Monday, April 16, 2012

I HAVE to post this, even though most of you are going to yell at me. And I’ll deserve it.

 




This is like seeing… like seeing… it's not like anything you've seen.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Two more of obama's sons get a dirt nap


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Mitt Romney Thanks Rick Santorum For Making Him Look Gay Friendly In SNL Skit

Mitt Romney Thanks Rick Santorum For Making Him Look Gay Friendly In SNL Skit
By On Top Magazine Staff
Published: April 16, 2012Mitt Romney thanks Rick Santorum for making
him look gay friendly and Michele Bachmann suggests her husband is gay
in a Saturday Night Live skit.

The skit opens with Romney and Santorum reminiscing about the GOP
presidential campaign at a bar.

Santorum orders a chocolate milk and Romney a napkin.

"That was certainly a primary season to remember, ha?" Romney asks.

"Sure was, there was even a time when people were saying I was the
front-runner. Gotta thank you for that Mitt. The only candidate who
could make me look exciting," Santorum says.

"And you're the only candidate who could make me look gay friendly,"
Romney responds.

Romney and Santorum are eventually joined at the bar by Rick Perry,
Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.

"Hey are you crashing boys night?" Romney asks Bachmann.

"Oh, I've crashed a lot of boys nights," a despondent Bachmann
answers. "Usually when I come home early and unannounced."

(Watch the entire clip at Mediaite.com.)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snl-mitt-romney-rick-santorum-campaign/

More:
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=11536&MediaType=1&Category=16

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Political plastic surgeries



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Political plastic surgeries

by Dr. Eowyn

From The Daily Caller 11/21/2011.

In each case, the photo on the left is "before," the photo on the right is "after":

As Nancy Pelosi's politics go further and further to the left, her eyebrows drift higher and higher.

VP Joe Biden

These pics of Hillary Clinton are dated. The "after" photo on the right was taken during the 2008 primary elections when she magically appeared very fresh-faced in those debates with Obama. Since then, her Secretary-of-State globe-trotting must be keeping her from getting botox refills.

Senator John Kerry

Michele Bachmann

Mitt Romney: All those forehead frown lines have magically disappeared!

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/political-plastic-surgeries/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

TSA Thinks Drag Queen's Fake Boobs Are a Terrorist Threat







http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/16/tsa-thinks-drag-queens-fake-boobs-are-aMobile

Print|Email

TSA Thinks Drag Queen's Fake Boobs Are a Terrorist Threat

Katherine Mangu-Ward | April 16, 2012

"Would this happen if I were dressed as Britney Spears?" asked [Derrick] Barry, a featured star in Frank Marino's "Divas Las Vegas" at Imperial Palace. He was not in drag at the airport.

Barry was held up by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the Las Vegas airport after he attempted to board a plane with a carryon containing some of the tools of his trade: silicone breast enhancers, known (horrifyingly) as chicken cutlets. Apparently Barry's enhancements were sizeable—they exceeded the TSA's 3.2 ounce limit on liquids and gels. He wound up getting held for more than a hour while the TSA tried to figure out what to do with him, and nearly missed his flight to Tampa.

Women presumably go through security all the time wearing various species of falsies—particularly in Vegas, one imagines. And so do men, apparently:

"I've gone through with my fake butt and my fake boobs and never had a problem," said Barry's boss Marino, a Las Vegas drag icon for almost 30 years in "La Cage" and "Divas Las Vegas."

"Next time he travels," Marino said , "he should go through in drag and when he goes through the electronic X-ray machine, oh those eyes, those thighs and a little surprise. That would get 'em back."

More Reason on sexy fun with the TSA here:

 



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Who Can Be A Failure . . . And Still Get A Pay Raise?


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Senior flash mob




New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Senior flash mob

by Dr. Eowyn

Last Friday, April 13, a very different kind of flash mob surprised the Dulles Town Center mall in Ashburn, VA.

25 residents of Ashby Ponds retirement community ages 66 to 80, surprised crowds at noon with choreographed moves to the hit dance song "Tonight is the Night" by Outasight. The group had spent the last two months rehearsing at least once a week.

One of the performers, Carl Hemmer, had never participated in a flash mob -- much less heard of what they were. He's the oldest of the group, having just turned 80.

"The best part?" he says with a smile. "The end."

Hemmer is only one of four men in the group.

One woman performer said, "It's really exciting when you turn around and you see you're going the wrong way."

"I know exactly how you feel," another joined in. "And we thought the men were going to be a problem."

The women all laughed.

Way to go, seniors!

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/senior-flash-mob/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

How Regulators Wrecked Our Mowers




From: MJ michaelj@america.net


 


How Regulators Wrecked Our Mowers
Jeffrey Tucker · April 16, 2012

When I was a kid, lawn mowers worked. You pushed them and they cut grass. The grass went into the bag. Then you emptied the bag. The results were great. There was no grass to rake. It all went into the bag, because that's what lawn mowers did.

Then the feds got involved. Or so I now gather. I didn't know this for a long time. Every time I would buy a mower, I would be disappointed in the results. I kept buying mowers with ever-larger engines. Then I would buy them with different bag designs, and then a different brands, and then different features. Nothing worked.

The problem was always the same. I would mow and most of the grass would go in the catcher. But some didn't. Some landed on the lawn in a line. When the grass was wet, it left an even bigger trail. Or when I would go from the grass to the sidewalk, a big clump would fall out from underneath the mower onto the sidewalk, requiring that I get a broom and sweep it up. Then I would have to empty the bag long before it was full.

It took me many years of thinking to figure out the problem. After all, I never had this problem when I was a kid. Have companies started making lawn mowers that don't work? Are manufacturers worse than they used to be? It all seems crazy. I would mow with a smartphone in my pocket that could check my blood pressure, make the sound of a flute or surf the Web. Why can't private enterprise seem to make a mower that works?

I would try to forget about the problem, adjust to the downgraded reality and finish up the growing season. But the next year, it would all come back to me. Grass trails. Clumps on the sidewalk. Emptying too often. Buying a new mower and finding the same problem all over again.

What is the source of the problem? The spinning blade cuts the grass and creates a flow of air that lifts the grass and throws it into the catcher. A flow requires circulation, and where does the circulation come from? It can't be a vacuum seal. You can't create a small wind tunnel without a source of air. Where is this coming from? Nowhere. The base of the lawn mower is flush against the grass. The blades spin but create no suction effect.

Why is the base so low to the ground? I tend to mow my grass pretty low just because of the variety of grass and the topsoil level. But doing this causes a perfect seal between the mower and the ground, cutting off all airflow and denying the blade the air it needs to create the wind tunnel to empty the grass.

It is pretty obvious, right? So why have manufacturers not responded by raising the steel casing on the lawn mower? Why would they keep selling mowers that don't work well? I'm hardly the only person who has the problem. Lawn mower forums all over the Internet are filled with people asking exactly the same questions and having the same symptoms. The manufacturers are shy to mention the real reason. They talk about changing blades, removing obstructions and things like that. Users know better. There is another factor.

I was just looking at the detailed regulations for lawn mowers. In particular, the relevant passage is 16 CFR PART 1205 ­ the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers. Here we find that the height of the lawn mower case must be low enough to pass a "foot probe" test. No matter how high or low the wheels are adjusted, it cannot be possible to stick your foot under the case.

Now, when I was young, you could stick your foot under the mower. We didn't do that, of course, but we could. Therefore, there was suction. The air sucked from underneath and swirled up and out in the grass catcher. It was like running a vacuum cleaner over a floor. It shaved the grass, and not one grass blade was left anywhere in sight. It all went into the catcher.

The new regulations, which apply only to walking mowers that you use at home, went into effect sometime after 1982. I still used my old mower for years after that date. I fact, I didn't have a reason to buy a new one until about 15 years ago. That's when my troubles began.

Now I know the cause. The bottom line is that federal regulations have degraded the lawn mower. In the name of safety, the government has forced all manufacturers to sacrifice functionality. They are forced to sell equipment that doesn't do what it is supposed to do. All the while, I've been blaming private enterprise. It turns out to be the fault of government.

The government's central plan for walk-behind mowers is mind boggling. That bar you have to squeeze and hold on the handle to make the wheel move? Mandated by government. That annoying plastic piece that covers the blow hole for the grass that you have to push out of the way? Mandated by government. The government has mandated the blueprint for the whole machine and thereby frozen its structure in place with an inferior and unalterable design.

It is not enough that regulations have invaded the bathroom, ruined our showers and toilets, degraded our detergent, made it ever harder to unclog drains and made essential medicines hard to get. Now I find that regulations have even made it difficult for me to do something completely American like mow my own lawn!

This also explains why so many of my neighbors are using lawn mowing services that have giant riding lawn mowers. It turns out that these particular regulations do not apply to them. It wouldn't surprise me to find that lawn services were actually instrumental in lobbying for these safety regulations. This is how commerce works these days: Compete for a while, but when that doesn't work, turn to the government to wreck the competition.

Government hates lawns -- except at the White House, of course. They consider private lawns to be wasteful and vain, a symbol of conspicuous consumption. If they had their way, we would all have rocks in our front yards. Or maybe we wouldn't have front yards. We would have little window boxes, and surely that would be enough for us.

It's all in the interest of your safety. And security. What about your freedom? It's been mowed under, and it landed like clumps of grass on the sidewalk.

http://lfb.org/today/how-regulators-wrecked-our-mowers/

__._,_.___
 
.

__,_._,___


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: A VERY POWERFUL CARTOON....

A couple of toons for added info. Not much more to say on the subject of sub-porcine slime.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Travis,

Now tell us how you REALLY feel.....don't hold back!!

On Apr 16, 9:34 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wil give you a partial answer.  Governments are scared as hell of the
> little muzzieshits.  You mock their pedophile prophet, MoHAMhead, or their
> book of shit, the KORAP, and they try ti kill you.  Muzzieshits like to
> blow up things like buildings full of good honest people.  They demand that
> everything be their way and only their way when no one but idiotic, insane
> muzzieshits would ever want anything to do with that shariashit.  And
> muzzieshits love to kill each other for no reason at all.  In essence,
> Islamoshit makes no sense itself.  It is just a garbage state.  Rotten,
> stinking, filthy garbage that needs to be eleminated from this planet by
> any and all means necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Got this one from my mom of all people. WE don't have muslims praying in
> > the streets here yet. Just in the public schools.
>
> > **
>
> >    **
>
> >  **
>
> >      A VERY POWERFUL CARTOON....
>
> > **
> >                      *A very  powerful cartoon.....please keep it  going*.
> > This should  be posted in every school in the Canada and the USA
>
> > [image: Description: cid:94ECEE59A8424E918AE9A27AD9A4BCF7@computer]*
> > Only 31  words -- Think about it!*
> >      *
> > Isn't  life strange?  I never met one Veteran who enlisted to fight for
> > Socialism!
> > 86% will send this on.*
>
> > If  Muslims can pray on Madison Avenue, why are  Christians banned from
> > praying in public and from  erecting religious displays on their holy  days?
>
> > What  happened to our National Day of Prayer?
> > Muslims  are allowed to block off Madison Ave. , in N.Y.C.,  and pray in
> > the middle of the street! And, it's a  monthly ritual!
>
> > Tell me, again, whose  country is this?
> >                                 Ours or the Muslims?
>
> > I was  asked to send this on if I agree, or delete if I  don't.
>
> > It is said  that 86% of Americans & Canadians believe in  God.
>
> > Therefore, I have a very hard time  understanding why there is such a
> > problem in  having 'In God! We Trust' on our money and having  'God' in the
> > Pledge of Allegiance or the Lord's prayer said in our schools or public
> > meetings.
>
> > I  believe it's time we stand up for what we  believe!
>
> > If you agree, pass this on; if  not, delete.
>
> > Thank  you
>
> > ****
> > **
> > ****
> > ****
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
>  ATT000~111.JPG
> 19KViewDownload
>
>  Mail122.jpg
> 165KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** *A WONDERFULL ANSWER*

   
----- Original Message -----


Asalam u alaikum!
*A WONDERFULL ANSWER*

A man came to Iyas Ibn
Mu'awiyah, a Muslim judge
famous for his wisdom, and the
following conversation took
place between them:

Man:What is the Islamic ruling
regarding wine?
Judge: It is Haram (Forbidden).
Man: How about water?
Judge: It is Halal (Permissible).

Man:How about dates and
grapes?
Judge: They are Halal.
Man:Why is it that all these
ingredients are Halal, and yet
when you combine them, they
become Haram?

The judge looked at the man and
said: If I hit you with this
handful of dirt, do you think it
would hurt you?
Man: It would not.

Judge:How about if I hit you
with this handful of straw?
Man: It would not hurt me.

Judge:How about a handful of
water?
Man:It surely would not hurt
me.
Judge: How about if I mix them,
and let them dry to become a
brick, and then hit you with it,
would it hurt you?
Man:It would hurt me and
might even kill me!

Judge:The same reasoning
applies to what you asked me!

JazakALLAH


-- https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/538735_397381443619198_331805813510095_1364510_1767736987_n.jpg


Re: [PresidentBarakObama] How Can Anyone Be Gay and Republican?

You support democrats who believe in forcing gay kids to foot school where ther are beaten and you oppose school choice that would allow them to go to a safer school

You do this because your party depends on the slave trade for campaign funds

You round up kids, especially poor brown and lack kids, and sell them to the education cartels for campaign donatio s

Theirs blood and suicides are your alt

You are a homophobe, for pay

On Monday, April 16, 2012, Tommy News wrote:
Gay Republicans are self-loathing hypocrites who support oppression
and bigotry against themselves.

I know one who rails against Marriage Equality, repeating what he
hears on Faux Noise for the Parrots.

How Can Anyone Be Gay and Republican?

"To join a party on condition that we oppose our own civil rights and
our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for me," says the
conservative blogger. "There's something quite nauseating about it
actually."

Question: How can anyone call himself a gay Republican?

Andrew Sullivan:  You know, I used to say, we have to stay in these
parties because certainly gay people do not want to become a
Democratic Party constituency that is totally taken for granted, which
is, of course, what has happened.  When you have no leverage over the
party, they don't do anything for you—except take your money and
invite you to cocktail parties, which is all that's happened really in
two years under Obama with two houses of Congress.

But at the same time, you know, this Homocon thing... it was in
someone's apartment.  I mean the idea that this has been any genuine
meaning out there for most people, there are plenty of gay people;
many, many, many more I think than other minority groups actually, who
would love a party of limited small government, prudent, strong
foreign policy, balanced budgets, live and let live, like the British
Tories.  And if the Republican Party ever becomes that again, I think
there will be plenty of places for gay people in it.
But to do so and join a party on condition that we oppose our own
civil rights and our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for
me.  I mean, it's... there's something quite nauseating about it
actually.  And you see even, like, Chris Barron who is the head of
Homocon, or whatever they are calling themselves, GOProud, having to
say that when Jim DeMint goes on and says that no gay person should be
a school teacher, which is to the—which Ronald Reagan rejected in
1978—where are you left?  I mean, it's also important to remember that
the Republican Party is now a Southern party. So the old Republican
party, which had a balance of different regions and was based also in
the Libertarian West—and remember how Goldwater ended up—and of course
many elite Republicans, by which I mean a lot of people in Washington,
are completely comfortable and accepting of gay people, and support
our right to marry and our right to serve our country without lying
about ourselves, which are just the two non-negotiables.  But they are
cravenly incapable of either understanding the importance of that or
taking us as serious human beings.

I mean, I'm sorry, but Dick Cheney is not going to pass Mary Cheney,
who is organizing to get a Republican majority that will make sure
that gay people never serve openly in the military.  And support a
Republican Party in her own state that will strip her even the most
basic contractual rights with her wife and children.  At this point,
I'm sorry, but no.

Question: So how should gay conservatives vote—against their political
beliefs or against their rights as humans?

Andrew Sullivan:  They have to vote for whichever candidate they think
is the least worst option.  And not... and of course we don't just
vote on our sexual orientation.  And on the critical issues, the
critical issue of marriage, it's fundamentally a state issue anyway,
although DOMA remains you know, a terrible blight on our national
federal equality.  So, I've never been a partisan, I've never been a
Republican, I've never been a  Democrat, ever, which is why I was very
frustrated being called a gay Republican when I never attached myself
to that.  You just have to keep going.  I mean I think our job, my
job, is to keep articulating that I exist and that there are lots of
people like me exist and we just have no home.

But if temporarily we seek a home with Obama, or with people who are
less hostile to us and we are not also too opposed to their other
policies, then that's the compromise that we all have to make.

More:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24588


 Andrew Sullivan


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy



--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PresidentBarakObama/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PresidentBarakObama/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   PresidentBarakObama-digest@yahoogroups.com
   PresidentBarakObama-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   PresidentBarakObama-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Says the Left: We Were Rich and Awesome When Taxes Were Higher


April16th
Says the Left: We Were Rich and Awesome When Taxes Were Higher
Tom Woods

John Kenneth Galbraith said in 1965 that there was no problem in New York that couldn't be solved by doubling the city's budget. By the 1970s the budget had been tripled, and the city's budget crisis was worse than ever.

That embarrassing moment came to mind when I read this bit of nonsense circulating on the Internet: "In the 1950s and 1960s when the top tax rate was 70-92%, we laid the interstate system, built the Internet, put a man on the moon, defeated Communism, our education system was the envy of the world, our middle class thriving, our economy unparalleled. You want that back? Raise taxes on the rich."

It is precisely this kind of inanity that Liberty Classroom was created to help people to answer -- and not just answer, but smack down mercilessly.

We'll pursue this topic further on our Forums, but a few preliminary thoughts here.

(1) Via loopholes or outright tax evasion, these tax rates were not paid.

(2) Big spending programs are not evidence of prosperity; the U.S. government could duplicate any of these programs today.

(3) Left out is that when our education system was supposedly "the envy of the world," it was spending far less per capita, adjusting for inflation, than it does today. From the early 1970s to 2003 alone, spending per capita doubled. So the Left has actually gotten its wish, though it pretends it hasn't. Meanwhile, Japan, spending one-third as much per capita, and with much larger class sizes, vastly outperforms the U.S.

There is no connection between higher education spending and higher SAT scores. In fact, some of the highest scores are earned in states that spend the least on education. Washington, D.C., which spends the most, is dead last. ( Statistics here.)

(4) The prosperity of the 1960s was fueled in good measure by the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve. In John F. Kennedy's three years as president, M2 growth averaged about 8 percent per year, far higher than in the 1950s. This produces resource misallocation that can look like prosperity. This false prosperity is self-reversing. By 1970 -- just as Arthur Okun, influential White House economist throughout the 1960s, was boasting that the business cycle had been tamed forever -- the recession began.

Americans paid for that false prosperity with a decade of inflation and stagnation. As economist Mark Thornton points out, "From the beginning of 1946 to the beginning of 1965 the consumer price index increased by 71.4%, but then increased 20% by the end of the decade. From 1965 -- when the experiment began in earnest -- to the end of 1980 the CPI increased by 176.6%. The experiment had tripled the rate of inflation experienced by consumers."

It's not just price inflation and unemployment we should look to for the full story, though.

Again Thornton:

A better indication is to be found in the fact that in May 1970, a portfolio consisting of one share of every stock listed on the Big Board was worth just about half of what it would have been worth at the start of 1969. The high flyers that had led the market of 1967 and 1968­conglomerates, computer leasers, far-out electronics companies, franchisers­were precipitously down from their peaks. Nor were they down 25 percent, like the Dow, but 80, 90, or 95 percent. This was vintage 1929 stuff, and the prospect of another great depression, this one induced as much by despair as by economic factors as such, was a very real one.

The stock market as measured by the Dow did decrease 25% between 1969 and 1971 and then…lost another 20% by mid-1975. However, the real losses in the stock market were larger and longer lasting than an ordinary chart of the Dow might suggest. In the graph below, the Dow index shows that stocks tended to trade in a wide channel for much of the period between 1965 and 1984. However, if you adjust the value of stocks by price inflation as measure by the Consumer Price Index, a clearer and more disturbing picture emerges. The inflation-adjusted or real purchasing power measure of the Dow indicates that it lost nearly 80% of its peak value.

No wonder the tax-raisers want to talk about the 1960s, but then pretend that the equally high-tax 1970s never occurred.

I discuss all this in more detail in my lecture on JFK and in my lecture on the 1970s malaise in our course on U.S. History Since 1877.

(5) Kennedy used the economy of the 1950s against Vice President Richard Nixon in the election of 1960. Economic growth averaged 2.4% per year under Dwight Eisenhower (see The Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower) -- not a bad record, to be sure, but hardly the earth-shattering, historically unique figure one might expect in light of the constant references to the 1950s.

(6) It was not unthinkable in the 1950s that a family might not have a telephone, a refrigerator (some still had iceboxes), or a television. (Bearing in mind that Ralph was a cheapskate, the Kramdens in The Honeymooners lacked all these things, and the program was not laughed out of court as silly or implausible.) Anyone wanting to live at that standard of living today can do so with precious little effort.  Today, by contrast, 85% of Americans own cellphones, a technology that would have seemed out of science fiction in the 1950s.

(7) Government and its predation on the economy have grown far greater in the meantime; the top marginal tax rate is hardly the only relevant change that has occurred over the past 50 years. The overall tax burden for ordinary families has grown dramatically. These things are not good for the economy.

(8) Going for the jugular, economist George Reisman has a good piece called "Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the 'Rich.'"

(9) Even if we were to accept that the 1950s were the summit of human happiness, correlation does not prove causation. How do we know there wouldn't have been even greater prosperity had taxes been lower? Supporters of this view would have to provide us with a causal mechanism explaining why the violent seizure of property and its expenditure on economically arbitrary projects would make a country more prosperous than employing those funds in capital investment to increase the productivity of labor.

I can point to plenty of relatively limited-government places around the world that are doing very well economically. My critics would refuse to accept that this proves anything. They are partly right. Without a theoretical understanding of what produces prosperity, we can't know if country A is prosperous because of or in spite of policy B.

(10) The U.S. "defeated communism" in the 1950s and 1960s? Isn't the timing a bit off? And when the system did collapse, it collapsed because it defeated itself, as free-market economists had predicted it would.

Inoculate yourself against nonsense like this. Learn more about Liberty Classroom, and join us!


http://www.libertyclassroom.com/says-the-left-we-were-rich-and-awesome-when-taxes-were-higher/

How Can Anyone Be Gay and Republican?

Gay Republicans are self-loathing hypocrites who support oppression
and bigotry against themselves.

I know one who rails against Marriage Equality, repeating what he
hears on Faux Noise for the Parrots.

How Can Anyone Be Gay and Republican?

"To join a party on condition that we oppose our own civil rights and
our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for me," says the
conservative blogger. "There's something quite nauseating about it
actually."

Question: How can anyone call himself a gay Republican?

Andrew Sullivan: You know, I used to say, we have to stay in these
parties because certainly gay people do not want to become a
Democratic Party constituency that is totally taken for granted, which
is, of course, what has happened. When you have no leverage over the
party, they don't do anything for you—except take your money and
invite you to cocktail parties, which is all that's happened really in
two years under Obama with two houses of Congress.

But at the same time, you know, this Homocon thing... it was in
someone's apartment. I mean the idea that this has been any genuine
meaning out there for most people, there are plenty of gay people;
many, many, many more I think than other minority groups actually, who
would love a party of limited small government, prudent, strong
foreign policy, balanced budgets, live and let live, like the British
Tories. And if the Republican Party ever becomes that again, I think
there will be plenty of places for gay people in it.
But to do so and join a party on condition that we oppose our own
civil rights and our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for
me. I mean, it's... there's something quite nauseating about it
actually. And you see even, like, Chris Barron who is the head of
Homocon, or whatever they are calling themselves, GOProud, having to
say that when Jim DeMint goes on and says that no gay person should be
a school teacher, which is to the—which Ronald Reagan rejected in
1978—where are you left? I mean, it's also important to remember that
the Republican Party is now a Southern party. So the old Republican
party, which had a balance of different regions and was based also in
the Libertarian West—and remember how Goldwater ended up—and of course
many elite Republicans, by which I mean a lot of people in Washington,
are completely comfortable and accepting of gay people, and support
our right to marry and our right to serve our country without lying
about ourselves, which are just the two non-negotiables. But they are
cravenly incapable of either understanding the importance of that or
taking us as serious human beings.

I mean, I'm sorry, but Dick Cheney is not going to pass Mary Cheney,
who is organizing to get a Republican majority that will make sure
that gay people never serve openly in the military. And support a
Republican Party in her own state that will strip her even the most
basic contractual rights with her wife and children. At this point,
I'm sorry, but no.

Question: So how should gay conservatives vote—against their political
beliefs or against their rights as humans?

Andrew Sullivan: They have to vote for whichever candidate they think
is the least worst option. And not... and of course we don't just
vote on our sexual orientation. And on the critical issues, the
critical issue of marriage, it's fundamentally a state issue anyway,
although DOMA remains you know, a terrible blight on our national
federal equality. So, I've never been a partisan, I've never been a
Republican, I've never been a Democrat, ever, which is why I was very
frustrated being called a gay Republican when I never attached myself
to that. You just have to keep going. I mean I think our job, my
job, is to keep articulating that I exist and that there are lots of
people like me exist and we just have no home.

But if temporarily we seek a home with Obama, or with people who are
less hostile to us and we are not also too opposed to their other
policies, then that's the compromise that we all have to make.

More:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24588


Andrew Sullivan


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Tax Burden: 40 Million Government Workers

That means that about 17 percent of the American labor pool ­ one in every six workers ­ owes its living to the taxpayer.

Tax Burden: 40 Million Government Workers
Written by Gary North on April 6, 2012

How many people work for governments in the United States. Let's look at the numbers.

The usual estimate of the number of employees of the U.S. government is 2.8 million. The estimate is fake. This does not count military personnel. But most important, it does not count contract workers paid by the federal government.

The Office of Personnel Management does not keep track of these workers. That would give the game away.

One man has estimated the total: Prof. Paul Light of New York University.

[The federal government] uses contracts, grants, and mandates to state and local governments to hide its true size, thereby creating the illusion that it is smaller than it actually is, and give its departments and agencies much greater flexibility in hiring labor, thereby creating the illusion that the civil-service system is somehow working effectively. . . .
Contractors and grantees do not keep count of their employees, in part because doing so would allow the federal government . . . to estimate actual labor costs.

Here is his estimate: 11 million, broken down as follows: 1.8 million civil servants, 870,000 postal workers, 1.4 million military personnel, 4.4 million contractors, and 2.5 million grantees. These figures are from 2006.

Yet the federal government isn't all. Despite its huge budgets, state and local governments dwarf Washington in direct employment. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 3.8 million full-time and 1.5 million part-time employees on state payrolls. Local governments add a further 11 million full-time and 3.2 million part-time personnel. This means that state and local governments combined employ 19.5 million Americans.
When we add up the true size of the federal workforce ­ civil servants, postal workers, military personnel, contractors, grantees, and bailed-out businesses ­ and add in state- and local-government employees ­ civil servants, teachers, firefighters, and police officers ­ we reach the astonishing figure of nearly 40 million Americans employed in some way by government. That means that about 17 percent of the American labor pool ­ one in every six workers ­ owes its living to the taxpayer.

There is going to be a government default at some point. Tens of millions of these people will lose their jobs. The private sector will have to absorb them.

Think of the Great Depression, when government was a small percentage of the labor market. There was 25% unemployment in 1933.

Think of what will happen in the Great Default. There will be a spurt in unemployment, but then these people will at long last be forced to become productive. There will be an increase in national productivity. These people will suffer sharp declines in their income. But taxes will fall for the rest of us.

It will be the turning point for America's comparative decline. This nation will rebound. No nation is better positioned for economic growth as a result of bankrupt governments. But the pain will be excruciating for the people who are on government payrolls today. As for government pensions, forget about it. Gone. As for government labor unions: also gone.

Continue Reading on www.nationalreview.com

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/04/06/tax-burden-40-million-government-workers/

Re: What Would Reagan Do?

What Would Reagan Do?
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckc1_mETSps

On Apr 16, 7:53 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What Would Reagan Do?Posted by David Boaz
> Peggy Noonan, who once worked with Ronald Reagan to shape his words, has some useful advice for today s Republicans in Saturday s Wall Street Journal:Finally, in foreign affairs the Republican candidates staked out dangerous ground. They want to show they re strong on defense. Fine, we should have a strong defense, the best in the world. But that is different from having an aggressive foreign policy stance, and every one of the GOP candidates, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, was aggressive. This is how their debates sounded: We should bomb Iran Thursday. No, stupid, we should bomb Iran on Wednesday. How could you be so foolish? You know we do all our bombings on Monday. You re wrong, we send in the destroyers and arm the insurgents on Monday.There was no room for discretion, prudence, nuance, to use unjustly maligned terms. There was no room for an expressed bias toward not-fighting. But grown-ups really do have a bias toward not-fighting.They are allowing the GOP to be painted as the war party. They are ceding all non-war ground to the president, who can come forward as the sober, constrained, non-bellicose contender. Do they want that? Are they under the impression America is hungry for another war? Really? After the past 11 years?The GOP used to be derided by Democrats as the John Wayne party: It loved shoot- em-ups. Actually, John Wayne didn t ride into town itching for a fight, and he didn t ride in shooting off his mouth, either. He was laconic, observant. He rode in hoping for peace, but if something broke out he was ready. He had a gun, it was loaded, and he knew how to use it if he had to.But he didn t want to have to. Which was part of his character s power. The GOP should go back to being John Wayne.When Ronald Reagan s speechwriter tells you you need to be less trigger-happy and more like John Wayne, you probably need to recalibrate.http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-would-reagan-do/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: A VERY POWERFUL CARTOON....

why are Christians banned from
praying in public and from erecting religious displays on their holy
days?
---
The case of Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573.

What happened to our National Day of Prayer?
---
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6,
2010, as a National Day of Prayer.

Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident
forms of worship, with Maryland being the only exception. For example,
Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode
Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of
Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the
most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the
persecuting spirit was shared by the Plymouth Colony and the colonies
along the Connecticut river.[29] In 1660, one of the most notable
victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer who
was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan
law banning Quakers from the colony.[29] As one of the four executed
Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston
gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and
New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles
II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for
professing Quakerism.[30]

Another notable example of religious persecution by Puritans in
Massachusetts was the Salem witch trials in 1692 and 1693. Thirty-one
witchcraft trials were held, convicting twenty-nine people of the
capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen women
and five men, were hanged. One man who refused to enter a plea was
crushed to death under heavy stones in an attempt to force him to do
so.

Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in
the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord
Baltimore, in 1634.[31] Fifteen years later (1649) the Maryland
Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or
persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or
discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the
free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed with
the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring
Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[32] In
1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal
with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by
the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty
years, until 1692,[33] when after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of
1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[31][34] In addition in
1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this
Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[34]
Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the
American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton
signed the American Declaration of Independence.

Reiterating Maryland's earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson,
proclaimed:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall
otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the
national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign
relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established
the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which
investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to
religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with
egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions.
Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be
still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not
permit or tolerate religious freedom.


On Apr 16, 10:24 am, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Got this one from my mom of all people. WE don't have muslims praying in
> the streets here yet. Just in the public schools.
>
> **
>
>    **
>
>  **
>
>      A VERY POWERFUL CARTOON....
>
> **
>                      *A very  powerful cartoon.....please keep it  going*.
> This should  be posted in every school in the Canada and the USA
>
> [image: Description: cid:94ECEE59A8424E918AE9A27AD9A4BCF7@computer]*
> Only 31  words -- Think about it!*
>      *
> Isn't  life strange?  I never met one Veteran who enlisted to fight for
> Socialism!
> 86% will send this on.*
>
> If  Muslims can pray on Madison Avenue, why are  Christians banned from
> praying in public and from  erecting religious displays on their holy  days?
>
> What  happened to our National Day of Prayer?
> Muslims  are allowed to block off Madison Ave. , in N.Y.C.,  and pray in
> the middle of the street! And, it's a  monthly ritual!
>
> Tell me, again, whose  country is this?
>                                 Ours or the Muslims?
>
> I was  asked to send this on if I agree, or delete if I  don't.
>
> It is said  that 86% of Americans & Canadians believe in  God.
>
> Therefore, I have a very hard time  understanding why there is such a
> problem in  having 'In God! We Trust' on our money and having  'God' in the
> Pledge of Allegiance or the Lord's prayer said in our schools or public
> meetings.
>
> I  believe it's time we stand up for what we  believe!
>
> If you agree, pass this on; if  not, delete.
>
> Thank  you
>
> ****
> **
> ****
> ****
>
>  Mail122.jpg
> 165KViewDownload
>
>  ATT000~111.JPG
> 19KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Faustian Bargain


The Faustian Bargain
Bionic Mosquito

The Faustian Bargain: an arrangement in which an ambitious person surrenders moral integrity in order to achieve power and success.

Wikipedia

The actions of Churchill, but far more significantly Roosevelt, in the lead-up to western involvement in this Second World War post the turn of Hitler against Stalin are difficult to explain or comprehend in conventional means. There was little or no reason for the United States to be involved in this war, as a few have commented before. We can add Hoover to the list of revisionist historians on this topic:

With his conquest of most of western Europe completed by the surrender of France in June 1940, Hitler was free to revive one of his foremost ambitions: the destruction of the Communist government of Russia and the annexation of "living space," Lebensraum, from Russia and the Balkans…. Signs that Hitler was about to violate his alliance with Stalin and attack Russia began to reach the American Government immediately after his conquest of France.

It appears that Hitler's alliance with Stalin was one of convenience. For an interim period, Hitler did not want a major conflict on Germany's eastern front, preferring initially to consolidate and secure his western flank. That flank extended only to the channel – as previously outlined, Hitler did not have the capability to invade England, and primarily seemed interested in getting the British to return home, even to the point of allowing a relatively easy evacuation at Dunkirk.

With the western flank secure, Hitler was now free to pursue what seemed to be his primary interest – that of securing living space to the east. But why the east? Why not living space to the west? Perhaps because east is where the Germans were – other than a sliver of France, the Germans held no historic claim to land in the west, and certainly these lands could not be considered "Germanic." However, to the east this was quite different. An obvious example was Danzig, but there were others in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Additionally, to the east was fertile land, and, of course, oil.

The east was Hitler's objective, and Russia was the primary obstacle in his path. The United States government was aware of this, and so notified the Russians:

In the latter half of January, 1941, Under Secretary of State Summer Welles informed the Russian Ambassador in Washington, Constantine Oumansky, that Germany was preparing as attack on Russia late that spring.

Much of the knowledge that the U.S. government had regarding the coming attack by Hitler on Stalin was kept from the American people. Had this been widely known, and the implications understood, much of the debate regarding further U.S. involvement (for instance, for Lend-Lease) would have taken a different tone as the idea that Britain and the United States were under immediate danger would have been demonstrably false.

On June 22, 1941, Hitler and his armies of over 2,000,000 men attacked along the Russian border over a front of 2,500 miles.

And thus was born the opportunity to let these two tyrants knock each other out. As we know, instead of taking advantage of such an opportunity, both Britain and the United States wanted to be further involved. In fact, this event seems to have been the trigger for Roosevelt to step up his campaign of baiting the Japanese into attacking the U.S., as I have previously discussed here.

Hoover felt this was the greatest opportunity presented to Roosevelt:

The two dictators of the world's two great aggressor nations were locked in a death struggle. If left alone, these evil spirits were destined, sooner or later, to exhaust each other.

Alas, it was not to be:

At a press conference on June 24, two days after Hitler's attack, the President stated that "the United States would give all possible aid to Soviet Russia."

Hoover secured radio time for an address to the nation. He felt another side of this story must be told, that the United States government could take a course other than siding with Stalin. Following are some of the key statements in his address:

… The constant question is what we should do now… there are certain eternal principles to which we must adhere. There are certain consequences to America and civilization which we must keep ever before our eyes.

…now we find ourselves promising aid to Stalin and his militant Communist conspiracy against the whole democratic ideals of the world.

…it makes the whole argument of our joining the war to bring the four freedoms to mankind a gargantuan jest.

Hoover then goes on to recount that four previous American Presidents refused diplomatic recognition of the Soviets, until Roosevelt did early in his first term. He reminds the audience that just two years ago, Stalin and Hitler signed a pact to divide up the lands between their two nations. He asks the listener to imagine the future if the United States was to join Russia and help win the war:

…then we [would] have won for Stalin the grip of communism on Russia, the enslavement of nations, and more opportunity for it to extend in the world. We should at least cease to tell our sons that they would be giving up their lives to restore democracy and freedom to the world.
To align American ideals alongside Stalin will be as great a violation of everything American as to align ourselves with Hitler.

Hoover was not alone in speaking out against Roosevelt's desire to align with the Soviets. On June 23, 1941, Senator Robert M. La Follete, Jr. of Wisconsin said:

In the next few weeks the American people will witness the greatest whitewash act in all history. They will be told to forget the purges in Russia by the OGPU, the persecution of religion, the confiscation of property, the invasion of Finland, and the vulture role Stalin played in seizing half of prostrate Poland, all of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

However, beside Roosevelt, others were cheerleading and propagandizing for war. On June 28, Senator Claude Pepper of Florida envisioned the results of a Hitler victory over Russia:

If Russia falls you and I know there would not be anybody else between Hitler and Alaska, and with Alaska taken only Canada, a nation the size that Belgium was, will stand between Hitler and us here in the continental United States.

This statement is so uncompromisingly nonsensical that it requires little comment to lay bare the either naïve ignorance or willfully despicable intent behind it. Hitler would march all the way to the Pacific through Siberia? Really? Was there a single western military leader that felt this was plausible? What of the logistics? What of the guerilla warfare? What of the intolerable cold, mud, ice, and snow?

And then, through a tiny passageway, Hitler would send an army through to Alaska? Has an army large enough to conquer an entire continent the size of North America ever march through such a frozen passageway?

Finally, I cannot make heads or tails about his comparison of Canada to Belgium. The only possibility I can imagine is that he is comparing population size. In both geography and size, to imply Canada can be overrun as easily as Belgium is nonsensical – let alone the consideration of differences in logistical distance of the two from Germany.

Finally, as a (weak) demonstration that members of the press were something other than the propaganda mouthpiece of the state, Hanson Baldwin of the New York Times wrote in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War":

The great opportunity of the democracies for establishing a stable peace came on June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded Russia, but we muffed the chance….

I will only suggest, "we" didn't "muff" anything. Roosevelt made decisions. These decisions were seen by many, even at the time, as the exact opposite of what would be in the best interest of the United States and its people. Roosevelt was not a stupid man. He had to be as aware as Hoover was that there was every possibility that Hitler and Stalin would do permanent damage to each other. Roosevelt could have stayed out of it all, with this silver-platter opportunity. But he chose not to stay out of it.

Or, Roosevelt could have taken sides with Germany instead of Russia. What made Stalin more worthy than Hitler, or communism more supportable than fascism? Both leaders murdered many, but at the start of the war Stalin outdid Hitler on this count by a ratio of 10,000 to 1.

Further, it was clear that Hitler intended to go east, not west. Hitler had no navy to speak of, no long range bombing capability. Hitler built a tremendous land army, one consistent with his military objective: to conquer adjacent land. That Hitler went east posed no risk to the United States.

No, "we" didn't "muff" this. Roosevelt consciously desired to place U.S. lives in jeopardy, for a purpose other than to defend United States interests – no matter how broadly one might reasonably define those interests. As was demonstrated in the book The Pearl Harbor Myth, Roosevelt went further and did everything possible to get Japan to fire first (after failing to get the Germans to take the bait) – significantly increasing his efforts against Japan when Hitler invaded Russia.

This didn't happen by accident. Roosevelt didn't muff it, or make a mistake. There was purpose in these actions. The purpose was not in service to the American people. As to whose bidding Roosevelt was doing, I must leave it the way I left it in the last installment in this string: your guess is as good as mine.

Perhaps he made a Faustian bargain….

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/04/faustian-bargain.html