The most depressing thing I've ever read.

This just might be the most depressing thing I've ever read. 
Seriously. 

The experiment was prompted by Obama's recent comments that things like ATM's, airport check-in ticket scanners, and other technologies have killed a lot of jobs. 

Please pray for our nation.

Barack Obama and Libya and Superman and The Justice League and The Beatles

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. 

One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war.  If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days. 

We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days.  If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.   

John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval.  Here's what he got back:

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

Where to begin, where to begin.....

Let's start with this:  We are NATO.  Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis.  Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League.  If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting.  Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting. 

Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up.  In the words of the Beatles....

"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."

The United States is 75% of NATO.  It wouldn't exist without us.   

Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support.  If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support.  We wouldn't think twice about it.

If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans.  We would consider them as hostile combatants. 

Okay, about that "no-fly zone"....  If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action. 

Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles"....  If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin.  The result is the same.  We're dropping bombs on Libya. 

Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya. 

Congress needs to man up and demand it.  Then vote it up or down.  That's how it is supposed to work. 

Speaking of  "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus". 

Ron Paul vs Anthony Weiner on the Drug War

Go here to see the text. 

Some Fairly Unique Synergized Solutions

This guy is accepting nominations for the Top 100 Cliches in the English language. 
I'll post my nominations later, mostly from the sports world, but he's off to a great start with no help from me.
(By the way, did you folks know that I'm employed by the world's leading value-added, vertically integrated, synergized supplier of Produce Elevation Solutions?  Yep.  That means we build all of the components of some really good fruitstands.) 

Here's th list so far: 
 1. It’s the economy, stupid.
2. A week is a long time in politics. Or variants thereof, such as, “If a week is a long time in politics then a month seems an eternity.”
3. What part of x don’t you understand? Although this one seems to have nearly died out already.
4. Way beyond, or way more.
5. Any time soon.
6. “Events, dear boy, events.” (Except as the name of an excellent political blog, currently in abeyance.)
7. Learning curve.
8. Raising awareness.
9. Celebrating diversity.
10. In any way, shape or form.
11. Inclusive.
12. Community, especially a vibrant one.
13. Hearts and minds.
14. Celebrity.
15. Makeover.
16. Lifestyle.
17. Going forward.
18. A forward policy.
19. A big ask.
20. At this moment in time.
21. Not fit for purpose.
22. Hard-working families.
23. Apologies for lack of postings.
24. Black hole (in a financial context).
25. The elephant in the room.
26. Perfect storm.
27. Seal the deal.
28. A good election to lose.
29. Game-changer.
30. Beginning an article with “So”.
31. IMO, IMHO, LOL, ROFL and so on. I mean, whose opinion is it going to be? Genuinely witty abbreviations, however, are permitted, for example, QTWTAIN, YYSSW, IICRS (Questions to Which the Answer is No; Yeah, Yeah, Sure, Sure, Whatever; Iraq Inquiry Coverage Rebuttal Service).
32. Vibrant (when used to mean lots of non-English people).
33. Progressive.
34. Arguably, as in “arguably the most perfect village in the Siebenburgen” (Spectator, 24 July 2010).
35. Headlines beginning “Now”, as in “Now You Pay for Prison Parties.”
36. We will take no lessons on x from y.
37. Beginning a report with “They came”.
38. Iconic.
39. “Action” as a verb.
40. Parameter.
41. The level of.
42. A sense of.
43. A series of.
44. The introduction of.
45. A package of. Especially measures.
46. A basket of.
47. A raft of.
48. A range of.
49. The prospect of.
50. (All) the hallmarks of.
51. “Leverage” as a verb.
52. U-turn as a verb.
53. Dislocate as a noun. Or disconnect.
54. Toilet, storyline or any other unsuitable noun as a verb.
55. Exponential or exponentially used to mean big or a lot.
56. Incredible or incredibly as intensifiers.
57. On a daily basis.
58. It’s in his/her/their DNA.
59. Let’s be clear.
60. At the end of the day.
61. Organic, to refer to anything unrelated to farming or to the chemical science that deals with carbon-based compounds.
62. “The truth is…” before the peddling of an opinion.
63. End of.
64. Any journey not describing travel from A to B.
65. A no-brainer.
66. Pot, kettle.
67. What’s not to like?
68. Max out (in relation to credit cards only).
69. He/she gets it. They get it. He/she/it just doesn’t get it.
70. “All the evidence tells us” to mean “I’ve read something about this somewhere that confirms my prejudices”.
71. Fairly unique.
72. Paradigm shift. Or anything to do with a paradigm.
73. Quantum leap, except to mean a very small change of fixed magnitude.
74. Step change.
75. Sea change.
76. Real people and the real world. In real time.
77. Coffee, the waking up and smelling thereof.
78. Ongoing.
79. Project, except in the construction industry.
80. “No longer.” (Following a loving description of The Way We Were.)
81. Agenda, except to describe a list of things to be discussed in a meeting.
82. Out of the box (especially thinking).
83. Kick the can down the road.
84. Psychodrama. (To describe any tense political relationship.)
85. Radar, to be on someone’s, or to be under the.
86. Name and shame.
87. Does what it says on the tin.
88. Stakeholder.
89. Deliverables.
90. Key (adjective). Especially keynote speech.
91. Enough already.
92. Who knew?
93. Epic fail.
94. See what I/he/she did there?
95. Not so much.
96. Beleaguered, except of a city, town or fort with turrets.
97. Rolling out, except carpet, wallpaper or logs.
98. Forward planning (until invention of time machine allowing other kinds).
99. “And yet, and yet …”
100. The suffix -gate added to any news theme supposedly embarrassing to a government.

Worst. Debate. Format. Ever.

I decided to Tivo last night's Republican debate, choosing to go drink coffee with The Aggie instead of liveblogging it.  Heck, they invited Donald Trump to participate, but didn't invite the only semi-Libertarian with executive-level experience (Gary Johnson). 

Spending time on something else last night was a good call.  Lord have mercy, what a horrible format.  Let's have the moderator ask a question of just a few candidates, then cut to someone in the audience who wants to spend a few minutes asking a question, giving two candidates 8 seconds to answer, let's bracket the commercials with cutesy "either/or" "Letterman/Leno" "sadism/masochism" questions, and then cut to another CNN personality who introduces someone in Gobbler's Notch, New Hampshire, who says something like this:

"Hello, my name is Whited, and I have a Libertarian blog at www.thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com, and while I have no children serving in the military, but I support our troops, and have written extensively on the subject for mulitple periodicals, and have dozens of dozens of Twitter followers, I'd like to ask the candidates a question that I believe goes to the heart of our predicament as taxpayers and voters.  As a blogger and a shipping manager (and a libertarian activist), I depend on a stable fuel supply to run my business.  While this does not have a direct correlation with ObamaCare, what would you do, as President, to defend marriage?" 

I've noticed this for years at literary and political events.  If you're lucky enough to ask, say, Stephen King or Ron Paul a question, get to the point.  The rest of the audience doesn't care about what books your currently reading, your job, or your motivation for asking the question. 

Just ask the question. 

A couple of other things.... When Newt started bragging that he wrote the Defense Of Marriage Act, I almost spewed my breakfast across the den.  I don't care who you are, that's funny. 

Last, with ALL Republicans at this event brandishing their small government credentials for an hour and a half last night, how is it that we're 14 trillion in debt ?

Ayn Rand and Jesus and wanting to have your cake and eat it too

From Rational Public Radio comes an interesting essay about the two factions within the Republican Party - the Ayn Rand faction and the Jesus faction:

This may surprise you but I'm about to agree, in very large part, with the left wing Christian group American Values Network. They recently wrote an essay claiming that Jesus and Ayn Rand were incompatible. That you couldn't hold the values of both simultaneously.


On the surface, that shouldn't be a very controversial position. After all Rand was a notoriously militant atheist philosopher. With the rise of the Tea Parties, Rand's influence has been growing. Rand Paul R-KY assigns some of her work as required reading for his staffers. The Solicitor General, arguing before the eleventh circuit court that Obamacare violated the "constitution of Ayn Rand", but not the constitution of the United States.

After long decades of violent rejection of Rand, the GOP is starting to accept some of her ideas. Slowly, and incompletely no doubt. However, Just as the Republicans of old despised Rand for her atheism (see National Review's slanderous review of Atlas Shrugged) the left hates her for her unflinching support of Capitalism and Free markets.

Rand has risen high enough on the collective radar of the collectivists that they feel the need to counter her influence. American Values Network has released a startlingly honest and accurate attack on her.

"GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values. Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible."



Don't get me wrong, they couldn't be more mistaken in their evaluation of the moral status of Rand and Jesus. However, they couldn't be more right about the conflict between the two. On one hand, there is the mystical altruism commanded by the Bible. The purest political implementation of Altruism is Communism.

Hit the link to read the rest.