Disqus - Latest Comments for shorebreak

Re: A Local Look

shorebreak — Thu, 06 May 2010 14:26:26 -0000

Nice:

Rep. Andre Carson: Tea Party Protesters Are ‘One of the Largest Threats to our Internal Security’

Re: The Coats Challenge

shorebreak — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:49:58 -0000

Sugar "Coats" much, Abdul?

I really can't understand how you can consider Coats' credentials to be impressive. Seriously. Maybe if his activities were conducted on behalf of ethical and upstanding groups, I could see the correlation. But the man has been spending all of his time representing globalist finance or murderous criminal organizations, such as the Bush Administration.

If you consider that to be impressive I have very grave concerns for our future. In the late 1940's the solution for supporting these kinds of activities was known as Nurembourg. It's amazing to me how easily a little bit of careful propaganda and misguided patriotism can convince people that they are the very opposite of what they have become.

Re: Thursday’s Thoughts

shorebreak — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:13:39 -0000

That used to be the case, but it's no longer true. They got smart. The tax code was modified on Jan 5, 2009 to include the following:

(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States; except that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if—
(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with—
(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or
(ii) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership, or corporation.
In addition, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with the individual’s temporary presence in the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States.

Follow this link and select Section 861:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu...

I suspect that there was very little attention paid to the change because there would possibly be about 100 million taxpayers demanding to know why they've had to pay for all these years when it wasn't a code requirement.

But here's the bigger issue: If this change was made to the code, what legislation drove the change? All law must be approved by the Legislative Branch. I'd love to see what Bill contained this line item.

...or was it even contained in a Bill? Does anyone know that answer?

Re: Thursday’s Thoughts

shorebreak — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:01:01 -0000

Here's what I don't get: How can anyone who is opposed to an income tax be in support of a Fair Tax? The Fair Tax is nothing more than a replacement for the income tax, only it taxes you even if you don't have an income. And they have the audacity to call it a "fair" tax?

Re: Help Wanted

shorebreak — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:12:37 -0000

Sure. It's a variety of sources. Just follow the links and you'll find more than any fan of limited government can possibly swallow:

http://www.npr.org/template...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blog...

http://www.sptimes.com/News...

http://prfamerica.org/2005/...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

http://www.wisegeek.com/wha...

http://www.campaignforliber...

http://www.house.gov/paul/t...

Re: Back to School

shorebreak — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:15:17 -0000

Issue #1: If we had a well educated population, this wouldn't be an issue - educated people would realize that there are more important things in life than watching a bunch of men chase a ball. Don't get me wrong - I love football, but I'm not dumb enough to make it a priority.

Issue #2: Since football IS a priority, who ever decided that it might take priority over the education of our children? Must be someone from Issue #1.

Issue #3: Since someone from Issue #1 is making priority decisions on how or when our children are educated, I've created an entirely new set of Issue's. See Issue #4.

Issue #4: We're all F'ed. We need either a complete overhaul of the education system, or we've got everything bass-ackwards. Meaning that we need to start spending our tax dollars on kids' sports teams and uniforms on the weekdays and giving them an opportunity to spend Sunday afternoons watching school.

Re: Help Wanted

shorebreak — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:50:17 -0000

I've been reading that the census now includes 100's of personal details - like religion, ethnicity, employment, and all kinds of other details that are absolutely none of the government's business. I've even heard that census workers are required to carry a gps device to log the specific GPS coordinates for each household and the correlating data.

When they show up on my doorstep, I'm going to have a copy of any legislator approved (voted for) criteria that the census may request from me. That is the law, regardless of what the census folks tell us or list on their website. If there is anything additional on the form - like my religious preference - I will leave it blank. When the census taker gives me grief over it, I'll tell him he has his information and we're finished.

So here's why I could NEVER take a census taker position: Some of us are informed citizens who don't cave when government oversteps it's boundaries. When the training begins to cover the collection of data that is not authorized by law, it will probably be only a few short minutes before I'm escorted out of the training room as someone who is not capable of being trained to perform the required scope of work.

Re: Packin’ in the Park

shorebreak — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:48:34 -0000

The problem isn't with Ed's proposal. The problem is that some jack-ass (or group thereof) decided that one solution to crime might would be to eliminate the rights and ability of lawful citizens to protect themselves. In case you haven't heard, just as a position of authority doesn't an honest man make, gun control laws don't prevent crimininals from accosting victims.

As for you revisionists who have responded as though Ed is coming from left field (hence the revision), do us all a favor: Save the focus on your pet issues and petty complaints until AFTER our legitimate and lawful rights have been restored. You all are typical of the kid who refused to eat his meal until after he was served his dessert. Digest something of lasting value first.

If any of you believes that a "limited" right is still a right, you might want to sit back for a few moments and consider which pill you've decided to swallow.

The bottom line is that lawful, honest, and ethical government begins with establishing a solid foundation of law. In this country, the US Constitution has been agreed upon as the primary governing document from which all other lawful actions eminate. It establishes the roles of national and state government, and it specifically calls out what rights the government can not infringe. Any law that is implemented in a manner that is contrary to our Constitution is neither lawful, honest, or ethical.

If you believe that you can talk your way around some of those based on some criteria or other, then I strongly recommend that you go back to my earlier statement regarding the limitations of individual rights and figure out once again which pill you've decided to swallow.

And for those of you who favor ad hominem or disingenuous responses, save it for an audience who cares.

Re: From “Bang Bang” to “Blackface”

shorebreak — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:51:51 -0000

This OP from Abdul is highly disingenuous. Abdul knows that Behney (whose free-wheeling and un-restrained speaking style is dangerous to any sincere effort towards restoring liberty) was illustrating opposition to economic and bureaucratic enslavement, not racial antithapy towards President Obama. So let's cut to the chase here.

The definition of illustration is:

"a visualization such as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that stresses subject more than form"

Behney clearly reminded his readers that the original tea party participants dressed as native indians to illustrate how Americans were treated like heathens by the crown. He went on to explain that we should demonstrate how Americans today are treated like economic slaves by our ruling elite. If Abdul can be so disconnected from commonly practiced norms in communication as to mistake such a clear illustration for a racist remark, I wouldn't place an ounce of faith in any of the statements or observations that flow from either his microphone or his keyboard.

....but I know with certainty that Abdul isn't as disconnected as he "pretends" in this particular piece. Therefore, he's simply being disingenous towards Behney.

One of the things that I've learned over the years is that when politically connected media figures become disingenuous towards a candidate, more often than not, I find that candidate to be a believer in our Republic who will stand for it's sovereignty and for individual liberty that the ruling elite is working to erode. This may not be one of those circumstances, but I'm now convicted by Abdul that Behney is worth looking into. If I find him to be a loyal American who supports the US Constitution and national soveriegnty, he may have found a new supporter - so long as he can clean up his message and stop giving disingenous reporters additional opportunities to turn the public against him.

Re: Bang! Bang! Behney!

shorebreak — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:38:13 -0000

I personally love the guys message. It's what we need. The problem that I see is that he uses phrases and chooses his wording in a manner that can be used to present a completely different picture to the public. If I were giving a presentation on what Americans need to be aware of and be prepared for in todays rapidly disintegrating Constitutional environment, I would have said many of the exact same things. But I would present myself quite differently if I were pursuing high public office. I wouldn't alter the intent of my message, but my delivery wouldn't be wide open for exploitation and distortion.

FYI - the 2nd amendment issue is hitting very close to home for me. I live in an area that's known as a great place to live - especially for families. But just yesterday I left work early after receiving a call from my wife. The police were on their way to the house because someone had just attempted a home invasion robbery. My wife saw a stranger inside our screen porch who was rapidly approaching our back door. She rushed over and hit the dead bolt just as he reached the door handle. He was demanding that she open the door as she was dialing 911.

If he had reached the door first, the only thing protecting my family at that point would be the 2nd amendment. The guy wasn't caught, but my wife did get a picture with her phone.

Re: Bang! Bang! Behney!

shorebreak — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:43:06 -0000

I'm very concerned about this guy.

In todays political climate, where millions of the public are fully aware that the government used TARP to literally rob us of trillions of our own tax dollars, where many people are aware that our Constitution is being dismantled in front of our very eyes (follow the White House link that I posted above for "Exhibit A"), and where it's becoming increasingly obvious that our national leaders are following a self-serving global financial agenda, it's patently obvious that a fairly large subset of informed and loyal Americans will gravitate towards new leadership who promise to take action against these criminal and traitorous acts.

That's a given.

Any real leaders who emerge and who draw a large enough audience will be leaders who advocate a lawful, non-violent, and Constitutional approach to reform. They will carefully outline the issues and the challenges, and they will formulate their platform very carefully (not recklessly) in order to assure that they might have a chance at achieving a majority at the polls. Radical and fringe leaders have no chance at making a difference.

With those things in mind - the current political climate, and the potential for a rational, cogent leader to emerge in opposition to the current status quo - if I were one of the copororate criminals who wanted to maintain my dominance over US policy, I would be very concerned. I'd be concerned that this vocal minority would begin to reach more ears, and that a larger group of voters would begin to see and understand what is happening. My primary concern would be "How can I stop these people without drawing attention to the fact that I'm trying to silence them?" Here's how I would do it:

I'd work to identify someone who shares these "patriotic" concerns, but who has a strong militant approach. I'd encourage them to speak up, to get public, and to become a leader in opposing corrupt government - and to speak their mind on what needs to be done. If they meet the requisite criteria - if they can lead a presentation, hold an audience, and also demonstrate a public willingness to take a violent stance against the government - then I've found my man. All I need to do now is to build this persons reputation for advocating a violent course, making certain to publicly portray this person as a leader in the "patriot" movement. I need to make sure that I can do this before a real leader emerges.

Once the foundation of public opinion is laid regarding this individual, the only remaining item is to carefully plan an awful and violent event that targets a government group, with all of the physical and circumstantial evidence pointing towards my "patriot". At that point, I walk away and let law enforcement work, making sure that the media is focusing heavily on this insidious and dangerous patriot movement. They are domestic terrorists and must be exposed before anyone else is hurt.

Based on what I've seen so far, if I were a private interest with control over the federal government, I'd pick Behney as a potential leader in my effort to discredit the patriot movement. The only thing I would need to do is support him and make sure he gets media exposure and public attention. When all is said and done, Joe Public will hate the patriot movement, and any mention of Constitutional loyalty will be looked upon with suspiscion.

Of couse, nothing like that may happen, but that is the risk that Behner takes by advocating his approach, if his concerns are valid. It makes him what is generally referred to as a "useful idiot", easily taken advantage of to work against his own cause.

Re: Indy’s Top 2000*

shorebreak — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:42:49 -0000

"2010 – Property tax caps fully kick-in. Chaos ensues at local level, could consolidation be far behind?"

If the folks who pushed for capping property taxes get their way (the same folks who omitted any alternative funding mechanism that would keep municipalities viable, and never informed the public that this would be the result), yes, there will be consolidation.

After consolidation occurs, it will probably be the very same folks who step up and say "property tax caps were a mistake - our failed municpalities need funding so we need to go back to the same-old, same-old. Only when that happens, under the consolidation scheme we'll only have one elected county official with a council of unelected appointees, and all local representation will have been "democratically" eliminated by the folks who have no comprehension that local representation is the only direct conduit to self governance for the majority of individuals and businesses.

Re: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

shorebreak — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:17:05 -0000

I agree with you, TH.

FYI, my comments on racial statistics and economics had no bearing on individual responsibility.

Re: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

shorebreak — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:45:21 -0000

I'm in agreement with Mike.

If there was a more complete data set, with race AND economics, the ratio of black v. white crime would probably be more accurate. Of course, that's only a hypothesis, but I believe that singling out race as the relevant factor without exploring the economic data does not allow a representative perspective of the drivers behind violent crime.

Here's a quick example: The poverty rate among blacks in Marion County is more than 2.5:1 of the poverty rate among whites. If you eliminate all suspects whose income is >/= the poverty rate, I wonder what the ratio would be for black:white murderers. The result is close to 1:1 using current numbers if you assume the poverty rate for 100% of 2009's murders.

Re: Democratic Underground

shorebreak — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:44:14 -0000

I see two things here: Empire building among the entrenched leadership, and the implied racial element.

The racial element is the result of the empire building by current leadership. It's not the problem - it's a symptom of the problem, based upon racial division that already exists. The problem is empire building.

The interesting thing is that this will likely force a lot of people to abandon the party. I'm certain that Treacy recognizes this upfront, therefore, I'm certain that a party split is among his objectives. The ever-present question in politics and policy when something happens that doesn't appear to make sense is always "cui bono?"

Who stands to benefit from this?

Re: For Whom the Bell Curves

shorebreak — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:20:30 -0000

Most of you who have read my posts already know that I'm a square peg in a world of round holes. :) I'll frame my comments on the book with a little bit of a personal bio. You'll understand why when you get to my comments.

Based on my own experiences in schools a couple of decades ago (full disclosure - most were private schools), I was the kid who teachers could never figure out. I would go to class and do nothing, do no homework, but do well on tests. My teachers would occasionally ask "what's wrong with you?" etc but I had no clue other than the fact that I was utterly bored in class but too polite to tell them. My parents were both very successful but neither could figure me out because they had always studied hard etc so they thought I was very smart, but lazy.

I had read an entire encyclopedia set before I was 13 so I already knew more than was included in most of my curriculums. Instead of spending time at school learning, I spent my time waiting for classes to end - and trying to read without getting caught.

At the beginning of 11th grade we had 3 days of national apptitude testing that was scored from "0" to "99". A score of "0" meant you were ahead of 0% of the other students and a "99" meant you were ahead of 99% of other students. I scored a 99 at all levels despite having barely passed 10th grade. Within a week of getting test results I found myself placed in all AP classes. For the first 2/3's of that year I aced all of my tests and I did great. The change was good for me, but it wasn't formed correctly. Looking back I can say that I aced everything only to prove that AP classes weren't a challenge either. I did so poorly in the last 3rd of the year that I only advanced to 12th grade because of my earlier performance.

That year I also scored 1470 on my PSAT. Mail started arriving and I was invited to attend pre-enrollment weekends at dozens of colleges including Princeton, Yale, Duke, Columbia, Georgetown, and other prestigious schools. I didn't visit any of them because I knew that my grades didn't complement the incomplete picture presented by my test scores. After a dissapointing end to my junior year I was placed back in regular classes. I graduated by the skin of my teeth, with most of my attention focused on the beach and partying.

Since leaving the education "box", I've travelled the world representing global corporations, I've had the opportunity to be head of R&D for a multi-billion dollar global manufacturer, I've consulted to NASA on space suits, Pfizer on manufacturing processes, and Ralph Lauren on fabric structures. I'm currently building out an engineering firm and have developed a need for at least 20 new full time engineers in the next 10 weeks, and I'm looking forward to much more in the future. I might even pursue a degree when my kids are older and I have spare time.

With that in mind, here are my comments on the four major themes of the book:

"Children have different abilities."

This is true. No arguments.

"Half of all children are below average."

Average what? I spent most of my education at the bottom of the grading curve, but I knew more than most of the kids with the highest grades. How do you define average? To me, that statement is a box that prevents kids from understing how to use their wings. It's also an excuse that allows educators to apply a label to a struggling kid rather than trying to understand what the kid needs. In my case, for example, I probably would have excelled if I was simply given a series of difficult problems to solve (or things to build/create), where the solution (or phased set of solutions) required absorpbtion of required curriculum material. There is no such thing as average when it comes to kids - it's a false measurement.

"Too many children go to college."

If this is true, then too many jobs require a college education.

"America’s future depends on the gifted."

I agree. I also believe that we all have gifts to offer. Our future depends upon all of us.

Re: Let’s Really Go Smoke Free

shorebreak — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:01:38 -0000

I propose a complete ban on urination and defacation. The cost is exhorbinant and adds unnecessary taxes to an overtaxed society. The environmental impact is enormous and the smell is abominable.

A complete ban wil probably be costly and difficult to manage, so my second recommendation is for a ban on eating. Eating results in massive waste of good natural land, it results in the uneccesary deaths of countless farm animals (yes, there will be more animal urination and defecation as a result, but that's natural. Human waste is not) and it results in huge expenditures for our welfare system and for families.

If we can have a total ban on both - human waste and eating - I'm certain that we can make significant progress in reducing our carbon footprints as well. The carbon trading market will be an utter disaster, but that won't be a problem since the benficiaries of carbon trading will be gone along with the rest of us.

Re: Whatever Happened to the Revolution?

shorebreak — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:17:15 -0000

The US government just announced that the G-20 will be the head group co-ordinating the US economy. We've just rolled over without announcement or a fight. There is no revolution. Most people who claim to care will dismiss it as though it is nothing while they watch the Constitutional control of our nation get handed over to an international body.

Re: How 9-11 Changed Me

shorebreak — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:02:26 -0000

One week before 9/11 I was standing outside of the WTC with my family. We were planning to head up to Windows of the World for lunch at the top of the towers. My oldest son was 7 at the time. When we arrived inside the lobby (deciding not to go up to eat because the line was too long) my son asked "What would happen if bad guys attacked us?" I asked him to explain what he meant. He told me that he was refering to an external attack by air.

From my background, I was able to explain to him (in words that he could understand) that a surprise attack would be impossible because we have constant, redundant AND overlapping monitoring of 100% of our airspace by both military and civilian air controllers, and we have interceptor aircraft stationed throughout the country on stand-by so that any potential crisis would place our national defense system on full alert within minutes. I had direct connections to implementation of the newest and most advanced military crisis management center so I could speak to this with confidence.

On the morning of 9/11 I was tuned into a local NYC radio station, listening to a traffic reporter who was monitoring the towers after the first impact. When the 2nd impact occured, like everyone else, I knew that it was an attack. I was horrified. There were reports of hijackings but I couldn't figure out how it could possibly have happened. Interceptors act immediately, yet the 2nd hijacked plane didn't strike until at least 20 minutes after the first impact. I reacted similarly to everyone else and I wanted a defensive US response, but I couldn't shake the issue regarding the air defense failure, especially after the Pentagon was struck more than an hour after the WTC attacks. The shoot-down of a plane over Pennsylvania certainly disturbed me, but it made sense under the circumstances, except for the fact that the media and government turned around and later claimed that the 6 mile debris trail and break-up was the result of passengers overpowering the hijackers and crashing the plane.

Ultimately, my concerns led to my digging deeply into NORAD (North American Air Defense) and FAA procedure. I learned that in the 12 months prior to 9/11, every errant and non-communicative aircraft in CONUS (Continental US) airspace had been successfully intercepted by NORAD. There only failures all occured on 9/11.

I also learned that in the spring of 2001 the White House had officially announced that air intercepts must be approved by the office of the Vice-President, where in the past they had all remained within the military chain of command. I also learned that the Northeast Sector for NORAD (NEADS) had begun a long-planned virtual wargame on the morning of 9/11 that placed false contacts on radar screens, which operators had to decipher and track. As part of the exercise, the false blips were hijacked airliners with their identification transponders turned off. At the same time, NSA (National Security Agency) was running an exercise that simulated an aircraft or missile attacking the Pentagon.

A third exercise was not simulated. It involved the relocation of interceptor aircraft from the Northeast Sector to the Northwesat for a real-time training effort.

I also learned that another White House announcement placed the office of the Vice-President in charge of all anti-terror training.

In terms of military command, it was also reported that prior to the attacks, the General in charge of the NMCC (National Military Command Center) at the Pentagon, and the general in charge at NORAD, had both been replaced by junior officers at the last minute. The junior officers were unfamiliar with correct procedure and were unable to execute the standard response drills and approvals without proper chain of command authority. Throughout the attacks, the head of the military - Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers (Genral Myers) was unreachable. His unchallenged claim is that he was busy at a meeting on Capitol Hill with Senators and was unaware of the attacks until it was all over.

Although these items were readily identifiable in the public domain after a few weeks of dedicated searching, none of them were addressed by the 9/11 Commission and nobody has been held accountable for their failures on that terrible morning.

There is much more damning information than this regarding the events of the morning, but these items highlight my concerns and they frame how 9/11 has changed me. It's been a huge eye-opener, enabling me to fully understand that as citizens, our safety is not assured by our security systems as much as it is by the integrity and motivations of those whom we choose to serve us. When we allow our media to frame our elections, and we choose the candidates who are portrayed most favorably by the camera lens and reporters, we risk choosing a leadership who has an agenda that pays lip service to security, but in reality, will use security to create fear in order to propel an unAmerican agenda.

9/11 has made me realize with certainty that our highest levels of federal government have been usurped by private and foreign interests. When the need arises, they will attack us again. Using their media (FOX/CNN/PBS/ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC etc) they will use the attacks to motivate more of our children into combat for an unAmerican agenda.