And the Oscar goes to . . .

Zep, I’m with that -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXFUnnoSphY

Let me share your love

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo let me share your love

• Link
• Report this comment

I haven’t been to the movies in years and don’t feel like I’ve missed a thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJlD5roDqNw#t=0m30s

• Link
• Report this comment

Recent reports forecast lower spending for this year, anticipating that the restored payroll tax will impact consumers’ wallets, especially low-income earners.

Wow, you can’t sneak nothing past these libs.

• Link
• Report this comment

“A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens’ rights to own them.

According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states:

“The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms…If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction.”

York Arms, located in Buxton, ME released a statement following new legislation in New York:

“Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York.”

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-companies-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas

• Link
• Report this comment

One of my favorite Zep tunes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTQF89JiEJc

You like LZ at all, HD??

• Link
• Report this comment

Back at ya, Aesop, with one more from “Physical Graffiti”. Some serious kick ass guitar riffs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JybkqBGrVs

• Link
• Report this comment

Could be the empty chair he stood in,to touch the hem of Obamas garment still available.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly,

You’ve got more class than a banty rooster! That Randoph Scott piece proves it.

That was better than all those dozen gitar pickers you showed the other night.

When you see Anna again, ask her about the train, will ya?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you’ve got a tremendous bass set up, this one will blow you out of your seat -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMKzTJeXQ7o

• Link
• Report this comment

Td, your 8:23 is encouraging.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bob Woodword maybe the last real Journalist in America.

Obama’s sequester deal-changer
By Bob Woodward, Friday, February 22, 5:59 PM

Bob Woodward (woodwardb@washpost.com) is an associate editor of The Post. His latest book is “The Price of Politics.” Evelyn M. Duffy contributed to this column.

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: “Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Lew responded, “and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.”

“Did you make the suggestion?” Burr asked.

“Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.”

In other words, yes.

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno,

The administration and DOD excuses don’t wash. There was a Marine Corps fast team and a DELTA Force unit that may have been able to get there but evidently by some reports were stood down. F-15’s out of Aviano, Italy could have been scrambled and on station in Benghazi to ward off the attackers. Too many questions, too many non-answers to those questions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr Osborne added: “[Moody’s] also make it absolutely clear that they could downgrade the UK’s credit rating further in the event of ‘reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation’.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Mr Osborne responded to the downgrade by insisting he would not change course on the Government’s austerity programme.”

Stay the course until depression.

They should have listened to President Clinton.

Boom.

• Link
• Report this comment

“gitmo – Do you trust what Moody’s is saying or not?”

They are working on their credibility unlike you cons but Moody’s said they are still credit worthy.

The global economy runs on credit.

• Link
• Report this comment

td

I read your piece but the more i read the murkier it got. I”ll never understand the who’s and what’s of sequester. The most I get is “we can’t help it, gotta do it, we are going to fail, everybody is going to be hurt, it’s necressary, he approved it but now he doesn’t like it. it was just a threat, t hought it would never happen, etc.”

I get the feeling that the public is going to be whacked by politicians who were out to get each other.

That is not a good way to feel about the government. I hope it isn’t real. When I read stuff like that, I begin to feel like I live in Greece. .

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99G4Vv-YMJo

Go get some younger recon brothers

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQR5_dbyueg

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I guess that I will never know what happened to Anna.and her man! ah! .Maybe she took ;the late train to leave her earthly domain.. Questions! Always questions! I’ll have to sleep on this one.

G’nite…

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

February 22nd, 2013
9:09 pm

This is the way it was explained to me and it made some sense.

1: Debt ceiling raise before the election. Obama wanted tax increases and Republicans wanted cuts in spending, neither side would give in.

2: Obama and Lew put together a plan “sequester” that put together $85 billion in cuts to take effect after the election (Half in defense spending and half in domestic programs) IF both sides could not agree to other cuts by the deadline.

3: When I say cuts that really means a decrease in the automatic projected increases in these programs.

4: Obama wins and gets tax increase and now wants another tax increase instead of any spending cuts.

5: Obama runs around the country and lies about the fact that “Sequester” was his plan and tries to scare everyone about how these cuts (decreases in future spending increases) is going to lay off thousands and make our military lame.

Fact: $85 billion (Sequester) is out of a budget of $3.7 trillion or about 2% of the budget.
Fact: Even with the sequester we will be spending $15 billion more then we spent last year.

Hope that helps.

• Link
• Report this comment

Man, you guys are Friday night lame! (Even sober!)

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99G4Vv-YMJo

Another example why Obama and his UnAmerican administration must go.

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/22/nasa-missile-defense-tech-leaked-to-china-sources-say/

• Link
• Report this comment

About that time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gV1sxB8TxI

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mGKtuIlras

• Link
• Report this comment