With more small businesses closing every day, this type of letter needs to go out to all employees:

To All My Valued  Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the  office about the future of this company, and more  specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed  for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the  good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your  job.

What does threaten your job however, is the  changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as  your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for -  it is against the law to discriminate based on political  affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc.

Please vote  for who you think will serve your interests the best.  However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which  might help you decide what is in your best interest. First,  while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers  against employees, you have to understand that for every  business owner there is a back story.

This back  story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see  and hear.  Sure, you see me park my Mercedes  outside.  You saw my nice home at last year’s Christmas  party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up  some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you  don't see is the back story.

I started this company  12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot  studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was  converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort  into building a company, which by the way, would eventually  employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles  because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I  drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission.  I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on  weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying.  In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work,  discipline, and sacrifice.
 

Meanwhile, my  friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They  drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore  fancy designer clothes.  Instead of hitting Nordstrom's  for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the  Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look  like it was birthed in the 70's.

My friends  refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I,  however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into  a business --- with a vision that eventually, some day, I  too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends  supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at  the office at 9 am, mentally check in at about noon, and  then leave at 5 pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for  me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a  weekend all to yourself.  I unfortunately do not have  the freedom.  I eat, ****, and breathe this company  every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no  weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is  attached to me like a 1 day old baby.

You, of  course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice  house, a nice car, the vacations... You never think about the  back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is  falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right  decisions and saved his money, have to bail out all the  people who didn't.

The people that overspent their  paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I  earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.  Yes,  business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid  is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of  running this business, and employing you, is starting to  eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell  you why:

I am being taxed to death and the  government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes.  Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll  taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes  on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes  and then guess what?   I have to pay taxes for  employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all  the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my  time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for  $288,000 for quarterly taxes.  You know what my  "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question  I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy  who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over  2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or,  the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth  child waiting for her next welfare check?

Obviously,  government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this  country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of  your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean,  why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only  50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job  is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ..  to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the  economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I  didn't need to pay taxes, guess what?   Instead of  depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I  would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated  substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed  the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and  better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you  have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't  defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring  him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his  heart?   Business is at the heart of America and  always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not  kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe  the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American  economic engine.

Nothing could be further from the  truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where  am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new  taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be  swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your  co-workers.   You can then plead with the  government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your  child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then,  I will close this company down, move to another country, and  retire.

You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country  that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive.  My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed,  and with it, will be my citizenship. 

While tax  cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget  the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to  tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make  decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the  economics of business ownership and who doesn't?  Whose  policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and  you should know who might be the one capable of saving your  job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy  Stupid" I'm telling you it isn't.

If you lose your  job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at  the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this  country, steamrolled the Constitution, and will have changed  its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in  the South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no  employees to worry about.

Well worth the read:

By its actions, the IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Unreliable

Posted on July 16, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Foreword: Readers may recall that we covered the InterAcademy Council finding here on WUWT, in IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials followed by IPCC’s Pachauri should resign for “failures of leadership” Now, with virtually no notice, the IPCC has implemented a change in response to these findings, essentially admitting their past work was flawed both procedurally and factually. As a sidenote, we have Donna Laframboise to thank for much of the work in uncovering flaws in the IPCC. – Anthony

By Joseph L. Bast
On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story.  The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming.  Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.


If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined.  The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary.  Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted.  Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.

The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure.  Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).  In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18).  Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).  In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking.  “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote.  The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really?  Too political?  We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics.  Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting.  Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?
Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34).  Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007.  Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.”  Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement.  Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.”  Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.  The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all.  That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.
So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report.  Nothing to see here…keep on moving.
Well I say, hold on, there!  The news release means that the IAC report was right.  That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable.  Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised.  It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014?  The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already.  They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree.  Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?
In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false.  On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better.  But where do we go to get our money back?

Joseph L. Bast (jbast@heartland.org) is president of The Heartland Institute and an editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, a series of reports published by The Heartland Institute for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

Source:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/by-its-actions-the-ipcc-admits-its-past-reports-were-unreliable/#more-67582

My dad always said that banks only loan money to people who don't need it.  We decided to apply for a home equity loan for various reasons.

We have a couple of credit cards we use to pay household bills and then we pay the bill in FULL when it is due.  I had one card we were carrying a balance on at 0%.

The lender demanded that we have NO balance showing on any credit card accounts before they would continue to process the loan application.  Whaaaa.....???  The cards I have give between 1% and 5% cash back, but I can't continue to get that benefit so I can show that I don't need a loan to be able to get a loan.

So being wise with my credit cards is working against me.  Think about it, if I get a 5% cash back on purchases and I make $500.00 worth of purchases every month, that means in a year I get $300.00 cash back every year.  That is enough to make the payment on the loan for one month.

$  500.00
x         12
$ 6000.00
x        .05
$  300.00

As the saying goes:  Go Figure! 

So, I have paid off the credit cards now so it looks like we don't need a loan.  I hope the credit card companies don't get mad at me for not needing their credit too.

Huh?

I am worried now. I cannot figure out if President Obama is ignorant, an idiot, a robot or just stupid. Maybe his teleprompter doesn't like him anymore. It could be his speech writers are out of work comedy writers from Conan O'brien's run with NBC.

There has been a lot of buzz about the commencement speech the Prez gave yesterday. I have heard quite a few commencement speeches and often they are poor at best. To me this one fits that category.

The smartest man in Washington DC said he doesn't know how to use an iPod, Xbox or PlayStation. I suppose that was meant to be a "laughter" line in a mediocre speech. Did the writers not realize the speech would be published and put out on video?

See, this it the thing that bothers me. He is the President of the "lone super power in the world", and yet he doesn't realize that people actually pay attention to what he says. I would think he learned a thing or two from watching what the press did to previous presidents, BUT maybe he doesn't know how to work a VCR or DVD player either. [Laugh line... come on, laugh!]

Maybe he thinks he is above the jabs of the press. They wouldn't do that to him... would they? Well, if it sells papers and ups hits on web sites they will! Duh!!!

Okay, here is another part of what is unsettling. I have made a few speeches in my life. I have written out my speeches, see I don't have a teleprompter. I have changed those speeches during the speech when something I wrote just didn't sit right when said in front of a crowd. It appears our Prez cannot do that.

It has me wondering, "What else does he say (read) that is untrue."

See the President said the following in his speech:

And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

Now, I don't know which to believe. In a way it sounds accurate that the President of the USA doesn't know how to work an Xbox or a PlayStation because they do not "...bombard us with all kinds or content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter."

See, I am older than the President and I do know a little about Xbox and PlayStation and they don't bring in content that is measured on a "truth meter". Maybe the Prez was speaking the truth when he said he doesn't know how to work them.

OR

Maybe he is getting his truth from video games! That is scary. That is real scary!

On the other hand, the Prez said that he doesn't know how to work an iPod. I find that interesting because you can listen to him on your iPod through iTunes. Also, did he think we forgot this embarrassing gift to the queen just a year and 40 days ago?

Barack Obama's gift for the Queen: an iPod, your Majesty

By Toby Harnden World Last updated: April 1st, 2009

Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.

It is believed the Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she is said to have bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9355453/Barack_Obamas_gift_for_the_Queen_an_iPod_your_Majesty/

I understand that he is a busy man. I would think though that he could send a text message from his Blackberry to his speech writers saying knock off the stupid comedy attempts, they make me look stoopid. But maybe I am assuming too much. Maybe Berry's Blackberry is just for show and he doesn't know how to work it either.

Maybe he just wanted to sound "hip" with the technology generation. Maybe he is a robot and does not think for himself at all. (Actually that might explain a lot of things.)

I have a two words for the President. Grow UP!

I also want to know how the free flow of information stops the "emancipation". Emancipation from what? Emancipation to what?

Words actually have meanings there Berry, if you knew how to use an iPad, you could use the dictionary app and find out such things on your own.

Sheesh!

Oh, and, our REPUBLIC needs some pressure, a lot of pressure...

They don't get it!

So it has been a while since I commented on anything. Not that there has been nothing to comment about, just too much to spend time doing so.

The article below brought me back.

"They" just don't get it. That is right, they don't get it. With all of the 527 groups throwing millions and millions into elections every time there is one, just WHO do they think funds the 527 groups?

George Soros who bets real money against government currency and was convicted of insider trading in France is a HUGE contributor to 527 groups.

"Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $5 million to MoveOn, and $10 million to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election." The Wikipedia article further states this: "Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the 2004 presidential election, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. Despite Soros' efforts, Bush was reelected to a second term as president.

After Bush's re-election, Soros and other donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance which supported the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party. Soros supported the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which many hoped would end "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has made soft money donations to 527 organizations that he says do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

So tell me that Corporations have not been influencing and trying to influence elections in "legal" ways. The ruling the Demigod er, I mean Democrat Party doesn't like is going to make it so that information is up front instead of hidden behind a 527 organization.

Gotta love the spin though.

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137
Wed Feb 17, 2:46 pm ET

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.

However, Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

Perhaps the new poll numbers show that McCain might have been onto something.

-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News blog

Postmodern President

Postmodernist President and gifts to the Queen

I just cannot not talk about this: Obama gives the Queen of England an iPod as his gift for her hospitality. This after giving the Prime Minister a gift of favorite films that had the wrong country code, so they cannot be watched in the PM’s home country.

I have to say that Obama is the quintessential Postmodernist. I did a short search and found an article on ABC.com from two years ago (listed below). The salient parts are below:

During their visit to Saudi Arabia alone, the royal couple received a variety of presents, including a white Arabian stallion and a pair of swords given to the prince by the Saudi royal family.

And Obama gives an iPod. An iPod loaded with “Show Tunes”? Seems who ever thought this would be appropriate misunderstood the true meaning of “queen”… .

Oh, but wait (Billy Mays reference), Obama (his people actually) also put on video of her recent visit. Whaaaa???? Do we not think that the Queen of England has her own videography people and sources? If she wanted to watch herself all she would have to do is request or demand it. This is the stupidest of stupid head of state gift I can think of. I actually though it was an April Fools joke when I first heard it.

But none of the other gifts came close to matching the value of three jewelry sets (known as parures) bestowed upon the duchess by her Saudi hosts. Together, the three sets -- one emerald, one ruby and one sapphire -- are estimated to be worth nearly $3 million.

This is what other heads of state do when they exchange gifts, and the Obama administration decides that a $400.00 electronic device. http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_touch?mco=MTI3Njg Okay, lets be generous and say that it was the top of the line unit and had several hours of upload time. It was personalizes with engraving and maybe a rhinestone or two super glued on it (another Billy Mays reference). Then it is worth what? $1,500.00? Oh, Wow!

Indeed, gifts from foreign heads of state as well as private individuals form a good part of the royal collection.

I am certain that the Obama iPod will be center in the collection at Buckingham Palace. I can imagine in a couple hundred years historians will be inventorying the collection and find the dust covered iPod and say: “What was he thinking?” Who knows this could be the very thing that makes the American Revolution look like a picnic.

Although the gifts are usually cultural in nature -- representing the arts and crafts of the country in question --

So we give the Queen of England an item that was hecho en China… . What does that say about the culture of the United States of America. We have to farm our culture out? We have a video/electronic culture. We don’t do arts and crafts in the USA. We just do magnetically stored media. What a sad, sad truth about out culture. I am embarrassed as a citizen.

When the duchess wore the ruby and diamond necklace during her U.S. tour, she made sure that all eyes would be on her. As the blogger behind the royalist Web site commented: "How better, then, to catch the eyes of the British press than turn out in a striking necklace which has raised the hackles of some and the intrigue of others."

Oooh, can’t you see it now? The next time the Queen of England visits, she is walking down Pennsylvania Avenue with her ear buds in place listening to show tunes. The press will follow her around speculating on which show tune she is listening to at the moment! “All eyes will be on her…”

And while there is nothing untoward about the royal family receiving gifts, our journalist source described such lavish gifts as "an eye-opener," adding that "although this was quite common in the 1970s, these days it is less so. It shows the extent of the prince's links with the Saudis."

I am wondering what kind of link does the gift of an iPod show with the USA. The gift certainly was not what one would call “lavish”. Every 14 year old has an iPod along with their sagged pants and surly attitude. An 8 year old with an iPod might be an “eye opener”, but the Queen of England with an iPod is just silly.


These gifts are considered official and are regarded as gifts to the nation, not to the individual. They may be used, but cannot be sold or exchanged, eventually forming part of the royal collection.

To the people of England (our Mother Country), I truly apologize for the “gift” we gave your Queen. See we have a wannabe as a President and he has no concept of what decorum is in the world theater. If the iPod does not find its way to the Royal Collection, I will understand. If it shows up in some flea market, that is much more appropriate. Maybe it can be used to steady the royal table or one of the glass showcases in the collection.

I as an American an embarrassed by this obvious show of disrespect. I credit it with the whole postmodern movement. There is no decorum. There is no respect. There is no “right way”. There is no reference point in anything that is done by postmodernists.


But for some this does not go far enough. "I have no objection about the royal family receiving these kinds of gifts. But I think that the public should know all the details, including the value of the jewels," Lacey said.

I doubt that there will be such a hue and cry about the iPod gift from Obama. Direct from Apple, it is $400.00 (plus shipping and uploading costs). I guess this does bring the Queen down to “our level”. What would I expect from a Community Organizer poser who pulled off the largest scam and deceit ever.

All of this in just his first 70 or so days. I can hardly wait for the next 1,200 days to reveal the rest of the story.

To think that people said that George W. Bush was an amateur… !

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Gifts Fit for a Queen?
Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles Disclose Their Recently Recived Royal Gifts.
By AMMU KANNAMPILLY
LONDON, Feb. 26, 2007

"Treat your guest as if he were God" so runs an ancient Sanskrit saying.
Well, some people seem to have taken those words to heart, as Camilla Parker-Bowles (the Duchess of Cornwall and wife of Prince Charles), found out during her March 2006 visit to Saudi Arabia.

Today, for the first time, the British public learned about the incredible variety (not to mention the sheer number) of gifts the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall received on their recent overseas tours.

In an apparent bid for transparency in this sensitive area, officials at Clarence House, the royal couple's London residence, released the list of gifts received, not just from the Saudi Arabia trip but from all travel between 2003 and 2006.

During their visit to Saudi Arabia alone, the royal couple received a variety of presents, including a white Arabian stallion and a pair of swords given to the prince by the Saudi royal family.

But none of the other gifts came close to matching the value of three jewelry sets (known as parures) bestowed upon the duchess by her Saudi hosts. Together, the three sets -- one emerald, one ruby and one sapphire -- are estimated to be worth nearly $3 million.

The existence of these three parures came to light when the duchess attended a white-tie gala in Philadelphia earlier this year and wore a glittering ruby and diamond necklace, one of three the Saudis gave her.

A journalist who specializes in covering the royal family spoke to ABCNEWS.com on the condition of anonymity, saying that "there is no controversy as such about gifts, the royal family can accept gifts and often does."

Indeed, gifts from foreign heads of state as well as private individuals form a good part of the royal collection.

Although the gifts are usually cultural in nature -- representing the arts and crafts of the country in question -- sometimes they are just plain weird -- as was the case with the huge yak presented to the prince by the village of Altit, Pakistan. It was a rare instance when a royal gift was returned to its owners, presumably because yaks don't travel well.

And sometimes, they are more than just a little bling. Leslie Field's book on the royal jewelry collection, "The Queen's Jewels," recounts an anecdote about a gift made to the queen when she was a young girl -- a diamond necklace and bracelet that she grew to love and later called "my best diamonds."

Charles' first wife, the late Princess Diana, was no different when it came to her love of glittering gifts. When she visited Saudi Arabia with the prince in the 1980s, her hosts treated the couple with characteristic generosity, sending Diana off with a priceless jewelry set.

But never before have such gifts of jewelry received the press coverage they now get, which may have been the idea all along, as far as Camilla Parker Bowles was concerned.

When the duchess wore the ruby and diamond necklace during her U.S. tour, she made sure that all eyes would be on her. As the blogger behind the royalist Web site commented: "How better, then, to catch the eyes of the British press than turn out in a striking necklace which has raised the hackles of some and the intrigue of others."

Far from being hidden in the international pages, the visit and the royal couple made it to the front pages of most British tabloids and broadsheets that morning -- all on the strength of one shiny, glamorous piece of jewelry.

Of course, the resulting publicity also brought the provenance of the necklace into question.

And while there is nothing untoward about the royal family receiving gifts, our journalist source described such lavish gifts as "an eye-opener," adding that "although this was quite common in the 1970s, these days it is less so. It shows the extent of the prince's links with the Saudis."

Perhaps it is with a view to discouraging such speculation about the prince's links to the Saudis that Clarence House today released a list of recently received gifts on its Web site.
These gifts are considered official and are regarded as gifts to the nation, not to the individual. They may be used, but cannot be sold or exchanged, eventually forming part of the royal collection.

In recent years, however, controversy has erupted over the prince's decisions to either approve the sale of several unwanted gifts for charitable purposes or give such items away to staff, who later go on to sell them.

Royal historian Robert Lacey told ABC news, "This is an area of protocol that has still got to be resolved. There are very strict rules about politicians [receiving gifts]. When it comes to the royal family, it has never been resolved."

Clarence House therefore seems keen to keep up an impression of transparency.
But for some this does not go far enough. "I have no objection about the royal family receiving these kinds of gifts. But I think that the public should know all the details, including the value of the jewels," Lacey said.

When asked about the value of the jewelry given to the duchess, a royal spokeswoman said only that "We never inquire about the value of gifts, because we don't need to for tax reasons," as all gifts to the royal family are tax-free, "and, second, it could cause offense to the giver."

She added, however, that the "gifts from the Saudi royal family are not typical of the gifts given to the prince and the duchess."

Typical or not, they certainly seem to attract the most attention. And the generosity shows no signs of abating just yet.

At present, the royal couple are midway through a 10-day tour of the Gulf states. Yesterday, they were jointly presented with a gold Arabian sword by the King of Bahrain.

And last night, the duchess wore a large gold pendant and shiny, dangling earrings to stunning effect. Both pieces looked vaguely Middle-Eastern, but when asked if they were gifts, her aides refused to comment.
Casey Schwartz contributed to this report

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2905397&page=1

The end of Cowboy Diplomacy and let the Pajama Party begin!

Yup, that is what the former First Lady and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared would be the result on her being elected President of the United States (POTUS) during her time on The View today 10-15-2007.

She went on to describe how in her delusion… er… ummm… vision, we will link arms with Nations around the world.

Whaaaa… We are going to link arms like in some drug fueled Woodstock dance? We are going to dance through the daisies in the rain singing in perfect harmony! We can braid each other’s hair, burn bras and sleep together in a communal bed. Just a minute, let me wash my eyes out with muriatic acid.

Maybe candidate Clinton was thinking of something like A Chorus Line or The Rockettes. A whole group of doplomats (sic) doing the high step, linked arm in arm wearing garters and little maid outfits, feather boas and matching headdresses.

This is what I have come to call a “Pajama Party” idea. If you have participated in or heard about an adolescent female Pajama Party (also known as a “Slumber Party” or a “Sleepover”). At these events, the participants do a lot of giggling, tittering and imaginative talking. Long term plans are made with the football team captain or quarterback. The class president or some other admired “hunk” that they know (or don‘t know). Weddings are planned, children are named, the number of children are declared, a house with a white picket fence is described. It is lovely.

None of these Pajama Party fantasies come true. They can’t real life gets in the way of fantasies. Hunks have B.O. too, they get sick, they have a mind of their own. They don’t like blonds or brunettes or redheads. They don’t want to be married to their mother. They go bankrupt, lose their hair or find some 19 year-old who will do those kinds of things.

See, the way I view it, Candidate Clinton is doing the VERY same thing she accuses the current President Bush of doing in Iraq. She has a “perfect plan” and doesn’t realize that any (Pajama Party) plan sounds like it will work until “the boots hit the ground”. “Linking arms” is good talk on The View. It is so unrealistic in real life. Nations have their own best interests in their minds. The World is a competitive place. Candidate Clinton seems to not understand this. She seems to believe that she will be the next Princess Di. The only issue that is glaring to me is that Candidate Clinton actually wants to be Queen of the World (ala Leonardo in Titanic). She will say or sell out anyone or anything to be able to wave from the motorcade again.

I am concerned that she believes the story of Marie Antoinette saying, “Let them eat cake!” Candidate Clinton seems to believe that the Federal treasury has no limits. She seems to believe she will have unlimited access to the Federal checkbook. More Pajama Party thinking.

Now, back to the adolescent Slumber Party. One common theme is the desire to have their hunk ride in on a white horse and save them. What is the theme of most movies? A lone hero, or a group of heroes coming in to save the day. Think about ANY western, or any hero or super hero movie. I mean ANY movie. Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Speed, Rocky, Die Hard, Beverly Hills Cop, Home Alone, Bruce Lee’s Enter the Dragon and even National Lampoon’s Vacation all have a hero who works pretty much alone, comes in to save the day. Even if he is a little bit of a bumbler.

I am sure that Candidate Clinton in her Pajama Party thinking believes that the world leaders will join together arm in arm to make her Queen of the world.

Reality says that it is the Cowboys that get things done. They don’t do it alone, but they lead the charge. Donald Trump, Patton, FRD, Eisenhower, Washington, Lincoln, GW Bush and Reagan all got things done.

Where is former President Clinton on this list? Well he is having his own Pajama Party with a 19 year-old... under the desk.


Below is some Cowboy Wisdom to consider:

Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

Don't never whittle towards you and never spit against the wind.

There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works.

Letting the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier 'n putting it back in.

If you're ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.

If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else's dog around.

Be cautious in choosing a mate, don't go settlin' for one who can't open the gate.

A mountain lion felt so good after eating an entire bull he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him...........
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.

Never kick a cow chip on a hot day.

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco.

If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

It don't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep.

Always drink upstream from the herd.

The quickest way to double your money is to fold it over and put it back in your pocket.

There are three kinds of cowboys: The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. And the rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

Don't worry about bitin' off more'n you can chew; your mouth is probably a whole lot bigger'n you think.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.

Keep skunks, lawyers, developers, and bankers at a distance.

Life is simpler when you plough around the stump.

Forgive your enemies. It messes with their heads.

Don't sell your mule to buy a plough.

Don't corner something meaner than you.

It don't take a very big person to carry a grudge.

Every trail has some puddles.

Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.

Don't interfere with something that ain't botherin' you none.

Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

It's better to be a has-been than a never-was.

Never drop your gun to hug a grizzly.

Making it in life is kind of like busting broncos. You're going to get thrown a lot. The simple secret is to keep getting back on.

There are more horses asses than horses.

Never ask a barber if he thinks you need a haircut.

Like a good cowboy, a good hat just gets better as it gets older.

When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on.

When you're throwing your weight around, be ready to have it thrown around by somebody else.

Never get up before breakfast. If you have to get up before breakfast, eat breakfast first.

The easiest way to eat crow is while it's still warm. The colder it gets, the harder it is to swaller.

If it don't seem like it's worth the effort, it probably ain't.

Never follow good whiskey with water, unless you're out of good whiskey.

Genius has its limits. Stupidity knows no bounds.

Some men talk 'cause they got somethin' to say. Others talk 'cause they got to say somethin.

Never wrestle with a pig, You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.

Careful is a naked man climbin' a bobwire fence.

If you can't sing -- dance.

Broke is what happens when a cowboy lets his yearnin's get ahead of his earnin's.

Generally, you ain't learnin' nothing when your mouth's a-jawin'.

A good horse never comes in a bad color.

Any cowboy can carry a tune. The trouble comes when he tries to unload it.

Behind every successful rancher is a wife who works in town.

You can't trust your dog to watch your food.

Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear or a fool from any direction.