of its business. The bank’s focus is providing loans to students and extending credit to companies in North Dakota, often in partnership with smaller community banks.
Bank of North Dakota also acts as a clearinghouse for interbank transactions in the state by settling checks and distributing coins and currency. . . .
The bank’s mission is promoting economic development, not competing with private banks. “We’re a state agency and profit maximization isn’t what drives us,” President Eric Hardmeyer said.
. . . It recently started offering mortgages to individuals in the most underserved corners of the state. But Mr. Hardmeyer dismisses any notion the bank could run into trouble with deadbeat borrowers. “We know our customers,” he said. “You’ve got to understand the conservative nature of this state. Nobody here is really interested in making subprime loans.”
The Downsides of a Boom
The bank’s mission to promote economic development could help explain why its return on equity has actually fallen since the oil boom hit in 2010. The mass invasion by private oil interests has put a severe strain on the state’s infrastructure, forcing it to muster its resources defensively to keep up; and the BND is in the thick of that battle.
In an August 2011 article titled “North Dakota’s Oil Boom is a Blessing and a Curse”, Ryan Holeywell writes that virtually all major infrastructure in the boom cities and counties is strained or exhausted. To shore up its infrastructure needs, the state has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Meanwhile, it is trying to promote industries other than oil and gas, such as companies involved with unmanned aircraft, manufacturing associated with wind energy equipment, and data centers; but the remoteness of the western part of the state, along with the high cost of labor, makes doing business there complicated and expensive.
Hydrofracking, which has been widely attacked as an environmental hazard, is not as bad in North Dakota as in other states, since the process takes place nearly two miles underground; but it still raises significant environmental concerns. In 2011, the state levied $3 million in fines against 20 oil companies for environmental violations. It also undertook a review of industry regulations and was in the process of doubling its oil field inspectors.
The greatest stresses from the oil industry, however, involve the shortage of housing and the damage to the county road system, which in many places consists of two-lane gravel and dirt roads. Drilling a new well requires more than 2,000 truck trips, and the heavy rigs are destroying the roads. Fixing them has been estimated to require an investment of more than $900 million over the next 20 years.
These are external costs imposed by the oil industry that the government has to pick up. All of it requires financing, and the BND is there to provide the credit lines.
Lighting a Fire under Legislators
What the Bank of North Dakota has done to sustain its state’s oil boom, a publicly-owned bank could do for other promising industries in other states. But Dawson observes that no other state has yet voted to take up the challenge, despite a plethora of bills introduced for the purpose. Legislators are slow to move on innovations, unless a fire is lit under them by a crisis or a mass popular movement.
We would be better off sparking a movement than waiting for a crisis. The compelling data in Dawson’s Wall Street Journal article, properly construed, could add fuel to the flames.
Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are at
North Dakota Special: "...a fitting tribute to Obama’s presidency."

Dear Mr. President, Did I miss something?

Excerpted from An Open Letter To The President by Stephen Green

Dear Mr. President,
You keep using this phrase “if Congress refuses to act,” and I keep wondering,”If Congress refuses whom?” I’m not one of those Tea Party racists who carries a tiny version of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or whatever in his pants pocket all the time, but I did pull up a copy of it online, and I don’t see anything in there about you being able to demand anything of Congress. It doesn’t even say here that you’re allowed to introduce your own bills. And then you said that thing that the House refuses to vote on a Senate bill, but I also don’t see anything in here that says the Senate can demand anything from the House or vice versa. They both have to agree on the same stuff without any demands at all, and then you have to sign it and then it’s a new law. Or did I miss something?
See full reading here: An Open Letter