It’s not just hard on those who actually deploy.
Notes on having a husband deployed in Afghanistan
By Morgan deBoer
WHEN I PICTURE IT happening, I envision myself as a 1960s housewife. I’m wearing a Betty Draper-style dress and an apron instead of the more likely yoga pants and t-shirt. My hair and makeup are done and I’m vacuuming or maybe rolling out a pie crust. I’m home. It’s daytime and two men in khakis come to my door and hand me a note that says my husband has been killed in action. Then they leave. And I’m alone.
The first time my husband deployed, I drove home from the airfield, laid myself down on the living room floor, called my mom and asked, “Can I die from this?” When I imagine what it would feel like for me to actually lose him, I almost can’t breathe.
He is in Afghanistan now and I think about the reality of his dangerous job 100 times a day. I daydream outrageous scenarios all the time, like winning Best New Artist at the Country Music Awards. But losing my husband, or a friend, is an actual possibility. According to the DOD report, as of 17 Janurary, 4,421 service members have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1,864 in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).
When it actually happens, they say, someone will come to your house so quickly that you won’t have time to worry. What if I’m at work? They’ll come to your work. What if I’m at the grocery store? They’ll wait at your house. What if I’m sleeping and I can’t hear them? They knock loud.
Four days after my husband left this time, I was awoken by my cell phone ringing sometime around midnight.
“Hello Mrs. deBoer. I’m calling to inform you that…”
An officer at my husband’s command told me that there was a serious injury on my husband’s team and then, I swear to God, the longest thirty seconds of my life passed before he said “your husband was not hurt.”
He told me that there was nothing I could do yet, except spread the word that only one person was injured and he was alive in serious condition. He told me the wounded sailor’s name and said I could call back if I needed anything.
I got out of bed and sat on the living room floor and cried.
My husband is on a team of 18 men. I have met about half of them during this training cycle, and I don’t know any of them well.
I met the now injured sailor once when my husband and I drove him to the airfield the day he deployed. There was no major sendoff, it was just us, at 10pm dropping two guys off in a parking lot on a big military base. One grabbed his bags, shook my husband’s hand, and walked away.
The other grabbed his bags, shook my husband’s hand, and looked at me and said, “Can you be my…” and I gave him a hug, and patted his back, and said, “Please be safe.” And he is now recovering from a traumatic brain injury. He has a wife, and a baby, and they lived in my neighborhood.
Don’t forget to thank those who serve, have served & those left behind. It may be tougher on them. After all, they’ve had no training.
A lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Sheriffs Deputy.
He thinks that he is smarter than the Deputy because he is sure that he has a better education.
He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the deputies expense…
Deputy says, “License and registration, please.”
Lawyer says, “What for?”
Deputy says, “You didn’t come to a complete stop at the stop sign .”
Lawyer says, “I slowed down, and no one was coming.”
Lawyer says, “What’s the difference?”
Deputy says, “The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that’s the law. License and registration, please!”
Lawyer says, “If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I’ll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not you let me go and no ticket.”
Deputy says, “Exit your vehicle, sir.”
At this point, the deputy takes out his nightstick and starts beating the crap out of the lawyer and says: “Do you want me to stop or just slow down?”
Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.
Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”
Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”
Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”
Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”
Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”
Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”
Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”
Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”
Attribution: Weekly Standard
From time to time we get a peek inside the mind of a true insider. George Soros knows a thing or two about destabilization and far from equilibrium situations. He’s been on the giving and receiving ends of both.
From surviving the Nazi occupation of Hungary during World War II, to single handily crashing the currencies of entire nations, the experience he brings to the table should not be ignored.
With his deep connections in economic and political circles, if there’s anyone who knows what’s coming next, it’s Soros.
In his book The Crash of 2008 and What It Means, Soros warned that no matter what governments did, there was no way out of the trap in which the world – namely The United States – finds itself:
“So what does the end of an era really mean? I contend that it means the end of a long period of relative stability based on the United States as the dominant power and the dollar as the main international reserve currency. I foresee a period of political and financial instability, hopefully to be followed by the emergence of a new world order.”
Nearly four years on, the crisis, according to Soros, is now very much teetering on the edge of the instability he forecast in his book:
Via The Daily Beast:
For the first time in his 60-year career, Soros, now 81, admits
he is not sure what to do. “It’s very hard to know how you can be right, given the damage that was done during the boom years,” Soros says. He won’t discuss his portfolio, lest anyone think he’s talking things down to make a buck.
Has the great short seller gone soft? Well, yes. Sitting in his 33rd-floor corner office high above Seventh Avenue in New York, preparing for his trip to Davos, he is more concerned with surviving than staying rich.
“At times like these, survival is the most important thing,” he says, peering through his owlish glasses and brushing wisps of gray hair off his forehead. He doesn’t just mean it’s time to protect your assets. He means it’s time to stave off disaster. As he sees it, the world faces one of the most dangerous periods of modern history—a period of “evil.”
Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. In America he predicts riots on the streets that will
lead to a brutal clampdown that will dramatically curtail civil liberties. The global economic system could even collapse altogether.
“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros tells Newsweek. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”
Soros draws on his past to argue that the global economic crisis is as significant, and unpredictable, as the end of communism. “The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening.”
As anger rises, riots on th
e streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
One of the leading financial minds and policy influencers in the world has just outlined the best and worst case outcomes for this crisis, and both of them are disastrous.
We cannot stress enough to our readers that, despite the many criticisms, Mr. Soros knows what he’s talking about. He is connected to all of the major players on all levels – economic, financial, political – you name it.
He has gone so far as to suggest that the consequences for America are a complete breakdown in law and order, riots in the streets, financial collapse, and a repressive government response.
Even the best and the brightest don’t know what to do, other than to duck and cover.
It’s coming, and it can’t be stopped.
of us like-minded people have been warning of this possibility & preparing for it. I don’t know what will happen, nor does anyone else.
Recently & by sheer coincidence I’m sure, Obama signed the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. Buried in this law is the fact that the Commander-in-Chief can have anyone, citizen or non, pulled off the street, dragged away & detained for as long as they wish, without being charged.
What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
From Godfather Politics:
On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter tried unsuccessfully to explain why Romney got beaten by Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Here’s what she said:
“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.”
When I first heard this, I thought the article was about Catherine Coulter, the mystery writer.
Ann Coulter is the queen of the “snotty remark.” Her entire career has been built on the quick retort, the turn of a clever phrase, and buckets of snotty remarks. Coulter is the epitome of the put down. She has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.”
Who is Coulter supporting? Romney. You all know the run-down on Romney. This is not to say that Gingrich doesn’t have his own load of excess baggage. What many people like about Gingrich is that he’s not afraid to take on the media.
Something has happened to Coulter in the past year or two. She began to move leftward. Maybe she was trying to broaden her speaking options. She used to get pies in the face by liberal groups. Now she’s invited to speak at their conferences.
For example, she spoke at GOProud’s HOMOCON
2010. This engagement resulted in her removal from World Net Daily’s “Taking America Back” conference. It is unfortunate that Coulter is willing to be a vehicle of legitimacy for a group that certainly goes against the foundation of conservatism.
Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, had this to say about the incident:
“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.”
Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time.”
She went on to say, “I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion.”
Soon after, Coulter joined the board of the pro-homosexual GOProud. “I am honored to serve in this capacity on GOProud’s Advisory Council, and look forward to being the queen of fabulous,” Coulter said in a statement.
Coulter can’t be trusted as a reliable conservative voice.
A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting alone. After an hour of gathering up his courage he finally goes over to her and asks, tentatively, “Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?”
Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table.
After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes.
She smiles at him and says, “I’m sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I’m a graduate student in psychology and I’m studying how people respond to embarrassing situations.”
To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, “What do you mean $200?”
Six House Dems Would Confiscate Oil Company Profits
by Steve Maley
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D’OH), have filed a bill aimed at controlling gasoline prices. Styled the “Gas Price Spike Act”, H.R. 3784 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” which would have the power to confiscate 100% of oil company profits above a level that they deem to be “reasonable”.
I know: “You had me at ‘Kucinich’.”
Kucinich is either a naive fool, a craven panderer to his electorate, or a throwback to Soviet-style central planning. That he could find five other elected nitwits (Reps. Woolsey, Langevin, Conyers, Fudge and Filyers) to put their names on such an anti-capitalist, unconstitutional fantasy is an indication that the Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party has left the ranch.
Consider, too, what it says about “Republican” presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who recently declared that he would consider Kucinich for a cabinet post in a Paul Administration.
Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.
The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and [natural] gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”
Oil companies would only be able to make less than a reasonable profit without penalty. Anything over 105% of reasonable would be taxed at 100%. Proceeds of the confiscation would be dedicated to tax credits for high-milage vehicle purchase and mass transit subsidies for the poor.
Peeling back the layers of stupidity in H.R. 3784 would be akin to peeling an artichoke. In the interest of time, I will cut to my central point.
Implicit in the very suggestion that a Windfall Profit Tax is called for is the notion that somehow the oil companies are able to manipulate the price of oil, and hence, gasoline.
Gasoline prices are at historically high prices. Despite the spike above $4.00 per gallon in 2008, you actually paid 10% more at the pump in 2011.
When we refer to the industry as “oil and gas”, we mean “oil and natural gas”, not oil and gasoline. All oil companies make a substantial fraction of their revenue — many more than half — from natural gas.
The price of natural gas has plunged to 10 year lows recently as a result of warm winter temperatures, slack industrial demand and burgeoning supplies.
Natural gas prices have fallen to levels that make it difficult to justify drilling for more. Many of the new supplies of gas that come on will be incidental to the successful search for oil.
I challenge anyone who believes that oil companies control the price of oil and gasoline to explain how they do it, and why they seemingly have no control of natural gas.
I don’t often do this, as in, send you to another site, but this is just too critical. It is especially important if you are currently supporting or are considering supporting Newt Gingrich. He is NOT the conservative he claims to be! He is not a Constitutionalist. Please click on the link below and listen to both clips in their entirety. Pass it on to anyone who supports Newt.