DISCONNECTION: the Stock Market and the reality of day to day American Life

WHY?

Pink slips being printed as Congress vacations, defense industry likely to cut thousands of jobs

Security group suspects Chinese military is behind hacking attacks

Another Business Visited by Obama Closes

Changes In Tax Structure Creating Angst Among Low, Middle Class

Why More Than 8% Unemployment Could Lie Ahead

Fears at Fed of rate payouts to banks

BIG NEWS: US MILITARY OFFICER FILES FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY FOR SHARIA/BLASPHEMY ENFORCEMENT (CENSORSHIP) ABOUT ISLAM AND JIHAD

From Atlas Shrugs:

US Military Officer Files Formal Complaint Against Hamas-CAIR Terrorist Organization Sharia Unveiled, February 18, 2013

By: Jim Kouri

A top United States counterterrorism expert, who taught a course that familiarized military officers with the U.S. war against radical Islamists was fired from a military college and had his course removed from the curriculum, is retaliating against university officials, according to a U.S. police counterterrorism expert on Friday.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., reportedly filed a formal complaint with the president of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Commission) challenging the accreditation of the National Defense University (NDU) on behalf of Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley (U.S. Army) . 

The police source, Sean Hanrahan, told the Law Enforcement Examiner that the officer/instructor was informed the course materials would be revamped to exclude references to Islam and use terms such as extremists or militants. In addition, the course instructor, Lt. Col. Dooley, was removed from the faculty permanently for telling students that practitioners of Islam are responsible for terrorism.

“One can only wonder how much protection students who practice Catholicism and Christianity would receive from this Administration and its media sycophants — such as TV host Bill Maher — when they verbally attack Christians,” said former police commander and military officer Mike Snopes.

According to a source, the National Defense University’s Joint Forces Staff College course included a slide-show that told students — mostly battle-hardened officers — that the U.S. is fighting a life and death battle with Islamists and that “we need to recognize that the U.S. and its allies are at war with Islam.”

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.

Mask is off Mexican Government: Ignored Fast and Furious, Exploiting Sandy Hook

Mask is off Mexican Government: Ignored Fast and Furious, Exploiting Sandy Hook

From Barrack Now:

The Mexican government is now officially in on it, folks. Yes, suspicions were raised over that government's relative silence about Operation Fast and Furious as the scandal unfolded for nearly two years but now that Mexican politicians are lobbying the U.S. Senate to create a gun registry in states that border Mexico, it's confirmed.

In this local news report from a CBS affiliate in Arizona, citizens who were interviewed about this attempt by Mexican lawmakers to create a gun registry in the U.S. brought up Fast and Furious when asked for their take.

The mask is off Mexico's leaders, whether we're talking about those who didn't stand up when Fast and Furious was exposed or those who are now getting behind Obama's gun control / registration / confiscation push.

Via The Blaze:

CBS 5 - KPHO

In Fast and Furious, the ATF instructed gun store owners in 'border states' - despite the objections of those gun store owners - to sell high powered rifles (AK-47's and .50 Cal.) to straw purchasers who they knew would walk those thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were used - and continue to be used - in the commission of countless murders. The Mexican government was all but silent as a dastardly plan by high ranking members of the Obama administration was implemented in an attempt to create the climate for gun control.

It didn't work and Sandy Hook is Plan B but it's not just the Obama administration who is implementing it. The Mexican government is playing along.

Let's go back to March 24, 2009. A lot happened on that day. First, here is Obama at a news conference telling the press that the situation with regard to guns from the U.S. going to Mexican drug cartels is 'out of control'. What would transpire over the next several months involved an agency under the purview of Obama's Justice Department intentionally making that situation much worse:



Also on March 24, 2009... Deputy Attorney General David Ogden expounds on the same subject and even made reference to 'Project Gunrunner', the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious:



Oh, and let's not forget DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 24, 2009 talking about the same subject. Notice how she talks about 'prosecuting' gun dealers who sell to bad guys. If Fast and Furious hadn't blown up in the administration's face, would the DOJ have prosecuted gun dealers who objected but who were told by the ATF to sell anyway? Napolitano starts around the 2:00 mark:



Here is Obama in April of 2009, shortly after Fast and Furious was put into motion. Notice the message. Innocent Mexicans were being murdered at the hands of guns purchased in the U.S. and something had to be done. Little did we know that the something involved the ATF accelerating the practice of sending guns to Mexico. Why? Well, to create the climate for gun control that would involve things like gun registries in border states:



Two years later, on March 3, 2011 - during a joint press conference at the White House with Obama and Mexico's president Felipe Calderon - the subject of gun violence in Mexico was discussed. Remember, the Obama administration was on defense at the time because of Fast and Furious so there was no aggressive push for gun control. All the two men could do was nibble around the edges. Here is a quote from Calderon, which takes place around the 32:00 mark:

"...with respect to the actions foreign agents in the Mexican land. The law does not allow agents of the United States or any other country to take part in tasks involving justice enforcement in our territory. As a result, they cannot carry weapons or undertake operational tasks. Their functions in line with our treaties are limited to the exchange of information and technical assistance to support Mexican authorities in these tasks... it's very clear for me as well that we must find a way of enhancing the level of protection of any and all agents who are acting within the framework of the law against crime and of course we are deeply analyzing alternatives for this and in dialogue with the Mexican Congress, who is the party who has the final say on this matter."

One of the things we learned in the wake of Fast and Furious is that the ATF was essentially sending high powered weapons to drug cartels without the Mexican government's knowledge. Yet, the Obama administration seemed to get a pass with the Mexican government while the American people are NOT getting a pass from the Mexican government, relative to something they had nothing to do with - Sandy Hook.

At that same March 3, 2011 press conference - shortly after Calderon's aforementioned statement - a liberal, sycophantic, hispanic reporter stuck his nose firmly in Obama's... never mind and asked him why he didn't have the power to 'veto' the second amendment. Obama then proceeded to lie his face off in light of what we now know happened with Fast and Furious. He then laughably says his administration has 'seen progress' with respect to catching straw purchasers.

Via CNS News:



As the operation blew up in the face of the administration, Mexican leaders were all but silent and the Obama administration stonewalled. Now that Sandy Hook is replacing Fast and Furious as the trigger for gun control, Mexican officials are teaming up with the Obama administration in an attempt to do what Fast and Furious failed to do.

US business hits out at ‘Obamacare’ costs

From the Financial Times:

(FT) – US retailers and restaurants chains that employ millions of low-wage workers are considering cutting working hours or paying fines rather than enrolling employees in health insurance plans under Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law.

Employers are concerned that the law increases the cost of insuring employees on existing plans, partly by broadening the range of benefits. It also requires companies to insure some employees not previously covered.

David Dillon, chief executive of the Kroger supermarket chain, told the Financial Times that some companies might opt to pay a government-mandated penalty for not providing insurance because it was cheaper than the cost of coverage.

Nigel Travis, head of Dunkin’ Brands, said his doughnut chain was lobbying to change the definition of “full-time” employees eligible for coverage from those working at least 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week.

Some restaurants, including Wendy’s and Taco Bell franchises, have explored slashing worker hours so fewer employees qualify for health insurance, arguing that they cannot afford the additional healthcare costs. Other businesses are deliberately keeping headcounts below 50.

Mr Dillon said Kroger intended to continue covering all full-time employees but maintained that parts of the law were “simply not workable”.

“If you look through the economics of the penalty the companies pay versus the cost to provide coverage, the penalty’s too low, or the cost of coverage is too high, or the combination is wrong,” he said.

“If [policy makers] get those things too far out of balance, everybody will have to reconsider their position on that point, including us. But we’re going to wait and see how that all develops.”

The penalty for not providing coverage is $2,000 per worker. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan policy group, the average annual cost to employers of insurance is $4,664 for a single worker and $11,429 for a family.

Companies with more than 50 workers have to pay a penalty if they do not provide full-time employees with health insurance. The employees can instead buy private coverage subsidised by the government on new insurance exchanges.

Darden, a US restaurant chain, last year said it was considering slashing its workers’ weekly hours to below the 30-hour threshold but later retreated from the plan after a backlash.

The Obama administration maintains that the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, will improve access to insurance while reducing healthcare costs. A spokeswoman for the government’s health department said that non-partisan studies showed it would have a negligible effect on the labour market.

Read the whole thing.

John Kerry Finally Gets Russia On The Phone One Week After NoKo Nuke Test

Dweebus Not Erectus

It's ok, though. They were washing their hair and doing homework. Didn't hear the phone ringing.

From the Moscow Times:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry finally reached Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov by phone over the weekend, after almost a week of trying to contact his Russian counterpart. 

In a statement on its official website, the Foreign Ministry said that Lavrov and Kerry spoke by phone on Sunday and discussed North Korea and the international community’s efforts to put an end to the civil conflict in Syria. 

The ministry said that North Korea was discussed “on the initiative of the Russian side” and that Lavrov and Kerry had agreed to stay in touch. 

The State Department had complained last week that Kerry was unable to get in touch with Lavrov to discuss North Korea’s recent nuclear test, although the Foreign Ministry said Lavrov was traveling around Africa and couldn’t make contact.

Outrage as Britain’s Sandhurst military academy renames hall after Bahraini king

Outrage as Britain’s Sandhurst military academy renames hall after Bahraini king

From Will at THE OTHER NEWS:

"What's your Jihad" - Outrage as Britain’s Sandhurst military academy renames hall after Bahraini king.(RT).Britain’s Sandhurst military academy is renaming a hall commemorating those who died in a major World War I battle. The building will be renamed for the king of Bahrain, after the ruler donated £3 million to refurbish it.
The hall will soon bear the name of King Hamad, instead of Mons, a battle that took place in Belgium in which 1,600 UK soldiers died; the 100th anniversary of the battle will take place soon.
The Bahraini ruler gave millions to , the Telegraph reported.
The military academy, located in Surrey also received a £15-million donation from the United Arab Emirates to build an accommodation block, which will be named after the UAE’s founding father, the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. 
Mons Hall is set to reopen next month, and King Hamad has been invited to attend the ceremony. A plaque will be unveiled with the inscription: ‘King Hamad Hall. This building, the former Mons Hall, was refurbished in 2013 with a generous gift from the Kingdom of Bahrain.’

Critics claimed the Gulf states, which have been accused of severe human rights abuses, are essentially ‘buying silence.’ Those against the move also point out that the British Army is ‘betraying its dead.’

“There’s something deeply ironic in renaming a hall that was in memory of soldiers who died in a tragic battle in the First World War in honor of a king who is routinely committing human rights abuses,” Labor MP Jeremy Corbyn told British media.
“To change the name of something which commemorates a very tragic episode in British military history, simply because they’re getting a sum of money from a rather dubious source, is appalling,”
said Andy Slaughter, a Labor MP who is chair of the Commons all-party ‘Democracy In Bahrain’ group.
“It reflects the appalling double standards the British Government and institutions have in relation to the Bahraini regime, which is guilty of all sorts of human rights abuses and fundamentally undemocratic."
The online community reacted angrily to the move as well. “I doubt UK will condemn human rights abuses committed by allies whose leaders indirectly fund UK armed forces,” and "Sandhurst endorses mass torturing, child-murdering, iron-fisted dictator" are among the messages posted on Twitter in response to the name change.
Bahrain, home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has come under fire from human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, which criticized the regime for its violent crackdown on protesters. Tear gas, stun grenades, rubber bullets and even live ammunition have been fired on demonstrators, the Amnesty International said in its latest reports on Bahrain.
Amnesty International has criticized the US and UK for refusing to condemn human rights violations committed by their ally Bahrain.

Read the full story here.

Shared Sacrifice? Hardly!

Obama's recent $1 million golfing weekend:

...The trip was far from a little getaway, as he made his way to the golf course by way of Chicago on Friday and that is when the costs started piling up....

His serfs did the heavy lifting, as did the taxpayer:


More photos at the above link.

Arthur Blythe Trio

Faceless Woman

The one where I cannot hold back the rising gorge

This is a RFI notice issued for informational and planning purposes only. This is not a Request for Proposal (RFP) and it does not commit the Government to solicit or award an order now or in the future. The purpose of this notice is to solicit participation in the Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety (RAPS) project from the small unmanned aerial systems (SUAS) for transition to its customers. Any information provided to the Government is strictly voluntary and will be provided at no cost to the Government. 

Please submit response to both emails, amalia.rodezno@hq.dhs.govand at RAPS_RFI@hq.dhs.gov.

The Department of Homeland Security wants to have a fleet of ‘PUBLIC SAFETY DRONES’

Y’know when the Patriot Act was first passed under W I remember hearing it’s intent was to nail terrorists who wanted to kill the unsuspecting american people sitting at their desks at work having coffee, or beneath car lifts working on engines, or alingment, or in their classrooms.

The first conviction made using Patriot Act tools was of some WISE GUY. Now I have no love for wise guys. But…

So when I hear and read that the dept of homeland security is buying enough bullets for a war (and WHO are they empowered to fight?), and that they need DRONES for PURELY domestic use … every cynical hair on my body stands on end.

WIRED from last October:

There was a time when the Department of Homeland Security wasn’t enthusiastic about its drone fleet. Unmanned flying surveillance ‘bots had the potential to freak out the public, top DHS science and technology officials worried. That time has evidently passed — particularly for smaller flying spies.

In the coming months, Fort Sill, Oklahoma will become a proving ground to learn what small surveillance drones can add to “first responder, law enforcement and border security scenarios,” according to a recent solicitation to the country’s various drone manufacturers. Each selected drone wil undergo five days’ worth of tests as part of a new program from DHS’ Science and Technology directorate, called Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety or, gloriously, RAPS.

Like many in the militaryexperimenting with drone miniaturization, DHS is thinking small. The drones it wants to bring to Fort Sill will ideally be launched by hand, like the Army and Marines’Raven. They should weigh under 25 pounds. Assembly should take a matter of minutes, and training for their remote pilots and technician a matter of days. DHS isn’t looking for drones that can loiter over an area for a long time: just 30 minutes to two hours, a hint that the department doesn’t foresee drones becoming a primary surveillance tool. “Law enforcement operations, search and rescue, and fire and hazardous material spill response” are some of the potential drone missions the RAPS program envisions.

Still, it’s something of a turnaround for DHS. Back in January 2011, Ruth Doherty, a DHS science & tech official, expressed skepticism about using drones to patrol for signs of terrorism or to protect big public events like the Super Bowl. “A case has to be made that they’re economically feasible, not intrusive and acceptable to the public,”

They are no more acceptable, but now, significantly, that the election is over DHS does not seem to be much concerned about that. Now they are going to do PRECISELY what the founders warned against, and what human weakness compels.

ACCRUE POWER.

Is it over, here?

It is hard not to think so. It is hard to imagine firm loyalty to a govt which seeks more means to spy on its own people. I can muster as much loyalty to that kind of govt as I would for the general idea of some general lackadaisy non specific kind of western ideal set.

These people have got to be stopped.

But of course, they are firm in their belief that the majority would vote for their man and his ideas again.

And thus act with untrammeled vigor.

The U.S. Constitution is filled with “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions,” and we must “extricat[e] ourselves from constitutional bondage”

So argues Louis Michael Seidman, tasked with teaching constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center .

Hmmm..... Mr. Seidman. You may be right. I mean, why should we be burdened with rules and laws that were written by old men hundreds of years ago that have little understanding of the problems we face today. In fact, why should we be burdened with laws created by an old man a few thousand years ago .

What laws?

Why the Ten Commandments.  If we chuck the Constitution based on what Mr. Siedman says, we should chuck the Ten Commandments, too. Think about it. Any true blue Progressive who say we have different problems than societies have had in the past, can see that the Ten Commandments are archaic and have little place in our society today.

I mean, what’s this about not converting they neighbors goods.  If someone has more than me then that’s not fair.

If I want to have an abortion any time at any week, that’s good by me.

And what’s this about there being only one God. The God of the Bible. Phooey.  Gaia is my god and environmentalism is my religion. And let’s not even discuss the graven image thing. Let’s not go there.

And if I want to take the Lord’s name in vain, how can I be a successful standup comic?

And if I want to shop on Sunday, the stores better damn be open.

Thou shall not commit adultery. Yeah that’s a good one. What century are you living in? Don’t restrict my promiscuity.

If I want to bad mouth someone – hey – that’s free speech - even if it’s a lie.

And as far as stealing goes – don’t do it. It’s the government’s job to re-distribute the wealth.

So you see, if the Constitution is an archaic and irrelevant document, why do we need the Ten Commandments?

Just asking.

Red State:

Chicago Police Chief: Second Amendment Is A Danger To Public Safety 

By: Dana Loesch (Diary) | February 17th, 2013 at 07:21 PM

Chicago’s Chief of Police, who previously blamed ”government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun violence, declared that the law-ful exercise of the Second Amendment was a threat to public safety. From the Illinois State Rifle Association:

Chicago’s embattled police superintendent dug himself deeper into a pit of controversy today by claiming that lawful firearm owners are agents of political corruption. Appearing on a Chicago Sunday morning talk show, superintendent Garry McCarthy expressed his conviction that firearm owners who lobby their elected representatives or who donate money to political campaigns are engaged in corruption that endangers public safety. McCarthy went on to express his belief that judges and legislators should rely on public opinion polls when interpreting our Constitution.
After totally dismissing the citizen’s right to redress grievances, McCarthy trained his constitutional wisdom on the 2^nd Amendment. Despite recent court decisions to the contrary, McCarthy opined that the 2^ndAmendment limits citizens to owning smooth-bore muskets. McCarthy went on to say that he believes that the 2^nd Amendment supports mandatory liability insurance for firearm owners and the mandatory application of GPS tracking devices to civilian owned firearms.
“ Garry McCarthy ’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third largest police department,” commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson . “What on earth would possess McCarthy to assert that constitutional rights should be meted out based on public opinion polls? Let’s not forget that public opinion polls once opposed a woman’s right to vote while it would be a safe bet that, at one time, polls would have shown lynching as an acceptable form of justice. It has been said that our Constitution exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. McCarthy’s view of our Constitution is dangerous and unbecoming of a civil servant.”
“McCarthy needs to understand that the lawful firearm owners of this state will continue to lobby their representatives and continue to support candidates who represent their interests,” continued Pearson. “If Garry McCarthy doesn’t like that, well that’s just too bad. If McCarthy is so interested in influence peddling, he should pop into some of the gin mills ringing the Illinois Capitol and count the ruddy red noses of taxpayer-funded lobbyists for the City of Chicago.”

McCarthy’s assertion that the Founders limited arms to smooth bore muskets is demonstrably false as well.
McCarthy has previously said that Illinois “does not have strict gun laws” and that stricter laws were needed in order to adequately combat crimes committed by those illegally possessing firearms.
It’s a concerning prejudice against law-abiding citizens from an official who has the authority to arrest and give orders to fire at them.

Washington Examiner:

Pelosi: Obama can keep drone strikes against Americans a secret 
 
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., believes that President Obama doesn’t necessarily have to announce that an American citizen suspected of terrorism has been killed in a drone strike.

“Maybe. It just depends,” Pelosi replied when The Huffington Post asked her if “the administration should acknowledge when it targets a U.S. citizen in a drone strike.” When Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike, President Obama announced the killing within hours. “People just want to be protected,” Pelosi also said. “And I saw that when we were fighting them on surveillance, the domestic surveillance. People just want to be protected: ‘You go out there and do it. I’ll criticize you, but I want to be protected.’”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, responded less blithely. “Anytime the government willfully executes a citizen, regardless of the circumstances, it is a very serious issue,” Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement to The Washington Examiner. “As the body that oversees executive branch actions, at the very least, Congress should have a full accounting – even if it must sometimes be in a classified setting – of the specific considerations that went into the decision.”

The top House Democrat suggested that the disclosure issue “depends on the timing, because that’s right — it’s all about timing, imminence. What is it that could be in jeopardy if people know that happened at this time? I just don’t know.”

Lee also acknowledged the possibility of some situations that might call for secrecy, though he emphasized the need for congressional review. “Government should always err on the side of greater transparency and make details public where they can,” he said in his statement. “Where there are limited and serious national security concerns about releasing certain details, the appropriate committees in Congress should have the opportunity to perform oversight.”

Pelosi suggested that she would have the same position if President George W. Bush were still in office. “Those opposed are pretty critical, and other people are just listening to see what this is and why this is necessary, because we’re in a different world,” she told HuffPo.

Lee wants Obama to reveal the Justice Department legal analysis underpinning the drone program to the Judiciary Committee, rather than just the intelligence committees in both chambers of Congress.

“If you’re going to regard somebody as presenting an imminent threat of an attack on the U.S. simply because you have concluded that they are an ‘operational leader’ or they are involved in planning an attack in one way or another, you find yourself giving way to much discretion to the government,” he told The Examiner in an interview after NBC revealed the DOJ white paper on the drone program.

“We know that in some instances where the government has released its legal analysis, it gets it wrong,” Lee added.

Guns Save Lives:

Memo From Obama’s Justice Dept Says Gun Ban Won’t Work Without Registration & Confiscation

In this short video from the NRA, an internal Justice Department (the same Justice Department ran by Eric ‘Fast and Furious’ Holder), it is revealed that the Obama administrations own research shows that an assault weapons ban would only be effective with mandatory gun confiscation and that universal background checks would only be effective with federal gun registration.




Still think grandfathering existing weapons and simple universal background checks sounds like a good idea?

Make no mistake, an assault weapons ban of any kind, even with a grandfathering clause is a step towards gun confiscation. Also realize that universal background checks are just the first step the government needs in implementing a federal gun registration, and as history has shown us, federal registration almost always leads to confiscation.

Still don’t think confiscation is the final goal of the anti gunners? Check out these quotes from Democratic leaders calling for gun confiscation.

Have you seen this bill from Missouri Democrats calling for an assault weapons ban with a mandatory confiscation to happen within 90 days of passage?

Make no mistake, any new gun legislation is a step towards the goal of federal registration and eventual confiscation.

The Blaze:

It’s George Washington’s 281st Birthday: Here Are His 5 Most Important Warnings to Congress 

Although commonly known as “Presidents’ Day,” Feb. 18 is legally “Washington’s Birthday” (his actual birthday is Feb. 22).

However, as the Washington Examiner notes, we don’t dedicate this day to Washington because he is the greatest U.S. general (he isn’t) or even the best president (the case can certainly be made for others). No, though Washington’s performance in both categories is deserving of high praise, we honor him for the precedent and example he set.

“He held the proverbial ring of power, and he gave it up of his own accord,” the Washington Examiner notes.

“Washington’s selflessness separates him from lesser men who won much greater military victories but were vanquished by the temptation of power — Julius Caesar before him and Napoleon Bonaparte afterward.”

He refused this power because he believed in the cause of the republic.

Understanding the pitfalls of organized government, Washington in his 1796 farewell address to Congress urged U.S. lawmakers to guard against unnecessary wars and racking up unsustainable public debt, among other things.

Considering the fact that the nation’s capital has in recent years become a spectacle more deserving of mockery than praise, perhaps it’s worth revisiting some of his warnings to Congress.

–

On the Constitution:

The White House

This government … has a just claim to your confidence and your support.

Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.

But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

On ‘Progressive’ Ideas:

‘George Washington’ by John Trumbull

Towards the preservation of your government … resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.

On Political Parties:

history.com

Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

On War:

‘Washington Crossing the Delaware’ from the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.

[...]

The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. … The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.

The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.

The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

On Public Debt:

sonsofthesouth.net

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

So there you have it. Enjoy “Washington’s Birthday” (which is technically Feb. 22). Without him, we probably wouldn’t have the Constitution or, you know, a United States of America:

​Reddit

There are 4.9 million bourbon barrels aging in Kentucky, which outnumbers the state's population.

For those of you who enjoy a nice glass of bourbon and have been dismayed over he years as makers like Jack Daniels have dropped their proof (I was never a big fan of J.D. anyway) this story will help restore your faith in American Distillers.

Fox:

Maker's Mark restoring alcohol volume of whiskey to historic level following backlash

 


LOUISVILLE, Ky. – After backlash from customers, the producer of Maker's Mark bourbon is reversing a decision to cut the amount of alcohol in bottles of its famous whiskey.

Rob Samuels, Maker's Mark's chief operating officer, said Sunday that it is restoring the alcohol volume of its product to its historic level of 45 percent, or 90 proof. Last week, it said it was lowering the amount to 42 percent, or 84 proof, because of a supply shortage.

"We've been tremendously humbled over the last week or so," Samuels, grandson of the brand's founder, said of customers' reactions.

The brand known for its square bottles sealed in red wax has struggled to keep up with demand. Distribution has been squeezed, and the brand had to curtail shipments to some overseas markets.

In a tweet Sunday, the company said to its followers: "You spoke. We listened."

Fans of the whiskey applauded the move and questioned why the company moved to change in the first place.

"Some things you just got to leave alone," Todd Matthews, 42, of Livingston, Tenn., said.
Company officials said much customer feedback came from Twitter and Facebook. On those sites, comments on Sunday's change of course ranged from angry to celebratory to self-congratulatory. The statement on Maker's Mark's Facebook page drew more than 14,000 "likes" and 2,200 comments within two hours of Sunday's announcement.

The change in recipe started with a shortage of the bourbon amid an ongoing expansion of the company's operations that cost tens of millions of dollars.

Maker's Mark Chairman Emeritus Bill Samuels, the founder's son, said the company focused almost exclusively on not altering the taste of the bourbon while stretching the available product and didn't consider the emotional attachment that customers have to the brand and its composition.

Bill Samuels said the company tinkered with how much water to add and keep the taste the same for about three months before making the announcement about the change Monday. It marked the first time the bourbon brand, more than a half-century old, had altered its proof or alcohol volume.

"Our focus was on the supply problem. That led to us focusing on a solution," Bill Samuels said. "We got it totally wrong."

Both Bill and Rob Samuels said customer reaction was immediate. Company officials heard from "thousands and thousands of consumers" that a bourbon shortage was preferable to a change in how the spirits were made, Bill Samuels said.

"They would rather put up with the occasional supply shortage than put up with any change in their hand-made bourbon," Rob Samuels said.

The change in alcohol volume called for the recipe and process to stay the same, except for a "touch more water" to be added when the whiskey comes out of the barrel for bottling, Rob Samuels said.

When production restarts Monday, those plans are off the table, Bill Samuels said.

"We really made this decision after an enormous amount of thought, and we focused on the wrong things," Bill Samuels said.

Maker's Mark is owned by spirits company Beam Inc., based in Deerfield, Ill. Its other brands include Jim Beam bourbon.

Maker's is made at a distillery near the small town of Loretto, 45 miles south of Louisville.

Its bourbon ages in barrels for at least six summers and no longer than seven years before bottling.

The supply shortage at Maker's comes amid growing demand for Kentucky bourbons in general.
Combined Kentucky bourbon and Tennessee whiskey sales from producers or suppliers to wholesalers rose 5.2 percent to 16.9 million cases last year, according to the Distilled Spirits Council, a national trade association that released figures last week. Revenue shot up 7.3 percent to $2.2 billion, it said. Premium brands, generally made in smaller batches with heftier prices, led sales and revenue gains.

Kentucky produces 95 percent of the world's bourbon supply, according to the Kentucky Distillers' Association. There are 4.9 million bourbon barrels aging in Kentucky, which outnumbers the state's population.