Archive for March 3rd, 2013

Lost in translatio​n: Ben Bernanke-s​peak

Sovereign Man

February 28, 2013 Santiago, Chile
I really hate to beat a dead horse, but I wouldn’t be doing my job for you if I didn’t point out some of the most intellectually dishonest, self-aggrandizing Bernanke-speak to come out of the Fed Chairman’s testimony yesterday:
1. “[The Federal Reserve has] 25 years of success in keeping inflation low and stable, not just in the United States but around the world.”
Translation: “I have not set foot in a grocery store or gas station in decades.”
2. “Our estimates are that we’ve helped create many private sector jobs, government jobs to support the economy quite significantly.”
Translation: “In my sole discretion where I get to completely ignore all data points I don’t like, I am doing a heck of a job.”
3. “I am very much in favor of getting our fiscal house in order but I think it’s a long run issue and I would be supportive of a less front-loaded set of measures.”
Translation: “Feel free to continue kicking the can down the road.”
4. “The best way to get interest rates up is to not raise them too quickly.”
Translation: “No matter what, I’m going to continue printing money and justify it with puzzling drivel.”
5. “I don’t see any sign that that’s happening (the U.S. dollar losing status as world’s reserve currency).”
Translation: “I pay absolutely no attention to what’s going on in Russia, China, the Middle East, or the gold market.”
6. “[S]avers have many hats. They may own fixed income instruments, like bonds, but they also may own stocks or a house or a business. . . And those values have gone up, the stock market has roughly doubled, as you know, in the past few years.”
Translation: “In order to not get eaten alive by inflation, I will force responsible savers to assume unnecessary risks in an overinflated stock market that has just now, finally, reached its nominal highs from 2007 thanks to my money printing.”
I know this goes without saying, but entrusting this man with your life savings is a dangerous course of action. I strongly urge you to consider diversifying into precious metals, productive farmland, or even a digital currency like Bitcoin.
After all, you know the old saying– it’s time to be very concerned when the politicians and bureaucrats tell you to not be concerned.

Until tomorrow,
Simon Black
Senior Editor,

Leave a comment

Why does anyone need to read about celebrities?

By: Ann Coulter 2/27/2013 03:45 PM


Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: “Why does anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?”

Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, “I don’t know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip.”

CNN’s Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, “Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?”

Fantasist Dan Rather said, “There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons.”

And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he’d hit on a real showstopper with, “I don’t know why anyone needs an assault rifle.” Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.

Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they “need” something? If that’s the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don’t know why anyone needs.

I don’t know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.

I don’t know why anyone needs to read about the private lives of celebrities. Why can’t we shut down the gossip rags?

I don’t know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.

I don’t know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.

I don’t know why anyone needs to have anal sex at a bathhouse. I won’t stop them, but I don’t know why anyone needs to do that.

I don’t know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they’re constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost — all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.

I don’t know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with chocolate while reading poems about “love.” But not only do Democrats allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the Arts.

In fact, I don’t know why anyone needs to do any of the things that offend lots of people, especially when I have to pay for it. I don’t mind paying for national monuments and the ballet, but if “need” is a legitimate argument, there’s no end to the activities that can be banned, forget “not subsidized by Ann.”

Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the “need” rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position is: “I don’t know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I do see why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion, bicycle lanes and the ballet.”

They’ll say that no one died in my examples (except abortion) (and bicycling) (and bathhouses) (and national parks), but the victims of mass shootings weren’t killed by gun owners. They were killed by crazy people.

How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?

Liberals won’t let us do that — and yet they won’t tell us why anyone needs to live on sidewalk grates, harass pedestrians and crap in his pants. Those are precious constitutional rights, straight from the pen of James Madison, and please stop asking questions.

“I don’t see why anyone needs …” is code for: “I don’t do it, so let’s ban it.” The corollary is: “I enjoy this, so you have to subsidize it.”

Environmentalists say: “I don’t know why anyone needs to shower once a day — my French friends and I take two showers per month. We think we smell fine.”

That’s the difference between a totalitarian and a normal person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do.

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called “assault weapons” are a “personal pleasure” and “mothers and women” have to decide whether this personal pleasure “is more important than the general welfare.”

The “general welfare” is every tyrant’s excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they “need” something simply because the government wants to ban it. That’s true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.

The question isn’t whether we “need” guns. It’s whether the government should have a monopoly on force.

In liberals’ ideal world, no one will even know you don’t have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.

Meanwhile, we’re all required to subsidize their hobbies — recycling, abortion, the “arts,” bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.

Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.

Leave a comment

Why Men Avoid Church Like Lindsay Shuns Sobriety

By / 28 February  2013

Screen Shot 2013-02-27 at 12.11.32 PMHave you ever asked yourself, “Self … why do churches  today look more like the lingerie department at Wal-Mart, than a battalion of  men poised to plunder the powers of darkness?”  Why do men avoid going to  church, and what can be done about it?

FOLLOW DOUG ON FACEBOOK. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!Certainly, the lack of men in church is not at all difficult to see.   Just open your eyes any Sunday morning and go to church.  Then, count the  number of ladies in the pews, and the number of men.  The result: you’re  slapped in the face with the Jose Cuervo-like reality that men are avoiding  church.

More and more, we are seeing fewer and fewer mature and responsible,  evil-challenging tripods who love leadership, the struggle and aren’t afraid to  boldly face an increasingly godless environment with conviction, power and the  love of God.

So why do most men avoid church?  Here’s the veneer stripped-away  answer: going to church for the majority of men is an exercise in unwanted  effeminacy.  Church, for most men, has not only become irrelevant; it has  also become effeminate.  Hanging out in church for most extra-Y chromosomes  seems unmanly and most men more than anything want to be masculine.

The current lack of strong men within the Church, both in the numeric and  leadership sense, has crippled our cathedrals and has helped devastate our  nation ethically.  The masculine spirit being absent from the pulpit, the  pew and subsequently the public square has not only slowed down the forward  progress of the Church, it has also weakened our nation’s morality, increased  our country’s secularity, and has assisted [owing to our absence] the lascivious  Left’s re-definition of life, sex, marriage and law.

So how do we regain the masculine spirit in our houses of worship?  How  do we gird the Church to press on with that which is holy, just and good?   How can we Christians fight the good fight honorably, for freedom, family and  the flag?  Here are a few things the Church can do:

· Put an end to preaching by cheesy, whiny, quiche eating, preening  Nancy Boys … right now!  It freaks us meat eaters out.   Get it?  Hire a pastor who throws off a good John Wayne vibe instead of  that Boy George feeling.  Know what I mean?  And cheer on “Pastor  Wayne” to serve up the solid meat of the scripture … the stuff that prods the  congregation to biblical maturity rather than prolonging their infancy.

· Ditto regarding the worship/music leader.  And make sure your new  testosterone laden songmeister is outfitted with weighty  worship music instead of the saccharine-laced slush we have had to  sing ad nauseam et infinitumfor the last, oh, 100 years.   That’s a pretty simple can-do ? Don’t you think?

· Enough with the Precious Moments prints and figurines — okay?   How about decking out the sanctuary with serious transcendent art work that  stops us in our tracks, rather than ubiquitous prints of fat baby angels who  look like they’ve got a good buzz going from too much Mountain Dew and  children’s aspirin?

· Lose the Church’s “I’m in therapy for ever” feel.  Yes, yes,  we’re all a work in progress but the co-dependant, extended womb the Church has  wrongfully created has allowed congregants to not get a life because of some  difficult doo-doo in their lives.  Sure life’s hard, little Sally, and the  sooner, we celebrate the struggle the quicker we will draw men back to our  houses of worship.

If the Church wants to recover its losses, we’ve got to draw the knuckle  draggers back to church.  Masculine men are pretty easy.  Toss in  reason, competition, initiation, struggle, fun and a problem to spiritually  throttle, and we?ll be there like stink on a monkey.  Blow off, suppress,  and spiritually emasculate the environment of these holy testicular necessities  and your church, as far as men go, will be more empty than an Oktoberfest in  Hialeah.

My point is this: if concerned conservative Christians want to improve our  nation biblically, then the Church has got to eliminate its effeminate drift and  re-establish a masculine bent.  Our times demand strong men: the Church  must produce them, not repel them.  The Church needs men, who start a  ministry, start a business; get involved in politics, the arts and education,  and who are not afraid of the secular thugs and pimps who try to keep Christians  marginalized in a religious ghetto.

One last word for the young Christian man: Do you want to grow up quickly?  Then leave mommy’s familiar, safe haven and venture out into the danger  zone.  As Leon Podles said, “Go find your Holy Grail; go meet the strange,  meet the unfamiliar.”  Protect people; lead people; rescue people.   Fight inequities and absurdities.

Beware, young man, of parents and pastors who want to mother you.  Avoid  the secure; Fear over-protection; and happily accept the masculine task of the  patriarch, the prophet, the warrior and wild man.

Get to a place, young warrior, where pain is not a big deal, where you  embrace resistance.  And by your example, you will encourage others to  resist self-doubt, squeamishness, indecision and the impulse to surrender and  withdraw into the warm, wet womb of Wussville.

Leave a comment

Gun Lovers: Obama Donor in Process of Buying Up and ‘Destroying’ America’s Top Pro-Gun Media Outlets

By / 2 March  2013

Screen Shot 2013-03-01 at 9.07.40 AMEmployees of Obama donor Leo Hindery Jr.’s media  conglomerate Intermedia Partners, which now owns most of the top gun-culture  media outlets in the country, believe that Hindery plans to gut and destroy all  of them as part of a business plan that has already led to numerous layoffs and  the virtual shuttering of prominent television production facilities in  Minnesota and Montana.

Hindery, who was in consideration to be President Barack Obama’s secretary of  commerce, is managing partner of Intermedia Partners. The New York-based  media private equity fund owns Intermedia Outdoor Holdings,  which  publishes 17 hunting, fishing, and shooting magazines, including Guns &  Ammo, Handguns, Gun Dog, Rifle Shooter and Shooting Times.

InterMedia Outdoor Holdings purchased the pro-gun hunting and fishing network  the Sportsman Channel in 2007, and is now in the process of acquiring the  Outdoor Channel, pending the federal government’s approval of last month’s  merger between InterMedia Outdoors and Outdoor Channel Holdings.

InterMedia employees believe that Hindery, a Huffington Post blogger who has  contributed to numerous Democratic politicians including Andrew Cuomo and  Elizabeth Warren, is in the process of consolidating all of America’s leading  gun-culture media outlets and stripping them down to virtual destruction.

Read more:


Leave a comment