This and That...

[Ross]

I received this one by e-mail.

Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader

See how smart you are.

Six trivia questions to see how much history you really know. Be honest; it's kind of fun and revealing.

If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all of the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers.

And, no, the answers to these questions aren't all Barack Obama.

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few.....And to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

3) "We.....Can't just let business as usual go on and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khruschev
B. Joseph Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Tung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong II
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. Barack Obama
E. None of the above


SCROLL DOWN FOR ANSWERS........




.......And the answers are:


(1) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hilary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hilary Clinton 5/29/2007


(3) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hilary Clinton 6/04/2007


(4) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hilary Clinton 6/04/2007


(5) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hilary Clinton 6/04/2007


(6) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hilary Clinton 9/02/2005


Don't forget, H. Clinton was a student of Saul Alinsky.

HOW SAUL ALINSKY TAUGHT BARACK OBAMA EVERYTHING HE KNOWS ABOUT CIVIC UPHEAVAL



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/03/14/how%20saul%20alinsky%20taught%20barack%20obama%20everything%20he%20knows%20about%20civic%20upheaval/

[Ross]

Marines May Deploy on Foreign Ships,
Because U.S. Navy
Doesn't Have Enough

BY: Aaron MacLean

June 22, 2015 10:54 am

The Marine Corps is looking at putting Marines and helicopters on the ships of foreign allies because
the U.S. Navy can't provide enough amphibious support for the Corps' missions,
a Marine general tells USA Today.

The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

"There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added.

The Marines have been working with Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and other close allies to determine the suitability of the foreign ships for U.S. personnel and aircraft.

This is not the first attempt by the Marine Corps to deal with the shortfall in amphibious vessels in an unconventional way. Earlier this year, for example, it was reported that the Marine Corps had already begun running limited operations off of Navy supply ships that are crewed by civilians.

Among the interesting elements of this morning's report is the way in which the Marines are making no effort to dress up the effort to use foreign ships as some sort of partnership effort that benefits the United States. Instead, Cooling paints a concerning picture of a Marine Corps desperate to fulfill operational requirements but lacking support from the Navy to do so.

There is an inside-baseball element of recent Department of Defense history to this. Marine-friendly critics of the Navy have long been frustrated with what they perceive as the Navy's reluctance to fully support the Marine Corps' amphibious mission, preferring to purchase and operate ships that serve other purposes instead.

But there is a larger strategic question here. Why does the Navy have to choose between supporting the Marine Corps and its other major requirements? We live in a world with too many serious crises to count, many of which could require the swift intervention of the sort of light, flexible teams in which the Marine Corps specializes. Supporting such a mission is obviously not the Navy's only priority, but sufficient funding should be available—and better streamlining of the DOD's absurd waste in other areas should be demanded—so that the Navy isn't forced to choose between important operational demands.

Another way of putting the same point is that it turns out that the number of ships you have really does matter. Some may recall that in the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney noted in a debate with President Obama that the Navy was sailing its smallest fleet since 1917. The president returned fire with a full broadside of snark:

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships.

The president's supporters loved it, almost as much as they loved his zinger from the same debate, that, "the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." That remark was intended to make fun of Romney's earlier claim that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." The president was wrong on both counts. Russia is in fact a major geopolitical foe, one that shows nothing but contempt for a liberal, rules-based international order. And the Navy really doesn't have enough ships, to such an embarrassing extent that the Marine Corps is now looking to hitch rides with Spaniards, Italians, and Brits.

This report shows that our military has reached a genuinely pathetic milestone, and there is no sign that the administration has any interest in stopping the decline. This nation has enough wealth to give that Marines what they need without forcing the Navy to scale back on its other priorities. Which Republican candidates will make defense spending, and the security and international leadership it purchases, a foundation of their campaign?

http://freebeacon.com/blog/marines-may-deploy-on-foreign-ships-because-u-s-navy-doesnt-have-enough/

[redcliffsw]

Why do they need more money?  Print it.  Crises?  Not really. 

The world evil is in Washington DC. 

[Ross]

[Ross]

I agree with this man. And I think the term Leadership is poorly used by our society.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[/b]

Black Reverend
Issues Startling Wake-Up Call to
White America...
This Needs to Spread

Reverend Jesse Peterson has a stern warning for this country, and he fears the worst if Americans don't wake up.

Peterson believes that if Americans don't stand up and do something — instead of waiting for
so-called leaders to do something — Obama and his ilk will destroy America.

"I've been warning white Americans for 25 years that they're losing their country due to their fear of being called racists. And now we have a stone racist in the White House who is hell-bent on redistributing America's power and wealth," Perterson wrote.

"Due to the outright fear of America's leaders in business and every branch of our government, there appears to be nothing to stop Obama and his minions from bringing America to her knees," he continued.

In his weekly column on WND, Peterson used the Dylann Roof case to prove his point, claiming that while the nation and city of Charleston barely had time to mourn, Obama was quickly pushing his anti-gun agenda.

From there, the Confederate flag came under attack because Dylan posed with one in a picture.

"I was raised on a plantation in the South, and never had a problem with the Confederate flag. It is a symbol of regional pride, and also a reminder of what America has overcome," said Peterson.

He went on to say that leftists "don't care about the flag. They're just using it to attack the South – one of the last bastions of Christian conservatism left in America – to ultimately defeat Republicans. Shame on cowardly Republicans for going along with it."

Peterson believes Republican fear of the White House is the downfall of this great nation. No white man will challenge Obama because he will then be labeled a racist.

Because of this sad fact, Peterson believes change must begin at the grass root level, and he has even started his own nonprofit organizations to fight back against what's happening in Washington.

http://conservativetribune.com/black-reverend-wake-up-call/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=MadWorldNews&utm_content=2015-07-01

[Ross]

These Disunited States

We won't all be celebrating the same thing this July 4th.

By COLIN WOODARD
July 02, 2015

A century and a half ago this weekend, hundreds of thousands of white Americans in the lowland South did something unprecedented in their lifetimes: They declined to commemorate the Fourth of July.  On July 4, 1865, newly freed African-Americans and an occupying army were celebrating the Fourth as a triumph of Revolutionary principles beneath the federal flag and portraits of the martyred Abraham Lincoln. "The white people," a Columbia, South Carolina, diarist reported, "shut themselves indoors."
Now, on the eve of another July 4 one hundred fifty years later, we find that these issues haven't quite gone away. Following the horrific slaughter in a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last month, as Gov. Nikki Haley was calling for removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds, the Ku Klux Klan—still around after all these years—planned to hold a pro-Confederate rally on July 18. In Virginia, the Sons of Confederate Veterans pledged to oppose Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe's order to remove the flag from state-issued license plates, and a new CNN poll shows the nation is still remarkably split on the very meaning of the Confederate flag: Fully 57 percent of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism; opinions on the flag are sharply divided by race, level of education and region.
Welcome to the Disunited States of America. Nominally we are still a single nation, and average Americans still feel a surge of patriotism as they raise their eyes skyward to watch the rockets' red glare at July 4th parties across the country. And of course the idea of a nation of very different kinds of people united only by a common passion for freedom and democracy—E Pluribus Unum—has always been a part of our self-identity.  Yet in recent weeks a number of social and political issues—the Charleston slaughter, made more horrific by a vicious online manifesto in which the alleged killer declared he hates the American flag; history-changing Supreme Court decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage that elicited bitter exchanges even among the justices themselves; and heated arguments over marijuana legalization—have highlighted how much remains unresolved in our national conversation.
All these modern trends have deep roots in the past that go beyond the simplistic "red," "blue" and "purple" categories we typically apply to politics today.  Political parties are largely window dressing; what matters most is where in the country one lives. Examine a wide range of phenomena at the county level—presidential voting results, indices of health, income inequality, education, social mobility, dialects and religiosity—and you'll see a recognizable pattern of regional ideologies and political preferences going back a century or more. It isn't and never has been as simple as North versus South, urban and rural, or the effete coasts set against the rugged interior. Rather, our most abiding geographic differences can be traced back to the contrasting ideals of the distinct European colonial cultures that first took root on the eastern and southern rims of what is now the United States and then spread across much of the continent in mutually exclusive settlement bands, laying down the institutions, symbols and cultural norms later arrivals would encounter and, by and large, assimilate into.
Despite a lot of migration and the creation of more and more cosmopolitan metropolitan areas, these regional divisions have in many respects been growing stronger, not weaker, over time, hobbling our sense of common purpose and Congress' effort to do something as routine as passing a budget.
***
Perhaps there's some consolation in continuity—in the fact that Americans have celebrated the Fourth in distinctive ways that reflect our enduring regional differences. Throughout the antebellum period and most of the Civil War, the South had celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but with a very different emphasis from their counterparts in the Yankee North. Whereas Yankees venerated the second paragraph of the Declaration, with its proclamation of the equality of men, their inalienable rights, and government's duty to secure them, lowland Southerners paid homage to the first and last: an assertion of the rights to rebel against a tyrannical empire that denied local leaders the sacred liberty of self-government.
Long before the Civil War, the United States had been torn between competing visions of what the American experiment was all about, with the northernmost tier of the country emphasizing collective action to build an allegedly stronger, better and more just Union while the southernmost tier championed self-government, the liberties of local rulers and the sanctity of local tradition. The other regions—and there were well more than two—found themselves caught in between.
Strikingly little has changed. Before last month's Supreme Court ruling, the states that still banned gay marriage were concentrated in the Deep South and Appalachia; the states that spearheaded its legalization were concentrated in New England, with Massachusetts leading the way back in 2003. Obamacare passed Congress in 2010 because of overwhelming support in New England and the Yankee-colonized districts of the Upper Great Lakes and Pacific coastal plains and despite bipartisan rejection across the former Confederacy, where every state save Arkansas has also declined to expand Medicaid.
These enduring regional fissures have also caused a deep polarization in national politics over other "wedge" issues that tend to divide the country. According to a Pew Research study from June 2014, "Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines—and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive—than at any point in the last two decades." Oddly enough, such trends  have only been exacerbated by modern technology. Ever-faster means of transportation and communications, rather than dissolving differences between regions, appear to be reinforcing them.
Indeed, last year, Nate Silver and Harry Enten used data from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey to demonstrate that people moving from a liberal area to a conservative one and vice versa tend to have political attitudes that resemble those in their destination, not their old home. "If anything, movers generally have more extreme political views than natives," Silver and Enten wrote. "Thus, the process of intra-country migration could be contributing to political polarization rather than making states more purple."
As journalist Bill Bishop and sociologist Robert Cushing demonstrated in The Big Sort, for decades now, relocating Americans have chosen to move to communities where people share their values and worldviews. Even social media, in which ideologically like-minded people find one another in virtual communities, tends to accelerate a trend already underway whereby people tend to live, talk and associate only with others who think like them. As a result, the proportion of voters living in counties that consistently give landslides—more than a 20 percent margin of victory—to one party or another increased from 26.8 percent in 1976 to 48.3 percent in 2004. The volume of people is significant, and has benefited the GOP, with a net 13 million people moving from Democratic to Republican landslide counties between 1990 and 2006 alone. In doing so, they're often moving between regional cultures and increasing the differences between them.
Understanding our divisions requires going beyond state boundaries and conventional regional categories they delineate. Often arbitrarily chosen, state borders slash through cohesive regional cultures, which is why there are massive political fault lines in states like Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Texas and Oregon. There's a reason Maryland's congressional delegation was sharply divided on geographic grounds when contemplating the Deep South secession in 1861 and why the electorate in the central and northern coastal strip of California broke with the rest of the state over same-sex marriage in 2008's Proposition 8. The portion of Ohio settled by New Englanders is still evident on county maps of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections—a strip of blue across a largely red state. In the 2012 GOP presidential primaries, Rick Santorum owed his surprise triumph over Newt Gingrich in Alabama and Mississippi to his overwhelming margins of victory in the upland parts of those states, which were populated via a Scots-Irish settlement stream that came down the Appalachian chain from south-Central Pennsylvania, where voters had helped propel Santorum into the U.S. Senate in the first place.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/july-4-disunited-states-119707.html#ixzz3eywBTQii

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[/b][/color][/size]

July 04, 2015, 12:29 pm

Texas wants to move state-owned
gold back within its borders

Texas is grappling with how it will retrieve and store its gold stockpile within its borders, a new report says.

The Lone Star State has decided it is taking back its gold holdings from a bank in New York, according to The Associated Press.

Texas lawmakers voted on the move earlier this summer.

They want their state's approximately 5,600 gold bars – worth around $650 million – back within Texas boundaries.

"There will always be the exact same amount of gold in there as the amount that was put in," said state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, according to AP.

Capriglione is a former Tea Party activist from outside Dallas who authored the gold retrieval bill.

The new law does not specify where a potential depository should be constructed or secured. It also did not provide funding for building costs or leasing purposes.

Also at issue is a provision allowing Texas citizens to check their own gold or silver bullion into the proposed facility.

"We are honestly at the phase where the questions we are answering are creating more questions that we have to answer," said Chris Bryan, a comptroller's office spokesman.

The comptroller's office has a four-person task force plotting the logistics of the gold stockpile's move and storage, AP said.

The agency recently sent one of its members to a precious metals conference for research purposes.

Capriglione's bill had a proposed cost of $23 million when he first introduced it in 2013.

Fort Knox, for comparison, cost $560,000 in 1936 — or $9.2 million at current currency values, according to AP.

Capriglione has proposed letting private companies create the depository in exchange for levying storage and service fees.

Moving the stockpile would give Texas more control over its gold holdings in the event of a financial crisis.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbot (R) praised the bill's intent upon signing it until law earlier this year.

"California may be the golden state, but Texans deserve to keep their gold in state," he tweeted, according to AP.

The University of Texas Investment Management Company holds Texas' state-owned gold bars.

It began gradually hoarding gold futures in 2009 as a safeguard against currency weakness from the financial crisis.

It now has $25.4 billion in ownings, AP said. Texas' share represents 2.5 percent of that total, it added.

"We don't do politics," said chief executive officer Brian Zimmerman of the new depository. "We're just investors."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/246870-texas-wants-to-move-state-owned-gold-back-within-its-borders

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[/b][/color][/size]

GOOD FOR TEXAS
But haven't they heard ISIS now has all the gold thanks to Obama.
Not really, but it is a good reason to get your gold back home. You can not trust the Federal Government because they behave as if they are a Caliphate instead of America's Government.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY EVERYONE

Personally I can't find anything to celebrate. We have what is being called a dictator.
He is dividing this country from many directions.
He is running secret bills through Congress, even Congressmen are't able to read it.
But, Congressmen don't read the bills they vote on anyway.
There are just to many things corrupt about our Federal Government and way too much lying from it.
Our Federal Government wants to control our health care and the education of our children.
Our President wants to violate our constitution,
Obuma wants to disarm us in violation of our Constitution.
Obuma is pushing perversions in our country.
It appears Obuma supports ISIS instead of fighting it.
Obuma is importing illegal immigrants. Some of which are most likely Muslim Terrorist.
There is just too much to list all that is wrong with our used to be Great Nation to list here.
So "NO" this Vietnam Veteran and Patriot did not celebrate Independence Day.

[Ross]

AMERICA WON'T ESCAPE
GOD'S JUDGMENT

Exclusive: Craige McMillan notes,
'Only 2 paths now lie ahead: repentance or destruction'

The U.S. Supreme Court's disastrous decision on gay marriage marks the end of the rule of law in America. The Constitution is no longer a "living" document, as the "progressive" wing of the court has always referred to it. The Constitution is a dead document.

In the near term, citizens can expect previously unnoticed "rights" to be discovered left and right by five fallible, opinionated, self-indulgent human beings whose decisions have been placed beyond the legislative process – just as the founders warned. America will not survive this onslaught against "the laws of nature and nature's God."

This idea did not begin with Thomas Jefferson. It went back to Marcus Tullius Cicero:

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. ... It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed of its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law that will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge."

Note well the last three words of Cicero's quote: "its enforcing judge." No nation has ever escaped God's judgment, and none ever will. America's overwhelming problems stem from the destruction of the family structure and the protection it provided to young and old alike.

God could be an old man asleep at the switch, and judgment would arrive every bit as reliably as if he were actively hurling thunderbolts down upon us for our lawlessness.

Underneath the left's golden cobblestones of good will, not far down the road they are taking America, is the left's utopia. You will come to know it as hell. Underneath the left's pretty face, it has only ever been about raw, naked power. They view humanity as endlessly malleable and themselves as the sculptor. Having ascended to the levers of statist power from the institutions they first corrupted, they now intend to use that power to reshape men, women and children into their own creation.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler – all were leftist icons who murdered tens of millions of their own people and counted the cost as being acceptable in order to build the new man for the new age. Nothing but blood, tears and destruction ever came of it.

Thus Glenn Beck was correct when he observed, "These are not enemies of man. They are enemies of God."

Only two paths now lie ahead: repentance or destruction.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/america-wont-escape-gods-judgment/

[Warph]

Intellectual Froglegs 6-07-15:

Regulated Freedom - Intellectual Froglegs 07.08.15:




The Official Unicorn Cookbook - Intellectual Froglegs 07.20.15:

 


The Frogleg Minute(ish) – Turtlehead Edition (07.31.15):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpsrw2Ni2x8&list=PLP0PBeDpxopP9dSy0-uodOJndfMa2F9iz


Dear GOP... Intellectual Froglegs 08/16.15:

[Ross]

Welcome back Warph, been missing you.

[Ross]