Monthly Archives: May 2011

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 23)

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage.  Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article, ” ‘The Cohabitation Trap’–Why Marriage Matters,” August 16, 2005 and I  wanted to post a portion of it everyday and here is part 2:

Cohabitation prior to marriage serves to undermine, rather than to strengthen the marital bond. Here’s how Wartik summarizes the research: “Couples who move in together before marriage have up to two times the odds of divorce, as compared with couples who marry before living together. Moreover, married couples who have lived together before exchanging vows tend to have poorer-quality marriages than couples who moved in after the wedding. Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment.”

Social scientists are alarmed at these findings. Some now believe that cohabitation before marriage undermines the very notion of commitment. As Wartik explains, “The precautions we take to ensure marriage is right for us may wind up working against us.” 

There seem to be two major theories offered as explanations for this phenomenon. Wartik describes the “reigning explanation” as “the inertia hypothesis.” This theory suggests “that many of us slide into marriage without ever making an explicit decision to commit. We move in together, we get comfortable, and pretty soon marriage starts to seem like the path of least resistance. Even if the relationship is only tolerable, the next stage seems to be inevitable.”

The inertia theory suggests that marriage just “happens” to couples who have been cohabitating for some time. Paul Amato, a professor at Penn State University, suggests, “There’s an inevitable pressure that creates momentum towards marriage . . . . I’ve talked to many cohabiting couples and they’ll say, ‘My mother was so unhappy until I told her we were getting married–and then she was so relieved.'” Amato also suggests that issues like shared financial arrangements and shared offspring also build the momentum towards marriage.

The inertia theory may offer considerable insight into the way cohabiting men understand marriage. Some researchers suggest that cohabitating men demonstrate a high level of uncertainty about the relationship and bring that same uncertainty into marriage. Wartik cites a 2004 study by psychologist Scott Stanley that found “that men who had lived with their spouse premaritally were on average less committed to their marriages than those who hadn’t.”

The other major theory suggests that the experience of cohabitation itself weakens the marital bond. As Amato explains, “A couple of studies show that when couples cohabit, they tend to adopt less conventional beliefs about marriage and divorce, and it tends to make them less religious.” As Wartik expands the idea: “That could translate, once married, to a greater willingness to consider options that are traditionally frowned upon–like saying ‘so long’ to an ailing marriage.”

______________________________

Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember

Adrian Rogers – Simplicity of Salvation (2 4)

Tim Hawkins talks about Moms

Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work_Part 5 of 7

April 30, 2011 |  2:33 pm
 

Official royal wedding photo of Prince William, Kate Middleton and family

Who was Milton Friedman and what did he say about Social Security Reform? (Part 1)

Milton Friedman congratulated by President Ronald Reagan. © 2008 Free To Choose Media, courtesy of the Power of Choice press kit

Milton Friedman – The Social Security Myth

Using Social Security as his prime example, Professor Friedman explodes the myth that the major expansions in government resulted from popular demand. In a speech delivered more than 30 years ago, he directly relates this dynamic to today’s health care debate. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Milton Friedman economist Milton Friedman
Born July 31, 1912
Brooklyn, New York City
Died November 16, 2006
San Francisco, California

Known for
Monetarism
Permanent income hypothesis
Critique of Phillips curve

Notable Prizes
John Bates Clark Medal (1951)
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (1976)
Presidential Medal of Freedom (1988)

Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist who made major contributions to the fields of macroeconomics, microeconomics, economic history and statistics while advocating laissez-faire capitalism.

In Capitalism and Freedom (1962) he advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market in order to create political and social freedom. In 1976, he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy. His television series Free to Choose aired on PBS in early 1980. It became a book, co-authored with his wife, Rose Friedman. The book was widely read, as were his columns for Newsweek magazine. In statistics, he devised the Friedman test.

His political philosophy stressing the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention shaped the outlook of American conservatives and had a major impact on the economic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration in the U.S. and on many other countries after 1980.

___________________________________

I read Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” and practically memorized his 10 part film series (with the same name). I once got to correspond with him, and I was thrilled that he took time to write me back.

Ronald Reagan was another one of my heroes and so was Francis Schaeffer. It was amazing to me that these gentlemen actually had so many connections. Francis Schaeffer’s good friend C. Everett Koop was in the Reagan Administration. Milton Friedman was good friends with Reagan as well.

Milton Friedman wrote an excellent article, “Speaking the truth about Social Security Reform,” April 12, 1999, Cato Institute and I will posting portions of that article in the next few days.  Milton Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, was a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Originally published in the New York Times January 11, 1999. Here is the first portion:

Executive Summary

 

As support grows for transforming Social Security from a pay-as-you-go defined benefit program to a system of individually owned, privately invested accounts, critics of privatization have warned that making the transition to such a new system would impose substantial new costs on today’s young workers. However, given a proper understanding of Social Security’s current unfunded liabilities—variously estimated at from$4 trillion to $11 trillion—there are no real transition costs to privatizing Social Security, merely the explicit recognition of current implicit debt.

A privatized SocialSecurity system should not be mandatory. The fraction of a person’s income that it is reasonable for him or her to set aside for retirement depends on that person’s circumstances and values. It makes no more sense to specify a minimum fraction for all people than to mandate a minimum fraction of income that must be spent on housing or transportation. Our general presumption is that individuals can best judge for themselves how to use their resources.

The ongoing discussion about privatizing Social Security would benefit from paying more attention to fundamentals, rather than dwelling simply on nuts and bolts of privatization.

 

What does the Heritage Foundation have to say about saving Social Security:Study released May 10, 2011 (Part 1)

What is the future of Social Security and Medicare?

 Congresswoman Virginia Foxx talks with Alison Fraser of the Heritage Foundation about the state of Social Security and Medicare.

“Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, May 10, 2011 by  Stuart Butler, Ph.D. , Alison Acosta Fraser and William Beach is one of the finest papers I have ever read. Over the next few days I will post portions of this paper, but I will start off with the section on Social Security. I am also going to give attention to the thoughts of Milton Friedman on the subject too. Here is the first portion:

Saving the American Dream is The Heritage Foundation’s plan to fix the debt, cut spending and, above all, restore prosperity. It balances the nation’s budget within a decade—and keeps it balanced. It reduces the debt and cuts government in half. It eliminates government-mandated health care and fully funds our national defense. It squarely confronts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the three so-called entitlement programs, which together account for 43 percent of federal spending today.

To encourage Americans to become more fiscally responsible, the Heritage plan redesigns our entire tax system into an expenditure tax that will have a single, flat rate. This is a structure that will promote savings, therefore benefiting individual Americans, our body politic, and the economy.

At the end of the day our plan, while economic in nature, has a higher moral purpose. If entitlements are not reformed, the next generation and future ones will have to pay punitive tax rates that will end liberty as we have known it. Our proposal, which was funded by a grant initiative set up by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, aims to preserve America’s promise bequeathed to us by past generations.

Social Security

Summary

Social Security is the largest single federal program, paying out about $700 billion per year to some 60 million Americans. It is a major source of retirement income for millions of Americans. Yet Social Security went into the red in 2010, paying out more in benefits than people paid in as payroll taxes. The Congressional Budget Office says that these deficits will continue for at least the next 75 years and probably indefinitely.

Candidate #4,Congressman Ron Paul: Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 2)(A Night with Ron Paul Part A, Guest on “The View”)

Ron Paul on The View 4 25 2011 New Book ‘Liberty Defined’ !

Robert Wenzel, Editor & Publisher of the Economy Policy Journal wrote a fine article “On the road with Ron Paul,” May 2, 2011. I will be posting portions of that article the next few days. Here is the first part:

Last week Friday, I had the opportunity to spend time with Ron Paul.

It was a chance to get a sense of Dr. Paul that went beyond the short sound bites and brief television appearances that is the way we generally get to gauge presidential candidates. I met him in Reno, NV where he was on the campaign trail. I came up from California for the meeting.

Because of Dr Paul’s tight schedule, Jesse Benton, Paul’s communication director, gave me 30 minutes at 7:00 in the morning. Since Paul had given a speech the night before at the University of Nevada-Reno, I wasn’t sure how much energy he would have that early in the morning. But at 7:00 when I sat down with Dr. Paul at the Silver Legacy Hotel, he was wide awake and clearly ready for a full day.

On television the gentleman that Ron Paul is comes across, but in person there is more. There’s a personal warmth and almost a Ronald Reagan-like charm about him. (There’s pluses and minuses to Ronald Reagan, the president, but he did have that charm, and so does Dr. Paul) When we sat down to talk, it was almost like we were life long buddies.

Without waiting for any questions from me, he told me that the week was the busiest in his life. On Monday, he was in New York promoting his new book. He also appeared on “The View”, on the “Sean Hannity Show” and the “Colbert Report”. On Tuesday he announced the formation of his exploratory committee and also began handling reporters’ questions about Fed Chairman Bernanke’s upcoming press conference. On Wednesday, there were more news interviews from reporters wanting to know his view after Bernanke’s briefing.

Dr. Paul told me that his new house is an hour away from Houston and that he had made the decision not to go into Houston for short news media interviews. He told me somewhat excitedly, as an indication of his growing following, that on Wednesday the television stations sent trucks from Houston out to his house to get his reaction.

Pt 1/6 Ron Paul  4/15/11 CSPAN

Brummett:We must increase debt ceiling or disaster will occur (Part 4)

John Brummett in his article “Dear visa, my debt ceiling is capped,” April 25, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, he observes:

The first thing I intend to do is join the tea party. Then I’m going to refuse to raise my debt limit. Then I’m going to call the Visa people.

“Y’all have me down here owing $6,000,” I’m going to say. “But I’ve become a fiscal conservative. I’m getting really disciplined fiscally. I’m taking my household back.

“My self-imposed debt ceiling is $4,000. I’ve opted not to raise it. Nary a cent. I only went over it because the oral surgeon demanded immediate payment.

“So $4,000 is the most you rascals will get out of me. You may as well quit compounding the interest on this outstanding balance. I am serious about this. You may consider this baby capped at four grand.

“Oh, by the way: Don’t even think about canceling this card. I have a second round of dental work coming up and the oral surgeon doesn’t give these implants away.

“Thank you, and remember: Vote Palin-Bachmann.”

You are thinking this is absurd. You are right, of course.

But you are not intellectually entitled to call it absurd if you are among the seven in 10 Americans telling pollsters you don’t want the federal government’s debt ceiling raised. You are not intellectually entitled if you are one of these right-wing politicians pandering to this tea-drunken grandstand by threatening to vote not to raise it.

Here is how real fiscal responsibility works: You repay the debt that you have incurred to date. You make spending reductions prospectively by showing sufficient discipline to reduce the future pace at which you incur debt. You dare not let your existing debt go unpaid lest your credit score suffer and you get denied the next time you find yourself in a bit of a pinch and need to finance a refrigerator at Sears.

Michael Tanner made some great observations in his article “Debt-Ceiling Myths,” National Review Online, May 11, 2011. 

Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. Here is a portion of this recent article: 

Now that Osama bin Laden has been successfully dispatched to the eternal damnation he so richly deserves, Washington is ready to return to the more mundane question of whether the Obama administration will be allowed to spend this country into oblivion.

The next big fiscal fight will be over when and how to increase the debt limit. The administration has been hard at work trying to shape the message and public opinion. Unsurprisingly, much of that message is less than 100 percent accurate. Here are some myths about the debt ceiling and the upcoming debate about raising it:

1. Failure to pass means defaulting on our debts. If there has been consistent message from the White House, it that the United States can’t afford to “default on our debts.” That is almost certainly true. However, refusing to raise the debt limit does not mean defaulting on our debts. The U.S. Treasury currently takes in more than enough revenue to pay both the interest and the principal on the debts we currently owe. And if the Obama administration is truly worried about whether it will do so, then it should urge Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) requiring the Treasury Department to pay those bills first. It is true that, once we had paid our debt-service bills, there wouldn’t be enough money left over to pay for everything else the Obama administration wants to spend money on. The government would have to prioritize its expenditures — sending out checks for the troops’ pay and Social Security first. Other spending would have to wait. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says that not spending money Congress has appropriated is “the same as default.” It is not. It is economizing, which is what you do when you are out of money.

 

The drama builds on Huckabee running, latest guess is no, but we know Saturday night for sure!!

View Image

John Brummett in his article “Huckabee might run to stay on tv,” May 10, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, noted:

He does not want to be president. He did not even want to be governor. He wants to gab; he wants to get paid by the word; he wants his own microphone and camera; he wants an adapted Falwell-Robertson kind of appeal; he wants to put out pamphlets and call them books; he wants stuff.

In his article “Huckabee isn’t running,” April 24, 2011, Arkansas News Bureau, Steve Brawner observed:

Huckabee isn’t lying when he says that he won’t decide until this summer. There is still a part of him that hasn’t shut the door. But he’s leaning strongly enough against the idea that he is comfortable with building this big house.

Jason Tolbert reported:

KATV’s Scott Inman sat down for an extended segment with Gov. Huckabee today on which aired tonight in central Arkansas.  In it, he sounds like he is inching closer to a decision to run.

Max Brantley in March noted:

I think Mike Huckabee is going to run for president, but I think he’s going to finesse the decision as long as possible to hang onto the money he makes as a non-candidate with his radio show (now on 560 stations) and his show on Fox News, which recently booted two commentators who’ve made not much more presidential noise than Huckabee.

Today Tolbert noted:

Huckabee plans some sort of “major announcement” on his show on Saturday. What is it? No one will say but Ed Rollins the man who would likely be his campaign manage is sounding like he thinks Huckabee is leaning toward not running.

Fox News just posted this.

Will he or won’t he make a run for the White House? The Gov. gives his answer LIVE on Huckabee, Saturday at 8p ET.

Plus, Ted Nugent on America’s fight against terrorism at home and overseas.

 

Where do I stand on this? I think Huckabee will probably not run. I earlier thought that he would run and I knew that he could always come back to Fox later and get his job back.However, I heard John Fund of the Wall Street Journal speak the other day and he commented that when people like the liberal President Obama are in control, it makes his job so much more easy. The subjects for the articles are handed to him on a platter by Obama everyday. I think the same is true for Huckabee and his show.

President Obama to meet Flood victims in Memphis on Monday

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama

The Associated Press reported this morning:

President Barack Obama will meet with families affected by flooding along the Mississippi River when he travels to Memphis, Tenn., on Monday.

The White House says Obama will also meet with first responders and state and local officials. The Mississippi crested in Memphis earlier this week at a near-record level, flooding low-lying neighborhoods and forcing hundreds of residents into emergency shelters.

Obama has declared Memphis, Shelby County and surrounding counties disaster areas, making them eligible for federal aid.

The president is traveling to Memphis to deliver a commencement address at a high school that won a White House education competition.

Downtown buildings are seen in the distance as the swollen Mississippi River spreads out in the foreground Tuesday, May 10, 2011, in Memphis, Tenn. The Mississippi River crested in Memphis at nearly 48 feet on Tuesday, falling short of its all-time record but still soaking low-lying areas with enough water to require a massive cleanup

Photo by Jeff Roberson, Associated Press

Downtown buildings are seen in the distance as the swollen Mississippi River spreads out in the foreground Tuesday, May 10, 2011, in Memphis, Tenn. The Mississippi River crested in Memphis at nearly 48 feet on Tuesday, falling short of its all-time record but still soaking low-lying areas with enough water to require a massive cleanup.

A car is partially submerged in floodwater at a junk yard Monday, May 9, 2011, in Memphis, Tenn. Memphis residents are waiting for the Mississippi River to reach its peak expected as early as Monday night as the river rises near its highest level ever in Memphis, flooding pockets of low-lying neighborhoods

Photo by Jeff Roberson, Associated Press

A car is partially submerged in floodwater at a junk yard Monday, May 9, 2011, in Memphis, Tenn. Memphis residents are waiting for the Mississippi River to reach its peak expected as early as Monday night as the river rises near its highest level ever in Memphis, flooding pockets of low-lying neighborhoods

Obama to speak at Memphis high school

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 83) (1981 Orsini McArthur murder case Part 7)

.”

From Oct. 28, 1980, here is part 3 of the Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate, which occurred in Cleveland, as taped from WJKW-TV, CBS. Amazing how things have changed…and yet stayed the same…in almost 30 years!!!

President Bill Clinton, left, and former Presidents George Bush, Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford stand with their wives during funeral services for former President Richard Nixon Wednesday, April 27, 1994, in Yorba Linda, Calif. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)President Bill Clinton, left, and former Presidents George Bush, Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford stand with their wives during funeral services for former President Richard Nixon Wednesday, April 27, 1994, in Yorba Linda, Calif. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

Here is video clip of a cartoon about the Reagan Revolution (Tolbert Report provided video clip):

1984 Presidential Debate between President Reagan v Walter Mondale
NicaraguaMR. KONDRACKE: You’ve been quoted as saying that you might quarantine Nicaragua. I’d like to know what that means. Would you stop Soviet ships, as President Kennedy did in 1962? And wouldn’t that be more dangerous than President Reagan’s covert war?MR. MONDALE: What I’m referring to there is the mutual self-defense provisions that exist in the Inter-American treaty, the so-called Rio Pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps — diplomatic and otherwise — to prevent Nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it.The Nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region — unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the President said, they have not supported negotiations in that region — we will be much stronger, because we’ll have the moral authority that goes with those efforts.
LebanonMR. KONDRACKE: President Reagan, you introduced U.S. forces into Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the Lebanese Government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now Syria, a Soviet ally, is dominant in the country. Doesn’t Lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy strategist and as Commander in Chief?THE PRESIDENT: No, Morton, I don’t agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies — the Italians, the French, and the United Kingdom — went into Lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the Lebanese Government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government.But the first — pardon me — the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in Beirut between Israel and the PLO terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. Those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and Israel chased them all the way to there.Then we went in with the multinational force to help remove, and did remove, more than 13,000 of those terrorists from Lebanon. We departed. And then the Government of Lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of Lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders.And we were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport. Oh, there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire, but we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action; we defended ourselves there.

But we were succeeding to the point that the Lebanese Government had been organized — if you will remember, there were the meetings in Geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there — and that includes Syria, in my mind — who don’t want us to succeed, who don’t want that kind of a peace with a dominant Lebanon, dominant over its own territory. And so, the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason: We withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep Israel and Syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And I have no apologies for our going on a peace mission.

MR. KONDRACKE: Mr. President, 4 years ago you criticized President Carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in Iran might be taken hostage. Haven’t you done exactly the same thing in Lebanon, not once, but three times, with 300 Americans, not hostages, but dead? And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesn’t our lack of response suggest that you’re just bluffing?

THE PRESIDENT: Morton, no. I think there’s a great difference between the Government of Iran threatening our diplomatic personnel, and there is a government that you can see and can put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over. In a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in Brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of Beirut where these terrorists are operating.

I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. And it’s going to take all the nations together, just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings sometime ago.

Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever.

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal?

MR. MONDALE: Groucho Marx said, “Who do you believe? — me, or your own eyes?” And what we have in Lebanon is something that the American people have seen. The Joint Chiefs urged the President not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. They went to him 5 days before they were killed and said, “Please, take them out of there.” The Secretary of State admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. That was the second time.

Then the Embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. And we were warned 5 days before that explosives were on their way, and they weren’t taken. The terrorists have won each time. The President told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didn’t. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger.

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. President, your rebuttal?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First of all, Mr. Mondale should know that the President of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. That is one.

On the other things that you’ve just said about the terrorists, I’m tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they’re blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they’re going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as I say, we’re busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we’re not going to simply kill some people to say, “Oh, look, we got even.” We want to know when we retaliate that we’re retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States Capitol in Washington has been bombed twice.

MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan?
The President’s Age

Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for 2 or 3 weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?

THE PRESIDENT: Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don’t know which, that said, “If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.”

It has been 150 years since the beginning of the Civil War that started in April of 1861 at Ft Sumter.

Old Soldier’s of the Civil War

(Grant Co., WI, Circa 1890’s)

Probably members of the Sam Montieth Post – G.A.R.
and/or of the Wisconsin 7th Volunteer Infantry – The Iron Brigade

Photo includes:

John and Sophronia (McGhan) McLimans
(couple just to the left of the doors)

Thomas and Mary Ann (Thomas) Walker
(Thomas is 2nd to right on the first row – Mary Ann is the last woman on the right in the back row)

______________________________________________

Excerpts from Mary Lee Orsini transcript

The following is a series of excerpts from a July 17 interview between Mary Lee Orsini and Sgt. Jim Dixon and Major Jackie Goodson of the Pulaski County sheriff’s office. The transcript was edited only for basic spelling.

Sergeant Dixon: Could we start with uh, when you got up the morning, or the date of the occurrence.
Mary Lee Orsini: Okay, okay. Well the crime was actually committed uh a little bit after one o’clock in the morning on March the twelfth. Uh I had uh, stolen my husband’s gun some weeks before. Uh I had secreted it in the house and uh um that that morning uh, I got up and uh, I went into the bedroom. My daughter had been ill and I had set with my daughter a couple of nights before, which was legitimate. I mean it was a lot made out of that, but it was legitimate. She had a swimmer’s ear, which she frequently had problems with; and I was sleeping with her. And uh I got up and I, and I had taken the gun and I had shot my husband, and I closed the door, locked the door and closed the door and uh I went through a ruse that morning to prevent my daughter from going into the room. Uh I took her to school. I then uh, took the gun and the robe that I had on, and the that shoes I had on, the rubber gloves that I had on. Everything and I took and destroyed those. I don’t know the name of the place, I could probably tell you where they were thrown; probably not there anymore. I don’t know about the gun. But I, and I proceeded to go through uh the ruse of calling my husband at work uh, then uh his partner told me how to get into the door, which I really didn’t know how to get into the door. Uh I knew I had seen him use something to get into the door. I later found out they were allen wrenches but I used a a skewer from the bar-b-que and I went in the door and uh, then I called the police and feigned a hysterical uh call to the North Little Rock Police Department. Really the, the operator switched me but I guess because of the telephone number to the Sherwood and I guess somehow got switched over. I think I was, if I remember correctly I was trying to get a hold of the ambulance. And when I told her my husband had blood all over him then she called the operator and was switching things around and it got real confusing. And uh she called the North Little Rock Police Department, someone did; I think the operator. And they came out and it ensued from that. There was a lot of controversy about a car being out front of my housed that night. And a girl seen across the street. And when that was, when that came up that was news to me. There was no car involved, there was no else involved. It was solely on my own volition.
. . .
Dixon: And you took that and the, and the revolver and you discarded those, those items? Did you do this before taking your daughter to school or?
Orsini: No, I never left the house. I went down to the uh, to the garage. I wrapped everything up. The gun up in the gown, the gown and robe and stuff put it back in a plastic bag back behind my seat. Uh and went back up the bed room where my daughter was and uh, uh, when I got her up, I took, dropped her off at the school and then, I uh, she went to Central which I’m not sure if you’re familiar and then I…
Dixon: Central High in Little Rock.
Orsini: No, no, no the old Central, seventh grade school. That’s where she went. You know what I’m talking about, right? I don’t know what street it’s are over there.
Major Goodson: Central Junior High.
Orsini: Yeah, they were all in the seventh grade. All the seventh grade kids go there. I dropped her off there and gave her a doctors permit to go back to school. And uh, I discarded the uh, discarded the gun and the stuff. After that I left.
Dixon: Can you recall where you discarded these items?
Orsini: I don’t know the name of the street, but I can tell you, with you probably being familiar with North Little Rock, I can tell you the directions. I’m not real good with streets and stuff but uh I went the old back way, I don’t remember that highway uh I think it’s called the Old Jacksonville Highway. You’re back behind McAlmont; that way. Okay. You know how Wildwood and Sherwood; you come back up through to the Old Round Top Filling Station there? Okay you come up that road there, well there’s like swamps on both sides of that road okay…
Dixon: Trammel Road.
Orsini: Trammel Road. Okay, as I’m facing Sherwood there was a culvert or little bridge like thing, I threw the gun and the, and the screwdriver thing I used to break into the back door, I threw it over this way, on the, into that swamp. The gown and stuff I threw back up by a dump that I saw a bunch of stuff discarded.
. . .
Goodson: So what I need you to do is try to go through this. I know you don’t want to get into the reason for it, but I think we need to go into some motive about why you would do this to your husband. If we don’t get into that then so it, it doesn’t all fit. You know what I’m saying.
Orsini: And I know what you’re saying, and I’m not really wanting to cover up. But I just really think that for everybody’s sake that I don’t need to go into a motive. I’m responsible. And I take full responsibility for it.
Goodson: Well what concerns me is that you stole your husband’s gun two weeks prior. Does that mean that you were planning this at least two weeks prior too?
Orsini: Yeah I was, you know uh, course you’ve never done anything like this, and I hadn’t either prior to that point. And uh you know, you talk yourself into it, you talk yourself out of it, you talk yourself into it, you talk yourself out of it. And in essence that’s what I was doing.
Goodson: Can you give me some idea as to why you would do that to your husband and the father of your daughter.
Orsini: He wasn’t, he was my daughter’s stepfather;
Goodson: Oh okay I’m sorry.
Orsini: But none the less Ron did not deserve this. You know uh, I know it sounds contradictory but uh there was just a set of circumstances that lead up to it and uh they’re not really important today.
Goodson: Well uh, it is in order to making sense of when someone says I-I killed someone. You know the first question that you’re going to ask if someone told you that is; why? Is it financial, is it-is it…
Orsini: Yeah in-in part it was financial-in part it was financial. We had uh…
Goodson: Is it abuse? Is it uh…
Orsini: No he’s not abusive, no. He had uh, nor is he sexual, nor did he do anything to my daughter. No, no, no.
Goodson: That’s what I’m saying if you don’t-if you don’t come up with why, then you got this-all this out here that can come into something.
Orsini: Okay, okay. I understand. So you’re saying an omission is as bad as …okay.
Goodson: Cause you’re leaving it out there for anybody to…
Orsini: Okay can I make brief toward this instead of just really putting it out there, cause all the details involved a lot of innocent people that really didn’t do anything wrong it’s involving them. You know I really just don’t want to get into a whole lot of. You know, you know that um, you know that there’s no way I can do this quietly. I can’t go crawl under a table and do this.
Goodson: I understand.
Orsini: You know it’s right, it’s just, and they’re still people that’s suffering behind this.
Goodson: Well I’m telling you I can appreciate your strength over this. Uh but again I think you do an injustice too…
Orsini: Primarily it was financial. We had gotten ourselves into a situation, which uh was primarily was my fault for uh, uh my husband had wanted to move back when were in our original house back when we were uh married and uh, if y’all remember when Carter was in office it was projected interest rates were going sky high and by the end of 1980 I remember it was 23 percent. My husband was in the contracting business, and air conditioning business so he uh, he knew kind of what was going to happen and he said you know we need to move. The house we used to live in doubled itself. But uh, you know and we got our loan quick. The problem that we had was that-that uh, all the other transactions that got involved with estate agent that wasn’t all on the up and up, and twisted some things around and uh which was my fault for letting her do that. And I-and I did it behind my husband’s back. To try and go head and take care of the situation to get into the house; which we both were happy with getting into the house. Uh, you know to make a long story short uh, Ron was killed so he wouldn’t catch me, and all those lies I had told him. You know I-I know that sounds uh really crazy, but you can, uh, but you care enough for somebody that you don’t want them to know really that there’s um, that um you weren’t honest with them.
Goodson: Was there ever any threats…
Orsini: No.
Goodson: Of harm or anything, something to…
Orsini: No, no, I look back now that wisdom comes after understanding. Well when you get wisdom and you get understanding you know uh-uh the wisest thing I would’ve been-would have been was sit down with him and work it out. Because at that time my income was increasing and uh there could have been a solution. But uh uh evidently there were areas I wasn’t mature in, and uh I was scared. And uh I had lied to him enough about the situations, that uh you know most people kill over affairs. Both of us were-neither one of us was having affairs. As you know I think that’s probably why the case was always so crazy. Because there was no clear cut motive for anybody to, I mean yes Sergeant Farley brought out the thing; even he didn’t get an accurate picture of what was uh…
Goodson: He brought out what?
Orsini: You know the financial situation, cause he traced it back and could see that you know-in all essence within a week we would have collapsed you know financially in the present state. That’s what my thinking was then, and uh had I been wise; which I was not um I could sit down with my husband, there could been some renegotiating but I wasn’t wise I was very stupid.
Goodson: So you’re saying that, that’s the reason that this all occurred on that night?
Orsini: Yeah.
Goodson: The night that you walked in there with the gun in your hand, was due to the fact; I don’t want to put word in your mouth but I’m trying to understand…
Orsini: I understand what you’re saying.
Goodson: But you didn’t want to be confronted with the facts of the lies that you had told him that…
Orsini: Exactly.
. . .

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 49)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Yesterday I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself at 8am CST on May 13, 2011:

Senator Rand Paul on Feb 7, 2011 wrote the article “A Modest $500 Billion Proposal: My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security,” Wall Street Journal and he observed:

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Transportation

Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
Transportation $43.855 B $4.810 B 49%
The Department of Transportation’s main function is to extract tax dollars from the states and then return those
dollars back to the states to fund highway, transit, airports and other transportation related programs. The department
is notorious for providing Members of Congress an avenue to direct funding and earmarks to their states, which is
frequently highlighted by the press for being wasteful and inefficient. Many states complain of funding that is provided
for projects that are not needed and the associated increase in overall costs. For example, due to the many provisions included in transportation funding, such as the Buy-America clause, it is estimated federally funded projects cost nearly twice as much as the amount a state would pay for the same project.

The proposal includes funding the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration at the level of projected gas tax revenue of $37 billion. The proposal eliminates Amtrak subsidies, and reduces the remainder of
the department back to FY2008 levels, with an additional reduction of 20 percent.

Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration: Funded at Gas Tax Levels
Established in in 1956, the U.S. Highway Trust fund uses excise taxes off the sale of gasoline to fund three major
programs – mostly highways, a much smaller account for mass transit, and an even smaller fund to address leaking underground storage tanks. Currently, the American consumer pays 18.4 cents per gallon in taxes to fund this trust
fund. Because of changes to the laws governing the trust fund, the fund no longer just had to be used for highways,
but could be used for any form of transportation – bike lanes, subway systems, etc., that may not use the amounts of fuel needed to sustain the program.
Because of the constant depletion of the trust fund by departments that are unaffiliated with the highway system,
additional taxpayer funds are forced to be used to accommodate the $52 billion FY2010 budget of the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration. The current push to reduce emissions and make vehicles more energy efficient will only leave the American taxpayer more on the hook for mismanagement of funds. Setting a cap on these two programs at the amount of excise tax collected will require the federal government to prioritize road projects more efficiently and places decision making and implementation of road maintenance where it can be done best – the states.

Amtrak Subsidies: Eliminate
Created by an act of Congress in 1970 to provide passenger rail service, Amtrak has yet to turn a yearly profit. During
its first 35 years, federal assistance amounted to approximately $30 billion. Yet from FY2007 to FY2010 that number has increased by $7 billion. Of the 44 routes and 21,000 miles of track the trains travel over, only 625 miles are
actually owned by Amtrak. Congress has forced freight rail companies to allow Amtrak to use the lines the freight rail
companies own and maintain.


We need to allow the states to have a greater say in trail service between their cities. To provide better service,
Amtrak must learn to make the difficult decisions on routes and coverage to develop a sound business model, which
will push them toward becoming profitable.

Pictures and Video of aftermath of May 13, 2011 attack in Pakistan

Soldiers of Pakistan army and police officer ...

Soldiers stand guard

Soldiers of Pakistan army and police officer stand guard after a bombing in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. A police officer says the death toll in a pair of explosions outside a security force training center in northwest Pakistan has risen to 80. Liaqat Ali Khan says 66 victims in the attack Friday were recruits for the Frontier Corps. The attack is the bloodiest in Pakistan since the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief on May 2. Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, has said the attack was in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

Soldiers of the Pakistan army at the bombing ...

Soldiers of Pakistan army at bombing site

Soldiers of the Pakistan army at the bombing site in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. A police officer says the death toll in a pair of explosions outside a security force training center in northwest Pakistan has risen to 80. Liaqat Ali Khan says 66 victims in the attack Friday were recruits for the Frontier Corps. The attack is the bloodiest in Pakistan since the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief on May 2. Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, has said the attack was in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

Soldiers of Pakistani paramilitary force, check ...

Soldiers of Pakistani paramilitary force

Soldiers of Pakistani paramilitary force, check a damaged vehicle at the site of a bombing outside a paramilitary training center in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan, Friday, May 13, 2011. A pair of suicide bombers attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center in Pakistan on Friday, killing 80 people in the first retaliation for the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos last week.

Supporters of Pakistani religious group Jamiat ...

Supporters of Pakistani religious group Jamiat …

Supporters of Pakistani religious group Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam chant slogan during an anti U.S. rally in Abbottabad, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. Pakistan is facing pressure from inside the country and abroad to explain why Pakistani intelligence didn’t know that bin Laden was hiding in their country and whether some Pakistani officials knew and protected him. The placard in center top reading as ‘Osama your blood will bring revolution’.

______________________________

Members of the paramilitary forces stand at the ...

Clothing and other items from victims are seen ...

Clothing and other items are seen

Clothing and other items from victims are seen collected and put in a pile at the site of a suicide bomb blast in Charsadda, northwest Pakistan May 13, 2011. Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 80 people at a paramilitary force academy in the northwest on Friday, and vowed further bloodshed in retaliation for the death of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid in the country.

A Pakistani security official shows photographs ...

Pakistani security official shows photographs

A Pakistani security official shows photographs he found in the luggage of soldiers after a bombing in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. A police officer says the death toll in a pair of explosions outside a security force training center in northwest Pakistan has risen to 80. Liaqat Ali Khan says 66 victims in the attack Friday were recruits for the Frontier Corps. The attack is the bloodiest in Pakistan since the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief on May 2. Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, has said the attack was in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

Pakistani security officials visit the site of ...

Pakistani security officials

Pakistani security officials visit the site of bombing at a gate of training school in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. A police officer says the death toll in a pair of explosions outside a security force training center in northwest Pakistan has risen to 80. Liaqat Ali Khan says 66 victims in the attack Friday were recruits for the Frontier Corps. The attack is the bloodiest in Pakistan since the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief on May 2. Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, has said the attack was in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

Pakistani security officials collect caps and ...

Pakistani security officials

Pakistani security officials collect caps and uniforms of their colleagues at the site of bombing in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. A police officer says the death toll in a pair of explosions outside a security force training center in northwest Pakistan has risen to 80. Liaqat Ali Khan says 66 victims in the attack Friday were recruits for the Frontier Corps. The attack is the bloodiest in Pakistan since the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief on May 2. Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, has said the attack was in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

A Pakistani security official stands guard at ...

Pakistani officials visit the site of bombing ...

Pakistani officials visit the site of the bombing ...
Men bring coffins to a hospital morgue in Peshawar, ...

Men bring coffins

Men bring coffins to a hospital morgue in Peshawar, for the victims of a suicide bomb blast in Charsadda May 13, 2011. Suicide bombers attacked a Pakistani paramilitary academy on Friday killing 80 people in revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden as Pakistani anger over the U.S. raid to get the al Qaeda leader showed no sign of cooling.

Member of the paramilitary forces stands guard ...

Member of paramilitary forces stands guard

A member of the paramilitary forces stands guard with a rocket launcher at the site of a suicide bomb blast in Charsadda, northwest Pakistan May 13, 2011. Suicide bombers attacked a Pakistani paramilitary academy on Friday killing 80 people in revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden as Pakistani anger over the U.S. raid to get the al Qaeda leader showed no sign of cooling. REUTERS/Fayaz Aziz

Site of a suicide bomb blast is reflected in ...

Site of suicide bomb blast is reflected

The site of a suicide bomb blast is reflected in the side mirror of a damaged vehicle in Charsadda, northwest Pakistan May 13, 2011. Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 80 people at a paramilitary force academy in the northwest on Friday, and vowed further bloodshed in retaliation for the death of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid in the country.

Townspeople look on as a member of the paramilitary ...

Townspeople look on

Townspeople look on as a member of the paramilitary forces cordons off the site of a suicide bomb blast in Charsadda, northwest Pakistan May 13, 2011. Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers killed at least 80 people at a paramilitary force academy in the northwest on Friday, and vowed further bloodshed in retaliation for the death of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid in the country