New Discussion on Your FreedomConnector Group: 100 Million Patriots Standing

> Carolyn Crawford has started a new FreedomConnector discussion on your group:
> 100 Million Patriots Standing
>
> Subject: Here is anohter EXAMPLE of how BO is PURPOSELY TRYING TO BANKRUPT
> OUR COUNTRY
> ------
> *IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free... The offer is true.
> Mort Zuckermann, US News and World Report, a Democrat, was interviewed
> on Fox and confirmed it. IBM has confirmed it. You won't believe it .
>
> IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
>
> What if I told you that the Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J.
> Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration
> before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce
> healthcare expenditures by $900 billion? Given the Obama
> Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had
> to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most
> dedicated welfare recipient, one would think he would have leaned
> forward in his chair, cupped his ear and said, "Tell me more!"
>
> And what if I told you that the cost to the federal government for this
> program was nothing, zip, nada, zilch?
> And, what if I told you that, in the end and after two meetings,
> President Obama and his team, instead of embracing a program that was
> proven to save money and one that was projected to save almost one
> trillion dollars - a private sector program costing the taxpayers
> nothing, zip, nada, zilch - said, "Thanks but no thanks" and then
> embarked on passing one of the most despised pieces of legislation in US
> history?
>
> Well, it's all true.
>
> Samuel J. Palmisano, the Chairman of the Board and CEO for IBM, said in
> a recent Wall Street Journal interview that he offered to provide the
> Obama Administration with a program that would curb healthcare
> claims fraud and abuse by almost one trillion dollars but the Obama
> White House turned the offer down.
>
> Mr. Palmisano is quoted as saying during a taping**
> **<**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcR_bLBHcJo*
> *> of The Wall Street
> Journal's Viewpoints program on September 14, 2010:
>
> "We could have improved the quality and reduced the cost of the
> healthcare system by $900 billion...I said we would do it for free to
> prove that it works. They turned us down."
>
> A second meeting between Mr. Palmisano and the Obama Administration took
> place two weeks later, with no change in the Obama Administration's
> stance. A call placed to IBM on October 8, 2010, by FOX News confirmed,
> via a spokesperson, that Mr. Palmisano stands by his statement.
>
> Speaking with FOX News' Stuart Varney, Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief
> of US News & World Report, said,
>
> "It's a little bit puzzling because I think there is a huge amount of
> both fraud and inefficiency that American business is a lot more
> comfortable with and more effective in trying to reduce. And this is
> certainly true because the IBM people have studied this very carefully
> And when Palmisano went to the White House and made that proposal, it
> was based upon a lot of work and it was not accepted. And it's really
> puzzling...These are very, very responsible people and don't have a
> political ax to grind.
>
> In Mr. Obama's shunning of a private sector program that would have
> saved our country almost $1 trillion in healthcare expenditures,
> presented to him as he declared a "crisis in healthcare," he proves
> two things beyond any doubt: that he is anti-Capitalist and anti-private
> sector in nature and that he can no longer be trusted to tell the truth
> in both his political declarations or espoused goals.*****
> ****
>

Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
Added to cato.org on August 31, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 31, 2011.

PRINT PAGE

CITE THIS

Sans Serif

Serif

Share with your friends:

ShareThis

Texas governor Rick Perry is being criticized for calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." Even Mitt Romney is reportedly preparing to attack him for holding such a radical view. But if anything, Perry was being too kind.

The original Ponzi scheme was the brainchild of Charles Ponzi. Starting in 1916, the poor but enterprising Italian immigrant convinced people to allow him to invest their money. However, Ponzi never actually made any investments. He simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. He then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn't expand the number of new investors fast enough, and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.
Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those "early investors" who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.

 

As with Ponzi's scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.
As with Ponzi's scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today's young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even.
Eventually the pyramid crumbles.
Of course, Social Security and Ponzi schemes are not perfectly analogous. Ponzi, after all, had to rely on what people were willing to voluntarily invest with him. Once he couldn't convince enough new investors to join his scheme, it collapsed. Social Security, on the other hand, can rely on the power of the government to tax. As the shrinking number of workers paying into the system makes it harder to continue to sustain benefits, the government can just force young people to pay even more into the system.
In fact, Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.
In addition, at least until the final collapse of his scheme, Ponzi was more or less obligated to pay his early investors what he promised them. With Social Security, on the other hand, Congress is always able to change or cut those benefits in order to keep the scheme going.
Social Security is facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Raising taxes and cutting benefits enough to keep the program limping along will obviously mean an ever-worsening deal for younger workers. They will be forced to pay more and get less.
Rick Perry got this one right
 
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

This Will 'Make Your Day'- - - - - -

 

The epitome of narcissistic behavior--- will America survive--- running out of time !!                 Secret Service Buys Two New $1.1 Million Buses For Three-Day Trip… US President Barack Obama (C) walks to his bus as he arrives in Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Minnesota, August 15, 2011, where he is to begin his three-day bus tour in the Midwest centering on ways to grow the economy. (AFP PHOTO/Jim WATSON) He FLYS into an airport somewhere in the Midwest, hops into a brand new 1.1 Million $ bus, paid for by you and me,  for a "bus tour" 'around the Midwest', and after an hour or so, gets driven back to the airport for ANOTHER FLIGHT, lands at another airport where another 1.1 Million $ brand new black bus is waiting for him… and repeats all that until his Midwest bus'tour' is done??  Oh yes......and THEN he leaves on a 12 day vacation to Martha's Vineyard.......to REST UP from this campaign bus tour! And don't forget.......those brand new shiny black buses aren't DRIVEN to the location where they meet Obama. Those buses are loaded up on one or more C-17s. Then, they are flown to the destination ahead of Air Force-1. AND!.......this is REPEATED FOR EVERY CAMPAIGN STOP. On this 'bus tour', the Prez will lecture the 'little people' on how they need to live within their means and cut-back!  Remember when very recently Obama told that family man to GO BUY A HYBRID VAN when he said he couldn't afford to fill up his truck ???? Obama's 'carbon footprint' must be as large as most cities by now. All of this on the taxpayer's dime..... Oh, and the busses weren't made nor sold in the USA but in CANADA! But remember, this is NOT a campaign trip - it is "Meet with the people" trip only!  So with that the DNC does NOT pay a cent for all of this.   It might be possible for BO to tell the truth about something, even do something responsible, but it surely is not likely.

The Big O At The Bank...

President Obama walks  into the Bank of America to cash a check. As he approaches the cashier he says  "Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check  for me"?

 

Cashier:  "It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID"?

 

Obama: "Truthfully, I did  not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there would  be any need to. Let me be clear, I am President Barrack Obama, the President  of the United States of America!"

 

Cashier: "Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the  latest Government regulations, and monitoring of the  banks because of impostors and forgers, etc. I must insist on seeing ID"

 

Obama:  "Well, just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am!"

 

Cashier: "I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank  rules and I must follow them."

 

Obama: "Make no mistake, I am urging you please to cash  this check!"

 

Cashier: "Look Mr. President this  is what we can do: One day Tiger Woods came into the  bank without his ID. To prove that he truly was Tiger Woods, he pulled  out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across  the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be  Tiger Woods and cashed his check.

 

Another  time, Andre Agassi came in without his ID. He pulled out his tennis racket and made a fabulous shot where the tennis ball actually  landed in my coffee cup. With that spectacular shot we  knew that he was Andre Agassi and cashed his check.

 

So, Mr.  President, what can you do to prove that it is truly  you, and only you, as the President of the United  States?"

 

Obama stood there thinking, and  thinking and finally says: "Honestly, there is nothing  that comes to my mind. I can't think of a single thing. My mind is a complete  blank."

 

Cashier: "Would you like the cash in  large or small bills, Mr. President?"

 

 

WWII pacific..

 WWII pacific..

Here's some pictures that didn't make the news reels !

 

Wow... real behind the scenes !

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/7thfighter/IwoJima?authkey=Gv1sRgCIW06db_6oth&feat=email#5448300755900061282

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/7thfighter/IwoJima?authkey=Gv1sRgCIW06db_6oth&feat=email#5607427842628194130

Real Conspiracies

Here is a link to an interesting read. http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3869

---

Tags: conspiracy,kennedy,government,theories,truth,cover-ups To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

The Matured Versus the Immatured

The Matured Versus the Immatured

By Paul David Keefe · Monday, August 29, 2011
In our country America, and in all the planets first world countries, there is only one real division between all the people, it is not race, it is not sex, it is not political, it is found somewhere along the developmental line of the maturation process. There are but two sides, one, the matured, two, the immature, and there are no others. This may seem ridiculous, surely it is black versus white, or at least majority versus minority, but no, surely it is the feminine versus the masculine, again no, but it must be liberal versus conservative, right, no. There is only maturity versus immaturity.
All humans are born 100% immature, the maturation process strives for 100% maturity, but this like perfection, is rarely, if ever, achieved. As a process however there is at least a line of demarcation, separating out those who are basically matured from those who, for their own peculiar and particular problem, cannot overcome a hurdle, a hurdle that may appear small to one already matured, but to them still stands mountain tall as it did in their childhood.
The matured among us have not mastered maturity. There will always arise, given enough time, something new the matured must mature through. However, what the matured have mastered is the maturation process, and given the short period of time needed to accomplish maturity on this new hurdle, the matured will. The same is not necessarily true for the immature. They may mature here and there, may mature over some new hurdle, but they have not mastered the maturation process as evidenced by their particular immaturity, something somewhere so big to them they are incapable of rising above via the only means for rising above and maturing beyond their mountainous problem, the maturation process.
Where the mature graduates beyond any given problem, as a track and field athlete clears hurdles and proceeds, the immature cannot, but he must proceed, just like the matured. Incapable of hurdling his obstacle, he chooses to go around. He passes go, collects his 200 dollars, but he does not mature, his immaturity has now become a permanent part of his psyche. This immaturity becomes a big chink in his armor, a canker in his flower, it demands of him a resolution and he resolves this problem via the construction of an illusion. It is an illusion design to hide his embarrassment, his failure, and offer up instead a perfectly and seemingly legitimate position, but of course it is a false position.
So important does the commitment to his immaturity become, so embarrassing is his failure that, he must defend the illusion, as the illusion defends him, at all costs, and unfortunately that cost, experienced as a price to be paid, as burden upon the back, is experienced by the entire populace of the given group, here the country.
Johnny liberal, a little boy, is so freighted by the big bad boogie man that he goes around in avoidance of him rather than find his St. George courage, face his fear and clear this obstacle of his maturation process. Years pass, he becomes a man in body, but there is a chink in his armor, a canker in his flower, and an illusion in his personality, designed to cover this failing, his cowardice complex.
Unfortunately for his country, every time a challenge besets the country involving that which elicits his cowardice complex, his illusion must spring into action, ultimately protecting himself, at the expense of others, from his own failings in the maturation process, here his cowardice complex. For those who remember his Presidency, this was Jimmys problem, and why Iran is now controlled by the insanity of Islam.
One day matured and immatured fellow countrymen, come to grapple over Islam, as Islam advances aggressively to conquer and submit. Both think they are arguing objectively, but in reality, the matured argues objectively, while the immatured argues subjectively.
The matured wishes to protect and preserve his country and his countrys culture, the immatured wishes to protect and preserve his illusion, so necessary to his false pride and false appearance as an adult in mind. For the immature to fail here, the biblical disaster, the most feared of the feared would transpire, his illusion would be crushed and he would be forced to face his monster, his cowardice complex he has worked so hard to hide, even from himself.
Therefore, the immature, having shirked his responsibility to the maturation process, sloughs off upon his country and in particular the mature, the price of his irresponsibility, the price of his immaturity. If this price is the eventual conquering of country and culture by the insanity of Islam, that is inconsequential, that is not his problem. His problem is to protect and preserve his illusion at all expense.
This of course is why a liberal, the immatured, seem sick and stupid, seem insane, because they defend not their country, but their inner illusion at the exspense of their country, but they do so as if they were as objective as the matured, letting it not be seen that they are really arguing subjectively, to protect themselves.
Whatever particular failing any given liberal has in the maturation process, they all accept the others problem, as the others accept their problem, this is the comradery among the immature, the liberals, and for them it is the glue that bonds.
With this understanding it came to pass, quite clearly in my mind, that arguing with a liberal is the equivalent of arguing with a mental patient in the psyche ward, as meaningless as two people talking about two different realities, while both think they are talking about the same reality.
Frustration and anger, not resolution, is all that materializes. One wonders if it is worth soldiering on, or should a new alternative be sought out.
I shall try to keep the faith.

Pres. may be in deep trouble

 

I do not know who originally wrote this but I like the subject matter and believe it states truth even if there is no proofs herein.                           President May be in Deep Trouble   This will be an interesting turn of events if it does come to the surface.....bring it on!! Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble...with Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court. According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.  The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling. As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court , even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years. Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough.  The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.  A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.  Such a thing would be long overdue. First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.' Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.  The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii . And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration. In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona . That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens. And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.  This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS LIST!!! P.S.  Hopefully, liberals will finally come to realize just what he has been doing against our Constitution.  It's just plain un-American.

We are losing our essential Freedom - of Speech

With the right to free speech, we can claim all our other rights. Without it, how might we stop Government from taking all others. Free speech does not require we agree with others but allow them their public opinions. The Lefts' assaults requiring Political Correctness defined by Liberal Politicians indebted to specific groups financing their re-elections wish statutory restrictions on speech concerning Homosexuality, Islam, Terrorism, Welfare, Multiculturalism, Races and more by anyone whose voiced or written thoughts on morals or ethics might cause any discomfort. The state should not be comfortable, nor allowed, regulating public discourse.
 
You can be sure I despise Barack Obama as I do any other socialist and consider his every gaseous emanation offensive but I believe he needs to be allowed to speak. Naturally, I think those who support him ignorant in need of education but not gagging. The Left disagrees. Marxism, Communism, and Socialism cannot exist alongside free speech thus always seek restrictions.
 
Today's Democrats decry Tea Party, Christian, Conservative, and Republican public disagreements as "hate speech" driven by ignorance and evil intent that must be curbed for the betterment of the "State" (or public). Too many public officials, prosecutors, and media seem to think there is but one side to any debate, the liberal, and are ever more comfortable openly arguing just that. Christianity, other moral setting religions, and political Conservatives are often portrayed as restrictive, evil, wrong, and not to be tolerated by those who would extensively restrict speech for the first time in nearly 400 years. To negate free speech is to negate equality under law. When individuals control what may be said publicly, rights accrue only to certain interest groups favored by those individuals, Liberty ceases.
 
Perhaps racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and all offensive utterances are wrong. Government's criminalization micro-regulating compliance is infinitely worse. Only free thought expressed freely allows open debate improving relations by exposing both good and bad to be accepted as society sees fit.
 
PL Booth, The BLue Eye View of MO, 8/29/11
 
 

BO vs. Reagan

For the Record

It's time for Reaganomics again

"If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama. The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus. By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would 'overheat.' In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a 'double-dip' recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight. My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't." --columnist Stephen Moore

Kerby's Point of View - Already Gone

  Kerby's Point of View - Already Gone

August 29, 2011 Already Gone Kerby Anderson       Most parents believe that their children's Christian faith really won't come under attack until they leave home for college. They have seen other kid's faith falter in college and naturally assume that the university environment is toxic to a Christian's faith. While the last part of that assumption may be true, the rest of these assumptions are false.     First, Christian young people begin to have doubts about their Christian faith long before they head off to college. That is the researched conclusion from the book Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer. On my radio program they explained the results of their research. American Research Group made 20,000 phone calls and conducted detailed surveys of 1,000 twenty-somethings who used to attend evangelical churches on a regular basis. When asked when they first had doubts, 40 percent said in Middle School and 44 percent said in High School.     The study found that we are losing our Christian kids in middle school and high school rather than college. The title of the book says it all. They are "already gone" even though they are sitting in the pews and going to church. Ham and Beemer concluded that the youth in our churches are not being taught apologetics and therefore do not know how to answer the skeptical questions of our age.     A second issue is whether the university is toxic to Christian faith. Of course it is, but the latest studies by sociologist Christian Smith shows that youth that do not go to college show the same (even slightly greater) drop off in religious commitment. In other words, the culture is just as toxic to Christian faith as the university.     Parents (as well as pastors, teachers, and youth leaders) need to understand the crucial need to prepare our youth for a culture that is hostile to their faith. They may be in our churches and youth groups, but there is growing evidence that many of them are "already gone." I'm Kerby Anderson, and that's my point of view.   Point of View | P.O. Box 30 | Dallas, TX 75221  Click here to view this message as HTML in your browser. Click here to forward this message. Click here to change your email preferences. Click here to Unsubscribe from e-mail.

nonprofit software

Bright College Days (Paul Jacob wonders about the isms bred in colleges)

 Bright College Days (Paul Jacob wonders about the isms bred in colleges)  -  Our "higher learning centers" often referred to as colleges teach socialism at almost every level and the situation has gotten worse with each year. Keep your kids at home, teach them to work for a living, send them to local schools where you can still have some influence upon them or send them to the military where they'll learn something useful.

August 26, 2011 Bright College Days We parents worry when we send our kids off to college. But do we worry they'll become terrorists? No. But a funny and slightly disturbing article by Colin Lidell in Taki's Magazine takes notice of the deep connection between college life and terrorism. Indeed, "every major Islamist terrorist attack in Britain has been led by university students or recent graduates." Lidell makes a broader point, too, even with his title: "The Persistence of Bourgeois Radicalism." Universities and colleges have long served as hotbeds of extremism: Becoming "radicalized"--whether your bearded prophet happens to be Marx or Muhammad--is essentially code for having too much time on your hands and a sense of smug entitlement. This is the essence of university life. With three years of sleeping late, anything seems possible. The author concludes that the best cure for such radicalism is the requirement of work. He leaves that thought to linger in the readers' minds, letting us extrapolate upon government subsidies to increase the rolls of college student bodies. A related fact, uncovered by previous scholars of Islamic radicalism, is that the main subsidizer of Muslim radicals in the West have been the welfare states of those countries. It seems that the safety nets of British and European states (as well as Canadian and Australian governments) have funded quite a number of terrorist cells. Perhaps one reason America has nurtured fewer home-grown terrorists is our tougher-to-obtain "welfare." This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob. Comment on this episode | View/download the PDF	Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge and Citizens in Charge Foundation, which sponsors both Common Sense and Paul's weekly Townhall Column. The opinions expressed in Common Sense are Paul Jacob's and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Citizens in Charge or Citizens in Charge Foundation.

This email was sent to plbooth@centurytel.net by commonsense@citizensincharge.org |   Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Citizens in Charge Foundation | 2050 Old Bridge Road | Suite 103 | Lake Ridge | VA | 22192

Hubris

Read the diffinition of Hubris at end.
>
> Very interesting to see how two different presidents view their contributions ---- 

> Call it HUBRIS ...Interesting speech analysis.
> WHAT A DIFFERENCE
 
> George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam Hussein:
> The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq .
> The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the
> dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by
> a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many
> dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and
> freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the
> nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'them.
> 

>
> Barack Hussein Obama speech, Sunday, May 1, 2011:
> And so shortly after taking office,Idirected Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the
> killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as Icontinued
> our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
> Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by myintelligence community, I was briefed on
> a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread
> to ground.I met repeatedly with mynational security team as we developed more information
> about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of
> Pakistan . And finally, last week, Idetermined thatI had enough intelligence to take action, and
> authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
> Today, at mydirection, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in
> Abbottabad , Pakistan .

 
Hubris ( /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, means extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

BO,arrogance,bush,justice,two different presidents

A picture is worth more than a thousand words

In some cases, a picture is worth more than a thousand words.  This picture
speaks volumes.

"Witnessing the Republicans and the Democrats bicker over the U.S. debt is like to watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic."

Emailing: rickperry

 

 

Emailing: rickperry VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL This album has 1 photo and will be available on SkyDrive until 11/24/2011.

Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
rickperry

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Emailing: no more bo chg

 

 

Emailing: no more bo chg VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL This album has 1 photo and will be available on SkyDrive until 11/24/2011.

Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
no more bo chg

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.