TSA… My Thoughts

I again want to thank everyone for forgiving my erratic posting this week. It has been one heck of a week around here and it is only Wednesday night! Family stuff and my first week at a new job in a new industry. I do want to take a quick moment and thank all of you for your well wishes surrounding the tragedy in my family. That I can come on here and find that 30-40 people have taken time to wish me well and take time to think about me and my family is truly heartwarming. The relationships that have developed because of this blog are truly an amazing thing for me. I live my life boatloads happier just for knowing that there are so many people out there who I have a kinship with. No matter where I go in this country I can find a friend. And all of you can find one in North Carolina. So thank you for all your kind thoughts. As for the TSA article that I posted the other night, I never was able to get in and post what I think. So I wanted to do that now, because I certainly have some strong feelings about not only the situation faced by Tyner, but the entire airport security situation in general.

I don’t have tons of time to write, so I will attempt to be brief. First, the situation that unfolded in the video I am torn on. Let me first say that I get why some people are not on board with Tyner. He was obviously looking to “pick a fight” with the TSA over this issue. He knows the rules and he knew them before he went to the airport to cause a scene. He clicked on his video recorder and created some compelling drama that played out for all the world to see. Kind of a dick move, sure.

But I think that he was absolutely correct in the stance that he took. And I absolutely agreed with him when he said at one point that “someone has to take this stand” or something along those lines. Because someone does have to take a stand and challenge the status quo. His taking a stand has opened the lines of discussion across the country. And that is a very good thing. Will it change anything? Maybe, maybe not. But without a doubt I can say that had he said nothing and not taken a stand, we were guaranteed to continue down this path. Security would likely have continued to get more and more intrusive. His taking a stand is giving Americans everywhere the chance to voice their opinion on this matter and talk through the issue.

As for me personally….. I don’t like the new scanners. I want to thank D13 for taking the time to go out and actually learn about the procedure. It frightens me that he made the statement that the scan leaves nothing to the imagination. It especially frightens me since we are now hearing that people have been illegally storing and leaking the images. I don’t want anyone faced with finding their naked body online without them having put it there themselves. I shudder to think how Mrs. Weapon would feel if that happened to her. The humiliation if all her co-workers saw something like that. Until we can absolutely guarantee that these images are not stored, and especially are not smuggled on to the internet, I cannot support that scanners being used. I wouldn’t let some stranger take a picture of my wife getting out of the shower. This is no different.

However, I understand that some people feel as though we need to have this level of security. I completely disagree, but I understand the sentiment. I really had no issue with metal detectors being used or with the subsequent wands being used when the need arises. It wasn’t really that obtrusive. No one put their hands on you. No one was looking at an image of you without clothing. I understood, but didn’t agree with the sudden need to have everyone take off their shoes. Again, no one was being touched and you just walked twenty steps without shoes. Big deal.

I don’t have that issue that so many seem to have when small children or old women are checked. Unfortunately, those who would do us harm have shown that there is no level they are not willing to stoop to. They have already used children, old folks, and mentally retarded individuals to deliver explosives. I have seen all three of those personally. It is sad and twisted, but they will do it. So I am cool with anyone being checked, no matter how ridiculous it seems.

What I have an issue with is that we are forced to give up so much of our privacy and submit ourselves to so much hassle for what has resulted in very little effectiveness. What I have issue with is that we are told that security is the number one concern while we simply refuse to use the techniques that are proven to be most effective all in the name of bullshit political correctness.

Obviously I am talking about profiling and asking tough questions the way that some other countries do. I have never had an issue with racial profiling. Not in this situation or any other. There is a “profile” for a reason, and it isn’t because of bigotry. And we are being completely ignorant in not understanding the profiles and using them to our advantage. It is the most effective form of security available to us without invading privacy. I understand that to some, profiling seems like a blatant violation of people’s rights. I understand, and I am sorry, but I want security at the most effective level possible. That we would be willing to step on people’s rights so quickly in order to not step on other people’s rights when the former is far less effective than the latter is simply mind-boggling to me.

And here is the kicker. Perhaps if people of arab descent were profiled as they should be at this point, those who are not a threat to us would stop being so tolerant of those who are. We often decry the situation in that the regular muslims are not doing enough to denounce the radical muslims and hold them accountable. What reason do they have to take that risk? We refuse to do anything about it. We don’t make life uncomfortable in any way for those who would silently watch radicals do what they do while saying nothing. They have no incentive to do or ay anything. Perhaps after they have been double and triple checked enough times they will get angry that the radicals are causing them so much inconvenience. Maybe then they will stand up and say something.

But most of all in this situation, we need to all take a stand ourselves. There comes a point where what we are being subjected to outweighs the benefits of the action. More important, there comes a time when the things we are being subjected to are simply outside the scope of what we should deem acceptable from our government. Tyner had it correct when he said that the only difference between assault and search is that the government is the one doing it. The Department of Homeland Security is a dangerous organization being run by an incompetent woman. That she deems this as the correct move only solidifies in my mind that it is not worth doing and likely illegal.

That a country that fought so hard for the rights of three pieces of terrorist trash who got waterboarded is the same country that has nothing to say about innocent people being forced to go through a scanner or go through a thorough pat down saddens me.

As for security overall. I say that the TSA should be abolished. The TSA was little more than a cop-out for the airlines. The airlines didn’t want to face public scrutiny for taking security actions, so they were all too eager to allow it to instead be “mandated by government.” Take away that cop-out. I say that the airlines should be personally responsible for whatever level of security they deem necessary. Put the choice of how secure you need to feel back into the hands of the consumer. Allow airlines themselves to make decisions as needed. Decisions would be made faster, more effectively and more efficiently. If not, thinking people will have the ability to choose a different carrier that makes them feel more secure.

And for me personally… I could care less about the pat down. They can feel me up all they want.

I will hope the be able to check in throughout the day, but cannot promise as I am still adjusting to the new job. And tomorrow is a day where I work both the old job and the new, so after a 16 hour day I may not have the brainpower left to write. But I am certainly going to try!

About these ads

Comments

  1. Oh, and everyone feel free to use this as an open mic thread as I know you all already discussed this topic.

  2. Hi USW,

    I’m sorry to hear of your loss. You’ve had a rough couple of years on that department haven’t you? I’ll keep you in my prayers.

    My concern with this whole porno-scan/gropefest is that what else will it lead to? As our masters deem more and more things dangerous for us, and continue to confiscate our wealth, this control grid that they are building will ensure their success. Ever since this regime took power, I’ve had this aweful feeling that we’re like a herd of zebras and they are a pride of hungry lions. I see the lions blocking all the exits and fencing us in. Sadly, the rest of my herd refuses to see what’s happening.

    Some Americans are finally waking up, thank God. I just hope its not too late.

    • Cyndi P

      My little Island Buddy.

      Since you asked………………

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/16/secretary-of-transportation-lahood-were-looking-into-technology-to-disable-cell-phones-in-vehicles/

      Bwahahahahahahahaha……

      Secretary LaHood………………TERMINATED

      • Wow. He just wants to keep us safe (sarc). I see a recurring theme here. Safety measures that will also have dual use during the coming citizens revolt. How convenient.

      • Terminated indeed. That’s giving up freedom even if you’re the passenger. ASSCLOWN!

      • He is a fine example of just how abusive and manipulative these morons have gotten. If this is pushed I would hope the cell phone company’s would strongly object and lobby against it.

        What a frigen moron

        CM

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @JAC – are you opposed to laws prohibiting the use of cell phones/PDAs while driving?

        • You’re against PDAs while driving?

          Weren’t you a hormonal teenage boy once with a hormonal teenage girl hanging on you while driving?

          You do mean Public Displays of Affection, right? :grin:

        • Ray;

          I assume from your post that you are in favor of regulating the use while driving…Would you also limit eating, drinking, smoking, chewing bubble gum or allowing the kids to watch tv?

          How about the use of radio’s and On-star?

          CM

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @CommonMan – you’re taking a single issue to an illogical extreme.

            IF it has been decided/passed into law that it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving a motor vehicle, why does it seem to be intrusive to use available technology to actually enforce the law? Opposing this gives the appearance that you think adhering to the law should be optional or you’d prefer law enforcement to use their judgment as to whether you’re breaking the law or not.

            Another example of idiocy I have never understood is that we outlaw motor vehicle operators having a Blood Alcohol Content level above a certain level – yet – we ignore that we have available technology that can prevent the use of a motor vehicle while a person is inebriated. We rely instead on a potentially impaired person to judge how impaired they are. And then we rely on LE to try and judge someone’s driving performance to pull them over or not – not real effective and more safety/security theater.

            • Common Man says:

              Ray;

              I am not. The law makers ease their way into total control. As I pointed out a couple of days ago one of the guys at hunting camp was very happy that his local law makers wrote a law making it legal for a citizen to protect themselves in their home, work or pretty much anywhere, without fear of prosecution. I told him that I would have opposed the law because the government has no right to mandate rules or conditions around a ‘right’. My point was that since I already had that right, I didn’t need nore want government envolvement. The reason being simple: If they write a law to enforce a right, then they can write a law to take it away.

              Just how many day-to-day activities do you feel we should have controlled, and when does it become intrusive to liberty and individual freedom?

              As restrictions are implemented eventually we won’t even be able to spit

              CM

        • I would oppose such laws. I might support accident investigations including a check to see if cellphone or PDA was in use at the time of the accident, which might have bearing on fault. But if you can text, drink, or engage in any other activity, and still drive, it’s not my business, and the law will not protect me, just punish you after the fact.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @LOI – if the law implements and enforces a preventive control are you not better off in this case? There will not be an after-the-fact.

        • Ray Hawkins

          I am OPPOSED to such laws.

          The number of accidents does not come close to justifying the enforcement costs.

          Our local LEO’s have told the County and City they will no longer enforce the laws prohibiting texting. It is impossible to enforce. I expect the next move will be to outlaw all phone or pda use.

          I also think this problem will diminish as the “younger” generation becomes the most numerous on the road. More experience with multi-tasking with the phones.

          Perhaps a little training might be in order.

          I do have a few close calls each week involving someone on a cell phone. The thing is I also have close calls with those not using phones. So how do we know to what extent the phone contributed?

          And Ray, where I live the highways are hundreds of miles long and pretty straight most of the time. Really can’t see how talking on the phone while traveling on the Interstate is a problem.

          A few years back the Feds wanted to outlaw having kids out of the child seat while driving. As one of our Legislators noted, the idiot who thought that up never had to drive across Nevada with a screaming kid sitting behind him.

          Hope all is well with you and your family.
          JAC

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            JAC Said: The number of accidents does not come close to justifying the enforcement costs.

            Ray Replies: Do people drink less because an additional tax is levied to cover the cost of emergency responders?

            JAC Said: Our local LEO’s have told the County and City they will no longer enforce the laws prohibiting texting. It is impossible to enforce. I expect the next move will be to outlaw all phone or pda use.

            Ray replies: Let technology enforce the law instead of cops wasting their time on this.

            JAC Said: I also think this problem will diminish as the “younger” generation becomes the most numerous on the road. More experience with multi-tasking with the phones.

            Ray replies: The problem will increase JAC – hard to find a kid nowadays w/o a cell phone. I find it sad you think it ok for a kid who is still developing (in a multitude of ways) to somehow learn to multi-task while learning an awesome responsibility such as operating a motor vehicle.

            JAC Said: Perhaps a little training might be in order.

            Ray replies: You’re kidding right? Is that the new Driver’s Ed? Learn how to drive and text at the same time? WOW

            JAC Said: I do have a few close calls each week involving someone on a cell phone. The thing is I also have close calls with those not using phones. So how do we know to what extent the phone contributed?

            Ray Replies: We cannot prevent everything – focus on what we can and what makes sense.

            JAC Said: And Ray, where I live the highways are hundreds of miles long and pretty straight most of the time. Really can’t see how talking on the phone while traveling on the Interstate is a problem.

            Ray Replies: Good point. GPS can help with that. The answer really also rests in the mobile device technology. Voice recognition software (which mostly sucks now) would resolve a lot of this.

            JAC Said: A few years back the Feds wanted to outlaw having kids out of the child seat while driving. As one of our Legislators noted, the idiot who thought that up never had to drive across Nevada with a screaming kid sitting behind him.

            Hope all is well with you and your family.

            Ray Replies: Thanks JAC – and with you also. Ramping up for holidays – lots of leaves to rake. Had two dogs come back from kennel infested with fleas so I’ve been busy with that.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            We all know that I oppose these types of laws.

            However, I am going to point out some things which have been studied pretty thoroughly scientifically, and then y’all need to come up with some potential market-based solutions, since that is the way to go!

            In spite of the fact that the “younger generation” has more experience “multi-tasking” using cell phones, texting, driving, and talking to their friends (sometimes simultaneously), studies have shown that the human brain does NOT multi-task. What the brain does is SWITCH BETWEEN tasks fairly rapidly, although there is a perceptible lag when the switch occurs.

            What this means is that when you are texting or speaking on a cell phone while driving (or doing ANYTHING other than paying close attention to driving), and you need to make a quick decision, the amount of time needed to make that decision can increase from 3-4 seconds up to 7 seconds. When driving, that extra 3-4 seconds taken when processing instantaneous information can easily mean the difference between avoiding a bad outcome and becoming a bad outcome.

            The amount of reaction-time loss is equivalent to the reduced reaction time of someone who has consumed enough alcohol to be at a 0.08 BAC, which is now the “legal limit” in most States.

            As such, doing anything that takes your mind away from the essential task at hand (driving) is usually a terrible idea. It also turns out that it makes no difference whether you are using a hands-free device or holding a cell phone to your ear. The decision-making time-lag measures out the same. Further, it makes no discernable difference whether you are texting, putting on makeup, fiddling with the car radio, talking on a cell phone, or talking to the person in the passenger seat. ALL of these things cause an equal increase in the time it takes for your brain to make decisions related to the task at hand (driving).

            As such, it seems to me that you either have to outlaw ALL OF THE ABOVE or you have to find a better way to deal with it than that option.

        • Displaced Okie says:

          I think it is safe to say that most people are against unsafe/dangerous driving, the reason why a person is driving unsafe or dangerously is irrelevant(unless there is a mitigaiting reason). If I had my way that would basically be the only traffic law–I know this is probably overly simplified, but personally I would rather have overly simple laws as opposed to overly complex laws. I mean, aren’t all traffic laws intend to keep people from driving dangerously? Anyway, just my thoughts and obsevations.

          –Displaced Okie

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Displaced Okie – so you’d repeal DUI/DWI laws?

            • Displaced Okie says:

              Like I said above, if a person is swerving and driving dangerously he gets cited or arrested (depending on how dangerously he is driving) we are trying to prevent/punish dangerous driving..if somehow a person can drive safely after a few drinks, then why should they get the same treatment. Now don’t get me wrong, my dad was a state trooper so I have seen what type of damage they(drunk drivers) can do. All I am saying is that we could a better job of writing laws that punish ACTUAL harmful behavior instead of lots of ever increasing laws trying to prohibit every possible contibiting behavior.

              D.O.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                D.O. – the reactive measures or aspects of the law do little to prevent people from using a cell phone while driving or drinking and driving. I am referring to a preventive measure.

                I think its folly to presume that there are more people that can drive safely after a “few drinks” versus the majority who bring on sufficient impairment to commit violence on others.

  3. So the terrorist have succeeded at pissing us off. President Weapon has weighed in. Voting day is here.

    All in favor of profiling please raise your hand.

    • AYE

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      AYE! But sadly, common sense is no longer allowed. :-(

    • The Liberal Faction votes ‘aye’ as well.

      But we would like to see this done on better grounds than “he looks Muslim.” The Liberal Faction requires highly trained individuals using rigorously studied techniques to be employed rather than some clown with a GED and a 20 minute orientation.

      • Matt;

        You are so right on this one. We need to employe individuals with experience and then train, train and train them some more. I suggest the young men and women returning home from tours of duty and finishing up their enlistment as a start; especially those in the Military Police ranks.

        Dump the TSA, get the government out of it and make it the responsibility of the individual airlines. I am darn sure that the security would improve and everyone would feel safer; plus it gives our young men and women an opportunity to start a career

        CM

        • I’m sorry. I don’t feel this way, but as the duly appointed representative of the Liberal Faction, I have to reject your proposal that we use former military on the grounds that we hate the military.

          My instructions are to suggest we find a way to all just get along so that we don’t need this. Perhaps if we can make terrorists understand that we are not their enemies, they will stop attacking us. The Liberal Faction suggests the use of goodwill ambassadors and propaganda.

          Sigh..

          • Matt;

            You know you just might have a point there. I suggest that we use the non-representing representatives that were recently voted out of office to be those goodwill ambassadors. They would need to be stationed within the most radical sections of those countries that mis-understand us so that they can be proactive, and provide a one-on-one personal touch.

            Of course we would first need to remove all our troops in order to demonstrate that we are heartfelt in our endeavor.

            I mean if you think about it who else is better at speaking rationally and clearly explaining their purpose?

            CM

            • The Liberal Faction agrees to your terms.

              We would like to add the entire lineup of all major news networks as well. After all, they are also very good at getting the message out.

              Also, so as better to clarify the concepts of freedom and American-style capitalism, I say we also send them Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, and the zombie-corpse of Ken Lay.

            • I like, I like! Feingold reporting for goodwill ambassador duty!

          • Goodwill and propaganda will get you a bullet in the head or a bomb up your butt.

            • Common Man (presumably on behalf of the Conservative League) an I are negotiating above over who will fill the role. It’s a risk we’re willing to take.

              • Matt;

                I suggest that you take the lead on this and name those that should make up the initial launch team. Post that I will wok on developing the backup team, since I am sure we will need to replace a few within the first couple of months.

                If he isn’t dead, we could use Mike Wallace, as he has a history over there.

                Oh, and would also suggest Andy Rooney, since he no-longer offers any worthy advice or commentary.

                Chris Mathews might also be one to consider.

                And as a mediator we should send Geraldo Rivera

                Just my thoughts

                CM

              • And since JAC started a point on Soros, maybe he should be the guy funding this entire effort. Of course he would need to be one of those that makes the maden trip; to ensure things are set up correctly.

                And since we will need someone to manage the funds over there we should also include Geitner.

                CM

              • Andy Rooney would cause them all to kill themselves.

                I guess that’s ok..

            • D-13

              Eh…what’s your point?

              CM

              • I don’t understand either.. I just don’t see the problem..

              • Point???/ Point??? No one said I had to have one.

                But if you want a point…..ok. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..my point, is…errr…ahhhh….hmmmmm…..goodwill and negotiations will get you a bullet in the head and a bomb up your butt.

            • Well let’s see then – our own President believes he is Ambassador of the World and he certainly puts out his propaganda, so that means…….

              • so that means….he goes first!

              • No, it’s in order of seniority: Bush I, then Clinton, Then Bush II, then Obama.

                Unfortunately, Biden will not be able to go as he is scheduled to have a foot-in-mouth removal surgery that day.

              • I understand that his ailment is worse than anticipated….there appears to be TWO feet.

              • That’s only because the doctors have been working around the clock.. there were three feet when they started.. nobody knows where the extra one came from..

              • Matt..is it true that when they ran a CAT scan of his head…that there was a vacancy sign in there?

              • They couldn’t be sure – there was a lot of footware in the way..

        • TSA is already made up of many ex military,police,and airline profesionals. I wish people would quit blaiming the TSA screening personel. People should not refer to them as uneducated thugs etc. Most have degrees and are only doing thier jobs to make a living like everyone else. The media is doing a flavor of the month smear. If people are truly upset instead of picking on the screeners go straight to the source. Write to congress and the federal officials who make the rules that the poor screeners have to follow. I highly dobt that they enjoy the new pat down procedures anymore than the passangers do.

          • I don’t think most people blame the employee’s-they are simply the ones doing the job so they are the ones who are actually on the line of fire. I also think that it is a thin line between being considered professional and being considered cold.

      • I completely agree-the idea that the best way not to abuse a specific group is to abuse everyone equally is a little insane. Why don’t we try not abusing anyone without reasonable cause.

      • The libertarian faction concurs. Part of the current issue is we have quantity over quality in security. Fewer security people with more training works for me. More training means higher cost, but you don’t need as many. I would rather have one expert than a dozen goons checking bags. I know a guy that works in airport security. If he is typical of the quality of security then, well, I’d rather have none at all. If we had none, at least people wouldn’t have a false sense of security and would be aware of their surroundings.

  4. I am sorry SUFA but you are going to see a rare side of me today….open mic thread.

    I just watched Ron Bloom try to explain the IPO of GM and why the individual American investor was not included. My side you rarely see is….

    He is a God Damned Liar…..

    D13

    • Have’t seen that Colonel. Talk to us!

    • Colonel, you run out of Dr. Pepper?

      • That is the prob, Matt….NO……have plenty. I do not get pissed often….but today is the day….more later.

        • OK, well I look forward to later.

          In the meantime, why don’t you have a sip of this.. no, don’t worry about what it is.. just.. there you go.. good isn’t it? Go ahead, have another.. good.. and another.. whoa there, no need to chug- ok, well then I guess that’s ok.. yea, I have more, ok, hold on- yes, ok, here you- whoa, ok, one more, but you should really take it easy.. ok, good.. alright, that’s enough, D, trust me. I know it’s delicious, but ok, one last- alight alright, here, and here, and here..

          Alright, now I have a question for you, sir.. how do you feel about the government? Colonel, can you put the can down for a second… I asked you a- put the can down.. just answer the question and you can- ah hell, at least save some for me..

  5. Here ya go Matt..Red Bull makes you a better driver!

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/11/18/red-bull-fuel-better-driving/

  6. SOROS EXPRESSES FRUSTRATION WITH THE PRESIDENT
    GEORGE SOROS ISN’T HAPPY ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT’S EFFORTS. FOLLOWING IS THE INTRODUCTION TO A STORY POSTED AT HUFFINGTON POST:

    “WASHINGTON — At a private meeting on Tuesday afternoon, George Soros, a longtime supporter of progressive causes, voiced blunt criticism of the Obama administration, going so far as to suggest that Democratic donors direct their support somewhere other than the president.
    The Hungarian-American financier was speaking to a small side gathering of donors who had convened in Washington D.C. for the annual gathering of the Democracy Alliance — a formal community of well-funded, progressive-minded individuals and activists.
    According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is “used to fighting losing battles but doesn’t like to lose without fighting.”
    “We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line,” he said, according to several Democratic sources. “And if this president can’t do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.”
    Michael Vachon, an adviser to Soros, did not dispute the comment, though he stressed that there was no transcript of a private gathering to check. Vachon also clarified that the longtime progressive giver was not referring to a primary challenge to the president. “

    FOLLOWING IS WHAT I CONSIDER AN IMPORTANT POINT MADE LATER IN THE ARTICLE:

    “While Soros’s comment gave some attendees the impression that he’d cheer a primary challenge to the president, the point, sources say, was different. Rather, it is time to shuffle funds into a progressive infrastructure that will take on the tasks that the president can’t or won’t take on.
    “People are determined to help build a progressive infrastructure and make sure it is there not just in the months ahead but one that will last in the long term,” said Anna Burger, the retired treasury secretary of SEIU. “Instead of being pushed over by this election it has empowered people to stand up in a bigger way.””

    LINK TO THE STORY: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/george-soros-obama_n_785022.html

    • This the same Huffpo that was indirectly funded by Soros to the tune of 20.5 mil?

    • Could someone define “progressive infrastructure” for me?

      • Jennie

        It is the sum of all the “organizations” that are tied together with the same goals and objectives in mind.

        Now all these do not share 100% of all the goals but they share certain pieces. So when you put them all together you get a finished puzzle.

        For example, certain “environmental groups” share Progressive goals for setting aside large areas of “habitat” and for reducing the human population. But they may not share other social goals. So they are funded for the single purpose they serve.

        The Democratic Party structure itself could be viewed currently as part of the Progressive infrastructure. This meaning the “precinct Committeemen and Committeewomen, and officers”, the County and State Party Committees, and of course the Democratic National Committee.

        The massive get out the vote groups organized and operated by the Obama team are also part of this.

        Does this help with your question?

        • Start with the Tides Foundation – it’s tenacles are many and far reaching.

          • George Soros should be considered Americas’ #1 enemy. The majority of Americans have absolutely no idea the lengths that this man has undertaken to destroy America from within for his own personal gain through financial manipulations.

            With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups, whose major agendas can be summarized as follows:

            *promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

            *promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
            opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

            *depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

            *promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

            *promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

            *promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

            *defending suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

            *financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

            *advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

            *opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

            *promoting socialized medicine in the United States

            *promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”

            *bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

            *promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

            There are also numerous “secondary” or “indirect” affiliates of the Soros network. These include organizations which do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSI, but which are funded by one or more organizations that do. These secondary affiliates also include organizations that work collaboratively or synergistically with Soros-funded groups.

            Organizations that, in recent years, have received direct funding and assistance from George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OSI) include the following.

            Air America Radio: Now defunct, this was a self-identified “liberal” radio network.

            Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “extremists.”

            America Coming Together: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs.

            America Votes: Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters.

            America’s Voice: This open-borders group seeks to promote “comprehensive” immigration reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.

            American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy: This organization “opposes laws that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status.”

            American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.

            American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating, and mobilizing young law students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit from which to denounce their political adversaries.

            American Family Voices: This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging Republicans with wrongdoing.

            American Federation of Teachers: After longtime AFT President Albert Shanker died in in 1997, he was succeeded by Sandra Feldman, who slowly “re-branded” the union, allying it with some of the most powerful left-wing elements of the New Labor Movement. When Feldman died in 2004, Edward McElroy took her place, followed by Randi Weingarten in 2008. All of them kept the union on the leftward course it had adopted in its post-Shanker period.

            American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America’s unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of the Patriot Act.

            American Immigration Council: This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

            American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.

            American Institute for Social Justice: AISJ’s goal is to produce skilled community organizers who can “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on city services, drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare, and public schools.

            American Library Association: This group has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s War on Terror — most particularly, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which it calls “a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”

            The American Prospect, Inc.: This corporation trains and mentors young leftwing journalists, and organizes strategy meetings for leftist leaders.
            Amnesty International: This organization directs a grossly disproportionate share of its criticism for human rights violations at the United States and Israel.

            Arab American Institute Foundation: The Arab American Institute denounces the purportedly widespread civil liberties violations directed against Arab Americans in the post-9/11 period, and characterizes Israel as a brutal oppressor of the Palestinian people.

            Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: This group conducts voter mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. These initiatives have been notoriously marred by fraud and corruption.

            Bill of Rights Defense Committee: This group provides a detailed blueprint for activists interested in getting their local towns, cities, and even college campuses to publicly declare their opposition to the Patriot Act, and to designate themselves “Civil Liberties Safe Zones.” The organization also came to the defense of self-described radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in 2005 of providing material support for terrorism.

            Brennan Center for Justice: This think tank/legal activist group generates scholarly studies, mounts media campaigns, files amicus briefs, gives pro bono support to activists, and litigates test cases in pursuit of radical “change.”

            Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petitionopposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003.

            Campaign for America’s Future: This group supports tax hikes, socialized medicine, and a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs.

            Campaign for Better Health Care: This organization favors a single-payer, government-run, universal health care system.

            Campus Progress: A project of the Soros-bankrolled Center for American Progress, this group seeks to “strengthen progressive voices on college and university campuses, counter the growing influence of right-wing groups on campus, and empower new generations of progressive leaders.”

            Casa de Maryland: This organization aggressively lobbies legislators to vote in favor of policies that promote expanded rights, including amnesty, for illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.

            Catalist: This is a for-profit political consultancy that seeks “to help progressive organizations realize measurable increases in civic participation and electoral success by building and operating a robust national voter database of every voting-age American.”

            Catholics for a Free Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women’s right to abortion-on-demand.

            Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: This political nonprofit group is dedicated to generating support from the Catholic community for leftwing candidates, causes, and legislation.

            Center for American Progress: This leftist think tank is headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, works closely with Hillary Clinton, and employs numerous former Clinton administration staffers. It is committed to “developing a long-term vision of a progressive America” and “providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals.”

            Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist “political issue campaigns.” Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing “attention to major national issues related to poverty,” the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.

            Center for Constitutional Rights: This pro-Castro organization is a core member of the open borders lobby, has opposed virtually all post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures by the U.S. government, and alleges that American injustice provokes acts of international terrorism.

            Center for Economic and Policy Research: This group opposed welfare reform, supports “living wage” laws, rejects tax cuts, and consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela.

            Center for Reproductive Rights: CRR’s mission is to guarantee safe, affordable contraception and abortion-on-demand for all women, including adolescents. The organization has filed state and federal lawsuits demanding access to taxpayer-funded abortions (through Medicaid) for low-income women.

            Center for Responsible Lending: This organization was a major player in the subprime mortgage crisis. According to Phil Kerpen (vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity), CRL “sh[ook] down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers.” Moreover, CRL negotiated a contract enabling it to operate as a conduit of high-risk loans to Fannie Mae.

            Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Reasoning from the premise that tax cuts generally help only the wealthy, this organization advocates greater tax expenditures on social welfare programs for low earners.

            Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS): Aiming to redistribute wealth by way of higher taxes imposed on those whose incomes are above average, COWS contends that “it is important that state government be able to harness fair contribution from all parts of society – including corporations and the wealthy.”

            Change America Now: Formed in December 2006, Change America Now describes itself as “an independent political organization created to educate citizens on the failed policies of the Republican Congress and to contrast that record of failure with the promise offered by a Democratic agenda.”

            Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This group litigates and brings ethics charges against “government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests” and “betray the public trust.” Almost all of its targets are Republicans.

            Coalition for an International Criminal Court: This group seeks to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures to those of an international court.

            Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Defenders of Wildlife opposes oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It condemns logging, ranching, mining, and even the use of recreational motorized vehicles as activities that are destructive to the environment.

            Democracy Alliance: This self-described “liberal organization” aims to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups. Soros is a major donor to this group.
            Democracy 21: This group is a staunch supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

            Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! was created in 1996 by WBAI radio news director Amy Goodman and four partners to provide “perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media,” i.e., the views of radical and foreign journalists, left and labor activists, and ideological foes of capitalism.

            Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate immigration into the United States — particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”

            Democratic Party: Soros’ funding activities are devoted largely to helping the Democratic Party solidify its power base. In a November 2003 interview, Soros stated that defeating President Bush in 2004 “is the central focus of my life” … “a matter of life and death.” He pledged to raise $75 million to defeat Bush, and personally donated nearly a third of that amount to anti-Bush organizations. “America under Bush,” he said, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” Claiming that “the Republican party has been captured by a bunch of extremists,” Soros accuses the Bush administration of following a “supremacist ideology” in whose rhetoric he claims to hear echoes of “Nazi slogans.”

            Earthjustice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.

            Electronic Privacy Information Center: This organization has been a harsh critic of the USA PATRIOT Act and has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in litigating two cases calling for the FBI “to publicly release or account for thousands of pages of information about the government’s use of PATRIOT Act powers.”

            Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: Co-founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones, this anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities” — compounded by “excessive, racist policing and over-incarceration” — have “led to despair and homelessness.”

            EMILY’s List: This political network raises money for Democratic female political candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

            Energy Action Coalition: Founded in 2004, this group describes itself as “a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement.” For EAC, this means “dismantling oppression” according to its principles of environmental justice.

            Fair Immigration Reform Movement: This is the open-borders arm of the Center for Community Change.
            Faithful America: This organization promotes the redistribution of wealth, an end to enhanced interrogation procedures vis a vis prisoners-of-war, the enactment of policies to combat global warming, and the creation of a government-run heath care system.

            Feminist Majority: Characterizing the United States as an inherently sexist nation, this group focuses on “advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists to encourage future leadership for the feminist movement in the United States.”

            Four Freedoms Fund: This organization was designed to serve as a conduit through which large foundations could fund state-based open-borders organizations more flexibly and quickly.

            Free Exchange on Campus: This organization was created solely to oppose the efforts of one individual, David Horowitz, and his campaign to have universities adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights,” as well as todenounce Horowitz’s 2006 book The Professors. Member organizations of FEC include Campus Progress (a project of the Center for American Progress); the American Association of University Professors; theAmerican Civil Liberties Union; People For the American Way; the United States Student Association; theCenter for Campus Free Speech; the American Library Association; Free Press; and the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.

            Free Press: This “media reform” organization has worked closely with many notable leftists and such organizations as Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, Global Exchange, Code Pink, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Mother Jones magazine, and Pacifica Radio.

            Funding Exchange: Dedicated to the concept of philanthropy as a vehicle for social change, this organization pairs leftist donors and foundations with likeminded groups and activists who are dedicated to bringing about their own version of “progressive” change and social justice. Many of these grantees assume that American society is rife with racism, discrimination, exploitation, and inequity and needs to be overhauled via sustained education, activism, and social agitation.

            Gamaliel Foundation: Modeling its tactics on those of the radical Sixties activist Saul Alinsky, this group takes a strong stand against current homeland security measures and immigration restrictions.

            Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement: This anti-Israel organization seeks to help Palestinians “exercise their right to freedom of movement.”

            Global Exchange: Established in 1988 by pro-Castro radical Medea Benjamin, this group consistently condemns America’s foreign policy, business practices, and domestic life. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Global Exchange advised Americans to examine “the root causes of resentment against the United States in the Arab world — from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to our biased policy towards Israel.”

            Grantmakers Without Borders: GWB tends to be very supportive of leftist environmental, anti-war, and civil rights groups. It is also generally hostile to capitalism, which it deems one of the chief “political, economic, and social systems” that give rise to a host of “social ills.”
            Green For All: This group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives.

            Health Care for America Now: This group supports a “single payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.

            Human Rights First: This group supports open borders and the rights of illegal aliens; charges that the Patriot Act severely erodes Americans’ civil liberties; has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of terror suspect Jose Padilla; and deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.
            Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

            I’lam: This anti-Israel NGO seeks “to develop and empower the Arab media and to give voice to Palestinian issues.”

            Immigrant Defense Project: To advance the cause of illegal immigrants, the IDP provides immigration law backup support and counseling to New York defense attorneys and others who represent or assist immigrants in criminal justice and immigration systems, as well as to immigrants themselves.

            Immigrant Legal Resource Center: This group claims to have helped gain amnesty for some three million illegal aliens in the U.S., and in the 1980s was part of the sanctuary movement which sought to grant asylum to refugees from the failed Communist states of Central America.

            Immigrant Workers Citizenship Project: This open-borders organization advocates mass immigration to the U.S.

            Immigration Policy Center: IPC is an advocate of open borders and contends that the massive influx of illegal immigrants into America is due to U.S. government policy, since “the broken immigration system […] spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place.”

            Independent Media Center: This Internet-based, news and events bulletin board represents an invariably leftist, anti-capitalist perspective and serves as a mouthpiece for anti-globalization/anti-America themes.

            Independent Media Institute: IMI administers the SPIN Project (Strategic Press Information Network), which provides leftist organizations with “accessible and affordable strategic communications consulting, training, coaching, networking opportunities and concrete tools” to help them “achieve their social justice goals.”
            Institute for America’s Future: IAF supports socialized medicine, increased government funding for education, and the creation of an infrastructure “to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.”

            Institute for Policy Studies: This think tank has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. Viewing capitalism as a breeding ground for “unrestrained greed,” IPS seeks to provide a corrective to “unrestrained markets and individualism.” Professing an unquestioning faith in the righteousness of the United Nations, it aims to bring American foreign policy under UN control.

            Institute for Public Accuracy: This anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-Israel organization sponsored actor Sean Penn’s celebrated visit to Baghdad in 2002. It also sponsored visits to Iraq by Democratic Congressmen Nick Rahall and former Democrat Senator James Abourezk

            Institute for Women’s Policy Research: This group views the U.S. as a nation rife with discrimination against women, and publishes research to draw attention to this alleged state of affairs. It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, stating that “access to abortion is essential to the economic well-being of women and girls.”
            International Crisis Group: One of this organization’s leading figures is its Mideast Director, Robert Malley, who was President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs. His analysis of the Mideast conflict is markedly pro-Palestinian.

            J Street: This anti-Israel group warns that Israel’s choice to take military action to stop Hamas’ terrorist attacks “will prove counter-productive and only deepen the cycle of violence in the region”

            Jewish Funds for Justice: This organization views government intervention and taxpayer funding as crucial components of enlightened social policy. It seeks to redistribute wealth from Jewish donors to low-income communities “to combat the root causes of domestic economic and social injustice.” By JFJ’s reckoning, chief among those root causes are the inherently negative by-products of capitalism – most notably racism and “gross economic inequality.”

            Joint Victory Campaign 2004: Founded by George Soros and Harold Ickes, this group was a major fundraising entity for Democrats during the 2004 election cycle. It collected contributions (including large amounts from Soros personally) and disbursed them to two other groups, America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which also worked on behalf of Democrats.

            LatinoJustice PRLDF: This organization supports bilingual education, the racial gerrymandering of voting districts, and expanded rights for illegal aliens.

            Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: This group views America as an unremittingly racist nation; uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia; has filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to limit the wholesale granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists; condemns the Patriot Act; and calls on Americans to “recognize the contribution” of illegal aliens.

            League of United Latin American Citizens: This group views America as a nation plagued by “an alarming increase in xenophobia and anti-Hispanic sentiment”; favors racial preferences; supports the legalization of illegal Hispanic aliens; opposes military surveillance of U.S. borders; opposes making English America’s official language; favors open borders; and rejects anti-terrorism legislation like the Patriot Act.

            League of Women Voters Education Fund: The League supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; supports “motor-voter” registration, which allows anyone with a driver’s license to become a voter, regardless of citizenship status; and supports tax hikes and socialized medicine.

            Lynne Stewart Defense Committee: IRS records indicate that Soros’s Open Society Institute made a September 2002 grant of $20,000 to this organization. Stewart was the criminal-defense attorney who was later convicted for abetting her client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, in terrorist activities connected with his Islamic Group.

            MADRE: This international women’s organization deems America the world’s foremost violator of human rights. As such, it seeks to “communicat[e] the real-life impact of U.S. policies on women and families confronting violence, poverty and repression around the world,” and to “demand alternatives to destructive U.S. policies.” It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

            Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and discrimination against blacks; seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United States; and demands reparations for slavery.

            Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition: This group calls for the expansion of civil rights and liberties for illegal aliens; laments that illegal aliens in America are commonly subjected to “worker exploitation”; supports tuition-assistance programs for illegal aliens attending college; and characterizes the Patriot Act as a “very troubling” assault on civil liberties.

            Media Fund: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to conceptualize, produce, and place political ads on television, radio, print, and the Internet.

            Media Matters for America: This organization is a “web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center” seeking to “systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.”
            Mercy Corps: Vis a vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mercy Corps places all blame for Palestinian poverty and suffering directly on Israel.
            Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: This group advocates open borders, free college tuition for illegal aliens, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics, and voting rights for criminals. In MALDEF’s view, supporters of making English the official language of the United States are “motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments,” while advocates of sanctions against employers reliant on illegal labor seek to discriminate against “brown-skinned people.”

            Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, PC: This influential defender of Big Labor is headed by Democrat operativeHarold Ickes.

            Midwest Academy: This entity trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, targeting, confrontation, and intimidation.
            Migration Policy Institute: This group seeks to create “a North America with gradually disappearing border controls … with permanent migration remaining at moderate levels.”

            Military Families Speak Out: This group ascribes the U.S. invasion of Iraq to American imperialism and lust for oil.

            MoveOn.org: This Web-based organization supports Democratic political candidates through fundraising, advertising, and get-out-the-vote drives.

            Ms. Foundation for Women: This group laments what it views as the widespread and enduring flaws of American society: racism, sexism, homophobia, and the violation of civil rights and liberties. It focuses its philanthropy on groups that promote affirmative action for women, unfettered access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, amnesty for illegal aliens, and big government generally.
            NARAL Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.

            NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund: The NAACP supports racial preferences in employment and education, as well as the racial gerrymandering of voting districts. Underpinning its support for race preferences is the fervent belief that white racism in the United States remains an intractable, largely undiminished, phenomenon.

            The Nation Institute: This nonprofit entity sponsors leftist conferences, fellowships, awards for radical activists, and journalism internships.
            National Abortion Federation: This group opposes any restrictions on abortion at either the state or federal levels, and champions the introduction of unrestricted abortion into developing regions of the world.

            National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty: This group was established in 1976 as the first “fully staffed national organization exclusively devoted to abolishing capital punishment.”

            National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: This group depicts the United States as a nation in need of dramatic structural change financed by philanthropic organizations. It overwhelmingly promotes grant-makers and grantees with leftist agendas, while criticizing their conservative counterparts.

            National Committee for Voting Integrity: This group opposes “the implementation of proof of citizenship and photo identification requirements for eligible electors in American elections as the means of assuring election integrity.”

            National Council for Research on Women: This group supports big government, high taxes, military spending cuts, increased social welfare spending, and the unrestricted right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

            National Council of La Raza: This group lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate-crime laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens.

            National Council of Women’s Organizations: This group views the United States as a nation rife with injustice against girls and women. It advocates high levels of spending for social welfare programs, and supports race and gender preferences for minorities and women in business and academia.

            National Immigration Forum: Opposing the enforcement of present immigration laws, this organization urges the American government to “legalize” en masse all illegal aliens currently in the United States who have no criminal records, and to dramatically increase the number of visas available for those wishing to migrate to the U.S. The Forum is particularly committed to opening the borders to unskilled, low-income workers, and immediately making them eligible for welfare and social service programs.
            National Immigration Law Center: This group seeks to win unrestricted access to government-funded social welfare programs for illegal aliens.
            National Lawyers Guild: This group promotes open borders; seeks to weaken America’s intelligence-gathering agencies; condemns the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties; rejects capitalism as an unviable economic system; has rushed to the defense of convicted terrorists and their abettors; and generally opposes all U.S. foreign policy positions, just as it did during the Cold War when it sided with the Soviets.

            National Organization for Women: This group advocates the unfettered right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; seeks to “eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia” from American society; attacks Christianity and traditional religious values; and supports gender-based preferences for women.

            National Partnership for Women and Families: This organization supports race- and sex-based preferences in employment and education. It also advocates for the universal “right” of women to undergo taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason.

            National Priorities Project: This group supports government-mandated redistribution of wealth — through higher taxes and greater expenditures on social welfare programs. NPP exhorts the government to redirect a significant portion of its military funding toward public education, universal health insurance, environmentalist projects, and welfare programs.

            National Public Radio: Founded in 1970 with 90 public radio stations as charter members, NPR is today a loose network of more than 750 U.S. radio stations across the country, many of which are based on college and university campuses.

            National Security Archive Fund: This group collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.

            National Women’s Law Center: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; lobbies against conservative judicial appointees; advocates increased welfare spending to help low-income mothers; and favors higher taxes for the purpose of generating more funds for such government programs as Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, foster care, health care, child-support enforcement, and student loans.

            Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the most influential environmentalist lobbying groups in the United States, the Council claims a membership of one million people.

            Pacifica Foundation: This entity owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and hatred for capitalism.

            Peace and Security Funders Group: This is an association of more than 50 foundations that give money to leftist anti-war and environmentalist causes. Its members tend to depict America as the world’s chief source of international conflict, environmental destruction, and economic inequalities.

            Peace Development Fund: In PDF’s calculus, the United States needs a massive overhaul of its social and economic institutions. “Recently,” explains PDF, “we have witnessed the negative effects of neo-liberalism and the globalization of capitalism, the de-industrialization of the U.S. and the growing gap between the rich and poor …”
            People for the American Way: This group opposes the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism measures generally, and the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right.”

            Physicians for Human Rights: This group is selectively and disproportionately critical of the United States andIsrael in its condemnations of human rights violations.

            Physicians for Social Responsibility: This is an anti-U.S.-military organization that also embraces the tenets of radical environmentalism.

            Planned Parenthood: This group is the largest abortion provider in the United States and advocates taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
            Ploughshares Fund: This public grantmaking foundation opposes America’s development of a missile defense system, and contributes to many organizations that are highly critical of U.S. foreign policies and military ventures.

            Presidential Climate Action Project: PCAP’s mission is to create a new 21st-century economy, completely carbon-free and based largely on renewable energy. A key advisor to the organization is the revolutionary communist Van Jones.

            Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems American society’s inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.

            Progressive States Network: PSN’s mission is to “pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators.”

            Project Vote: This is the voter-mobilization arm of the Soros-funded ACORN. A persistent pattern of lawlessness and corruption has followed ACORN/Project Vote activities over the years.
            Pro Publica: Claiming that “investigative journalism is at risk,” this group aims to remedy this lacuna in news publishing by “expos[ing] abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.”

            Proteus Fund: This foundation directs its philanthropy toward a number of radical leftwing organizations.

            Public Citizen Foundation: Public Citizen seeks increased government intervention and litigation against corporations — a practice founded on the notion that American corporations, like the capitalist system of which they are a part, are inherently inclined toward corruption.
            Rebuild and Renew America Now (a.k.a. Unity ’09): Spearheaded by MoveOn.org and overseen by longtime activist Heather Booth, this coalition was formed to facilitate the passage of President Obama’s “historic” $3.5 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010.

            Secretary of State Project: This project was launched in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of Secretary of State in selected swing, or battleground, states.

            Sentencing Project: Asserting that prison-sentencing patterns are racially discriminatory, this initiative advocates voting rights for felons.

            Shadow Democratic Party: This is an elaborate network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy iniatives — to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left.

            Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radical leftwing politics. During the 1980s it championed Communist revolution in Central America and chastised U.S. policy-makers for their tendency “to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts.” More recently, Sojourners has taken up the cause of environmental activism, opposed welfare reform as a “mean-spirited Republican agenda,” and mounted a defense of affirmative action.

            Southern Poverty Law Center: This organization monitors the activities of what it calls “hate groups” in the United States. It exaggerates the prevalence of white racism directed against American minorities.

            The American Prospect, Inc.: The American Prospect, Inc. (TAP) is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization that effectively owns and publishes the left-liberal magazine The American Prospect.

            The Nation Institute: The Nation Institute since 1978 has worked in conjunction with The Nation magazine to recruit, train and influence journalism interns who will carry the Institute’s leftist politics into the mainstream.

            Think Progress: This Internet blog “pushes back, daily,” by its own account, against its conservative targets, and seeks to transform “progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.”
            Thunder Road Group: This political consultancy, in whose creation Soros had a hand, coordinates strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and America Votes.

            Tides Foundation and Tides Center: Tides is a major funder of the radical Left.
            U.S. Public Interest Research Group: This is an umbrella organization of student groups that support leftist agendas.

            Universal Healthcare Action Network: This organization supports a single-payer health care system controlled by the federal government.
            Urban Institute: This research organization favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.

            USAction Education Fund: USAction lists its priorities as: “fighting the right wing agenda”; “building grassroots political power”; winning “social, racial and economic justice for all”; supporting a system of taxpayer-funded socialized medicine; reversing “reckless tax cuts for millionaires and corporations” which shield the “wealthy” from paying their “fair share”; advocating for “pro-consumer and environmental regulation of corporate abuse”; “strengthening progressive voices on local, state and national issues”; and working to “register, educate and get out the vote … [to] help progressives get elected at all levels of government.”

            Working Families Party: An outgrowth of the socialist New Party, WFP seeks to help push the Democratic Party toward the left.

            World Organization Against Torture: This coalition works closely with groups that condemn Israeli security measures against Palestinian terrorism.
            YWCA World Office, Switzerland: The YWCA opposes abstinence education; supports universal access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; and opposes school vouchers.

            http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

    • Yeah, saw this. The puppet hasn’t performed to his liking, so we will just go around even the puppet and get our mission accomplished.

      And yet, there are some even on SUFA, that continue to approve of Soros-funded projects.

      (How’s that Media Matters, Ray?)

    • I see this man as that rich greedy capitalist that the left is so afraid of-but he comes out with his one society -one government BS and they buy it like its gold. Follow him to your doom-The thrill of making money regardless of how many people he hurts has become boring-now he just wants absolute power. Am interested in everyone else’s opinion.

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/open-society-soros-explains-the-anti-capitalist-pro-marxist-tactics-he-uses-to-fundamentally-transform-countries/

      • I think it interesting that, being a rich, greedy capitalist himself; that he is alledgedly AGAINST rich, greedy capitalism.

        This is probably because he wants to do away with the competition for the money.

        And his motives are to be the power behind the throne. Why be President when you can play the President like an AssClown, and have him dance to your tune because you are the power behind his election.

        If Soros wants him out of office, he will BE, out of office.

      • There’s an aspect of Soros’ behavior that has gone unexamined and virtually unmentioned: the complete disconnect between his activities as a businessman and his ambitions as a philanthropist. Soros has, at the very least, skirted financial regulations in most or all of the countries in which he has operated. He has done worse in France, Malaysia, and Thailand — the French fined him millions, while the Southeast Asian states are reportedly very interested in speaking to him in private. He has caused enormous misery through his currency manipulations. He evidently feels no guilt concerning these matters, either.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/soros_beck_and_the_holocaust.html

        I can state here that Beck’s narrative is completely accurate. His treatment of it is commendable, in particular his statement that no one has a right to judge the efforts of Jews to survive in Nazi-occupied Europe.

        All the same, the segment has triggered a firestorm among the usual suspects, who appear to view Soros as sharing in Obama’s divine status. In a hagiographic fresco dealing with the Advent of the One, the Soros halo would only be slightly smaller than that of Obama himself. In this regard, he must be defended at all costs.

        The piece from Mediaite can serve as an example. Both the text and the comments are revealing. They express three major objections to Beck’s treatment:

        * 1) The incident never happened.
        * 2) Its import and meaning are quite different that what is implied.
        * 3) Beck is throwing around Nazi associations in much the same way that the left do when they assert (one example out of thousands), that Prescott Bush “assisted the Nazis.”

        First off — as stated above, there’s no question that the incident occurred. In fact, there’s considerably more to it. Soros also assisted in the collection of Jewish chattels — clothing, furniture, and the like — for shipment to Germany. We have this on the highest authority, from an eyewitness of unimpeachable status: Soros himself. During a 1998 “60 Minutes” interview, Soros admitted to the entire story without hesitation. He also stated that he felt no guilt, adding that the situation cannot be understood be anyone who was not there. Then, in what might be called typical Soros style, he concludes by comparing his cooperation with the Nazis with his later activities in the markets.

        As to the import of the episode — many of the comments draw very close to Holocaust denial. How do we know, they ask, that the Jews in question were being sent to the death camps? They could have been going anywhere — “to Hawaii,” one thoughtful commentator states.

        This is a standard trope of the Holocaust-denial industry. “Revisionists,” as they fancy themselves, have given up complete denial of the exterminations in favor of minimizing Nazi crimes by shaving away at the margins. So we get claims that not all the victims died in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, and the other camps, but instead were “sent” somewhere — nobody knows quite where. In the 1980s, one insightful little scholar suggested that a large proportion of the missing six million could be found in Israeli retirement homes. The odious David Irving, a legitimate historian who slid into denial for reasons unknown even to himself, blithely insisted that he had “no idea” what happened to the European Jews, even though he had access to the largest private archive of Nazi documentation ever assembled.

        The truth is simple: every Jew deported from the European ghettos went directly to the camps. Most of them were gassed immediately and then — as the survivors put it — went up the chimneys. There is no denying this, or eliding it, or making it mean anything else other than what it is. Holocaust denial is a crime. Anyone denying the exterminations is engaging in criminal activity — particularly if it involves, as it does here, an attempt to silence a political opponent.

        On to the claim that Beck is slandering Soros as a Nazi. This type of smear is not uncommon, and it is usually seen headed from the left in a rightward direction, under the assumption that both conservatism and Nazism are “right-wing” doctrines. The Prescott Bush libel is instructive here. Apparently the bank on whose board Bush sat loaned money to Nazi Germany during the 1930s. This is enough for him, his son, and his grandson to be damned from here to eternity as Nazi collaborators of the foulest type, according to the American left.

  7. “I say that the airlines should be personally responsible for whatever level of security they deem necessary. Put the choice of how secure you need to feel back into the hands of the consumer. Allow airlines themselves to make decisions as needed.”

    I’m mostly with you until this point.

    It seems to me that (a) consumers are focused on their wallets and (b) attacks like 9/11 lose immediacy over time in the public mind. As a consequence, the competitive incentive for airlines to reduce security costs would quickly grow intense.

    While this would undoubtedly allow the market to improve the efficiency and so on of security measures, I would expect it would also lead airlines (like banks during the housing bubble) to develop a cavalier and anemic attitude toward safety.

    Commercial airliners are unique in my mind as one of the very few products readily available to consumers that can immediately become a missle. Moreover, once control is lost, destruction and substantial casualties are generally the only options to regaine control and avert greater destruction and massive casualties.

    Accordingly, given the incentives involved and the costs arising from a security failure, I believe government regulation of airport security is appropriate.

    Whether that regulation is being achieved in a sensible way is, of course, an entirely different question. It seems to me government mandated minimum standards that individual airlines are allowed and perhaps encouraged to exceed may be a better solution. The system ought to foster common sense as well, which is I believe much of what the rest of the original post is about.

    Sorry about your loss USW and good luck at the new job.

    • Mike;

      I think privatising airline security would in fact do just the opposite of what you indicate. Since Airlines are in the business to make money I doubt they would let security erode. The planes and crew are key to their profitability and therfore they would do whatever it takes to secure them.

      As I suggested earlier I think our returning Military folks would be great resources for security and operate at a much lower cost than current technologies.

      Airlines could also offer a pre-screaning to their passengers enabling a faster process for boarding and terminal entry.

      Also, having the government involved in any way would pretty much ensure we would eventually return to the same mess we have now.

      CM

      • I agree with you CM. Hire ex-military and returning personnel. AND PROFILE!!!!

      • I knew a guy from South Africa who had a friend who ran a delivery company. His friend was looking at the books and found out he was spending a fortune on security guards. Light bulb over his head lit up and he realised he could save a lot of money by getting rid of the security guards. I will leave it to you to figure out what happened at his depot two weeks later.

        Never, ever, ever underestimate what people will do to save a little cash.

    • “Since Airlines are in the business to make money I doubt they would let security erode.”

      I appreciate your view and believe it sensible, but I’m ultimately not convinced.

      From an economic standpoint, private businesses routinely prioritize short term profits over long term good public policy. This is particularly true with large, publicly traded companies that are accountable to their shareholders each and every quarter.

      Like any competitive industry, airlines make their money at the margins. Whoever can get more flights per plane per day, using less fuel, employing less staff, etc. while still meeting customer demand and not alienating their own employees, will have the lowest ticket prices. Those with greater overhead will have higher ticket prices. The market will react accordingly.

      That’s typically okay, of course. Businesses should be free to make whatever lawful choices they deem strategically advantageous. That’s America.

      However, left to their own devices, I believe airlines would cut corners on security the same way they do with any other issue. This comports with my own anecdotal experience as a lawyer working with a number of very large multi-national companies–“preventative medicine” type measures are looked at very, very sternly by management. Just what preventative actions are required is a strategic decision each company must make.

      Therefore, I would expect that if we were to entirely privatize airline security, we would see public complacency regarding security threats immediately reflected in rollbacks of security procedures by the airlines.

      With most any other issue, I would say that increasing profitablity by following public sentiment is their perogative. However, when it comes to items that are readily turned into missles, I think certain minimum standards (at the very least) should be in place.

      “Also, having the government involved in any way would pretty much ensure we would eventually return to the same mess we have now.”

      I really don’t know what system I would recommend or how I would change things. Generally, though, I don’t think I agree with this either.

      I think the government’s role here should be to preclude the market from creating an immediate economic incentive to reduce security to near (or at) zero. The government setting minimum standards–if that was an approach being considered–is quite different that the government running the ship itself.

      Restaurants are able to function despite needing to satisfy health inspectors. While on a bigger scale, I would expect this would be no different.

      Hiring ex-military, returning personnel, etc. if possible is of course always a great thing.

      • Common Man says:

        Mike;

        Having the experience you do I am sure you are more privy than I too corporate decisions, especially when it comes to executive level. I have seen decisions being made around technology and it’s supporting practices that leave me speachless, simply because the executives feel there is a low risk. Although things have changed a bit now with Sarbain-Oxley.

        But, I still think that airline security would be an area that the executives would consider key. As an example; look at Vegas and the security they have put into place to protect their key assets. And what is more important is the fact that security in Vegas is always advancing.

        Since the airlines primary role is to safely fly their customers from point A to B as efficently as possible, they must ensure their equipment is maintained, their employees are meeting specific standards and (this is key) their passengers want to fly with them again.

        If security was to erode and shortly there after a couple of airlines experienced events like 911 I am sure patrons would quickly seek out other modes of transportation. And if we then found out is was because airline executives cut back on security to make a couple extra bucks, well we might all start taking the bus or train.

        I think that the airline executives are a lot like the Vegas executives and realize that they need to maintain a high level of security.

        Just my thoughts

        CM

  8. USW – I’m going to stand up for Tyner here. I don’t believe he was looking to pick a fight or any such thing. My goodness he was heading to South Dakota to pheasant hunt with his F-I-L! If you listen to his cell phone recording (not a video recording) both he and the TSA rep were reasonable. There was no shouting, accusing or anything. It’s the process that got out of hand and has led to where things are today.

    While I agree that it’s the airlines that need to step up and take back security, in the meantime I would like the TSA and the airlines do a better job with name matching, no fly lists, etc, along with active, real time profiling.

    Crotches are now being checked in the US because the Undie bomber carried explosives there, however, as I recall, his name was on a “list” but that list didn’t get updated and also you’ll remember his own father had raised concerns and none of that was given attention. A lot of the scrutiny should occur before anyone even gets to the airport!

    • Kathy. IMO the undidrawer bomber is a perfect example of why the Government should NOT be involved in this.

      Top reason being they are incompetent, amd they hire according to to many bull$h!t standards; none of which have to do with experience in that kind of job.

  9. TODD

    I was unable to respond to your comment of last week because my computer went down…….virus. Late Monday, when I got it back, I didn’t have the time. Since then I wasn’t sure I could respond without being nasty. It was the first sentence that really got me upset. I have seen this comment from many on the left. In fact you may have made the same comment before. It displays tremendous stupidity in my view. And so there is no confusion about what I mean, let me define the words I use.

    Ignorance: Lack of knowledge about certain things.
    Stupidity: Acting in opposition to, or simply ignoring, knowledge. In other words, refusal or unwillingness to “think”.

    Lets review:

    “Todd said
    November 11, 2010 at 12:34 am

    JAC,
    Why should I, or anyone else, care what a group of men thought 220 years ago?

    Their creation of the Constitution showed a lot of wisdom and thought, but they had their flaws too. I think they knew that, so they created a way to modify the Constitution to fit future changes in the world.

    It is just as amazing that the USA has survived 220 years, despite the many threats – internal and external. I think that shows the collective wisdom of the generations that have followed.”

    The first sentence is the problem so lets expand the question.

    Why be concerned with what any group of men thought ???? years ago? What is the time expiration date for Truth and Knowledge? Are the thoughts of Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Marx, Newton, Whitney, Edison, etc. important or to be ignored because of the time passed?

    Are we to reinvent the wheel every generation or so because the guy who first did it is now “to old” to be considered relevant?

    Your question is a classic “rationalization” of the concept that Truth is relative, or that reality does not exist. In this case it is somehow relative to the passage of time. In other words, the meaning of a clause is not important because it is “old”. Thus the meaning of all things are not important because they are “old”.

    A Constitution is the only “peaceful” means devised by man to control Govt. The need to understand what was meant, and why it was viewed as important, is critical to removing the fog created by time and subversion. Time does not make the original irrelevant. It simply creates confusion due to changes in values and the meaning of words.

    The Framers understood the need to change with time. It was called “amendment”. They were all well educated in the philosophy of law and parliamentary procedures, including the drafting of bills. They created general authorities where they thought appropriate and more restricted where they thought necessary.

    During the ratification debates virtually every hole in the document we cry about today was identified. The Framers explained why these concerns were not valid. The citizens accepted their words and thus the “intent” and “meaning” of those words were critical to the document being ratified. So you see, those “thoughts” of long ago are absolutely relevant today. They are the foundation on which our nation was built.

    You point out our Nation’s great resilience. I will point out that over most of that time the original meaning of the Constitution was the primary standard. Oh yes, there were fights and some changes. But the major premises were held as truth. It is not until the 20th Century that we start to see a major shift to this concept of “interpretation” or “living document”.

    What has happened over time is that those who wanted to expand that authority knew they could not get it done via the amendment process. So they used the courts to change it via “interpretation”. In doing this they have violated the basic tenant of a Constitutional Republic.

    They have given the Government the authority to change the compact unilaterally. Govt can now determine what its authority is and revise it based on whim. Freedom and Liberty have become nothing but an illusion, supported by whatever remaining cultural memories exist within the population.

    Todd, I know you are a much deeper thinker than your comment implies. I hope that in the future you will refrain from using such an argument. It is much to far beneath you, in my humble opinion.

    Best Regards
    Hope your ski season is enjoyable and peaceful.
    JAC

    • JAC, my son is in a US History class and I would like to share this with him. There is a good chance he would use it (not as his) in class for discussion. Do I have your permission?

      • Kathy

        Absolutely!

        I also suggest you get him a copy of “Commons Sense, Rights of Man and other essential writings of Thomas Paine”.

        The section on Common Sense includes a great discussion about the various forms of government, what makes a Constitutional Republic so different, and most importantly the context in which it was all developed.

        And if I can be of any help with additional references, please feel free to holler!

        JAC

    • JAC

      Well done, well done indeed!

      CM

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I will add this quote again by John Adams >

      “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      Just began reading “The 5000 year leap”, it’s a keeper!
      I say Thanks, to the person who recommended it!

      • Your welcome.

        However, I completely disagree with Adam’s comment that we must be moral AND religious.

        We know from experience that they are not necessarily linked together.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          i agree, but from his perspective he makes a great point.

          • I think people object to his words based on the assumption that he is saying people must be religious to be moral. I don’t think that is what he is saying-he made a point of saying moral people and people with true religion. I interpret that as meaning 1. people must be moral 2. people must have help from God. I know that this doesn’t make anyone who doesn’t believe in God like the statement much better but I think the distinction is important.

        • @-JaC,

          Are you implying that a non-religious society is as moral and has a well defined code of liberty, freedom and justice?

          Perhaps you would use a Communist country such as the old USSR as your example? Ooops oh wait a minute…that didn’t work now did it?Hrmmm…I can’t really think of one that has worked…yet I can clearly see the degradation of western civilization as society trends away from religion! It’s plain as day!

          Humans are not a hive minded insect with instincts ingrained for survival.

          EVERY bit of knowledge each individual Man knows has to have been learned.Other than applied discovery technological break-throughs that is.

          The majority of all wisdom and knowledge is taught to a Man from a previous Man in some manner.Agree?Or do you know it all? :) :) :) :) :)

    • And also JAC, this began during FDR’s administration. The Supreme Court began telling him that articles of the New Deal were Unconstitutional. He bullied and changed them into surrendering and accepting his interpretation of the Constitution.

      This is backed up by Historical accounts from the beginning of his Presidency, to the end.

      And it was the beginning of the end of the Constitutions authority in American life as well.

      It is significant that the New Deal not only was Unconstitutional, it also didn’t work. WW2 pulled us out of the Depression, not the New Deal.

    • JAC,

      Since then I wasn’t sure I could respond without being nasty.

      Maybe you should have waited a little longer, cause the start of your reply still seems kind of nasty to me. Nothing like being called stupid and given a clear definition.

      In fact you may have made the same comment before.

      I don’t think so, but I know you like to lump everyone that disagrees with you into one big pile so I’m sure it seems that way to you. But if you’ve seen this question so many times, why the harsh reaction?

      So you believe there are some questions that just shouldn’t be asked? Cause they’re just too stupid? Just accept the conservative view-point and we’ll all get along just fine, right?

      Maybe my question wasn’t clear or didn’t go into enough detail. But I was just trying to start a discussion. When your reply starts out calling me stupid, it kind of squashes any chance of real discussion. I’ve noticed that more and more here – anyone who disagrees gets attacked and “discussions” turn into arguments. Of course Black Flag is the expert at that. I thought you were above that.

      You need to removed the emotion from your reply and use logic if you want to have a real discussion.

      Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Marx, Newton, Whitney, Edison, etc. important or to be ignored because of the time passed?

      No, we don’t ignore them. We build on their work, as many of them built on the work of others before them. If you consider all of them to be great philosophers and thinkers, why are you such a believer of Ayn Rand? With so many great philosophers that came before her, why create a new philosophy?

      Edison – I think Halogen lights are a big improvement over the early filaments and light bulbs. Maybe it’s just me…

      Are we to reinvent the wheel every generation or so because the guy who first did it is now “to old” to be considered relevant?

      No, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. But I think it’s a good idea to continue to improve it, cause I prefer the radials on my truck to the wagon wheels from the 1800’s.

      It seems you displayed your own stupidity in your reply.

      Oh yeah – have a nice day…

  10. Another view on how ridiculus TSA scans are. This pilot was on Hannity (don’t let that stop you from looking!), and his point on how pilots, who once they are in the drivers’ seat, can do whatever they want with an airplane, are required to also go through these invasive measures.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/pilot-the-tsa-wanted-to-see-my-penis

    • Just to play devil’s advocate.

      Why are pilots to be trusted just because they are pilots? The US trusted US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan and look what happened. CAIR would like to get women in burkas excluded from searches below head level.

      If we start exempting people in certain groups and categories then TSA is saying to the public – 1) generally your criminals in our eyes unless you are a part of one of the excluded groups, and 2) the need for the enhanced security we constantly preach is needed is really not since we can created these groups of exclude (ergo “trustworthy”) people.

      Remember too that these are the bright folks (TSA) that apparently never considered terrorists sneaking bombs into cargo, so now it’ll costs us how much to upgrade cargo security?

      • Oh don’t disagree that everyone should be looked at. But by the time a pilot arrives at the airport (sure check his clearance, name, blah, blah), but to have him/her go through a thorough pat down when in a few minutes he will be flying the plane – which is far more dangerous than a box cutter! If he was Kamakaze-minded, his junk won’t really matter.

  11. If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.
    (this passed with 14Repug’s & all Demoncrats in favor)

    JAC, what should be done with the FDA?

    November 17, 2010
    First Health Care, Next the Food Supply
    By Michael Geer, American Thinker
    Just because the duck is lame doesn’t mean it can’t still do terrible damage to American freedom. Our new Congress, especially the new House, isn’t yet seated, and this current Congress can still wreak terrible havoc on our rights if not stopped.

    Case in point: Senate Bill 510, believed to be coming to the floor Wednesday, November 17 (pending). This is the food safety version of ObamaCare. Reading the thing will make your head hurt for all its cognitive dissonance. Trying to winnow out its complexity and hidden empowerments is stultifying.

    Introduced by Dick Durbin of Illinois, the bill has moved through the usual phases of amalgamation and deal-making. The monstrosity advancing to the floor on Wednesday is not so much “food safety” as it is the decadence of the rights of small farmers, hobbyist food producers, garden-variety farmers markets, and your average small producer of foodstuffs. Under the rubric of safety, this Senate proposes a bill that establishes such new and sweeping powers over how you and I produce and consume foodstuffs that even the Pew Charitable Trusts are calling S510 a clear and present danger. National Health Freedom says,

    It is a dangerously broad regulatory bill giving extensive discretionary power to the FDA over the entire food supply chain without proper checks and balances to avoid abuse of power;

    It would impose one-size-fits-all-regulations on thousands of small and mid-sized farmers, small-scale local farms and food producers, and would drastically burden, to extinction, basic natural and organic food suppliers, thus endangering the lives of Americans who depend on local wholesome foods;

    It does not reflect a well-thought-out solution, or address the real causes of food safety issues stemming from the industrialized food supply chain; and

    It attempts to limit the authority of our own domestic U.S. laws when it includes language ensuring that our US law will not disturb other international agreements that we have made. It states: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party.”

    Lee Bechtel of the National Health Federation, the nation’s oldest health-freedom organization, says,

    The concern for freedom and health freedom advocates with the legislation, and the NHF’s concern, is not because it addresses existing conventional food safety system problems, tainted imported foods, peanut butter… et.al. but because of these non-conventional food safety attempts to expand FDA authority and impose more controls over the marketplace and the access to nutritional foods and supplements.

    For example, Page 26 Manager’s Amendment:

    (d) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE.- Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regulations promulgated under subsection (m) of section 418 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary shall issue a small entity compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the requirements of such section 418 and this section to assist small entities in complying with the hazard analysis and other activities required under such section 418 and this Section.

    Neither specified nor even alluded to is the empowering language of what “assist” or “hazard analysis” or “small entities” may mean. In federal empowerment legislation, this means whatever they want it to. Lee Bechtel goes on to write,

    There is no legislative language that gives any clarity or defines what a “small entity” is. Instead, leaving it up to the FDA to decide the application of the law. The Senate bill unlike the House version does not include specific exemption language for small farmers, small organic farms, etc. In fact, Senator Testor has an amendment to address this matter, if the Democratic Senate leadership allows it to be offered.

    Further, how about this for a TSA-brand of intrusion into your affairs? Pg. 3 of the Manager’s Amendments to S510 –

    (2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOODS OF CONCERN.-If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any article of a food, that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article can be acted upon by the FDA.

    That would be you and me, if we’re hobby farmers at the local farmer’s market.

    Dr. Silva Chandra says,

    If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.

    • LOI

      I would not abolish this one but remake its mission. Of course it might need to be TERMINATED in order to purge the control freaks from its ranks. But that is an operational issue, not one of organization.

      We should eliminate the FDA’s ability to set standards that have the force of law and they would have ZERO law enforcement capability.

      Like the Pirate Code, the FDA standards should be viewed more as “guidelines”.

      But if you sell a product that harms someone then your failure to meet the guidelines could be used in court to help in your prosecution.

      I think this general standard could be applied to most regulatory agencies. In the modern world there is little to no reason for Centralized control at the Federal level in most of these areas.

      Ironically, it is the business sector that supports the “centralized” effort because it allows them to streamline compliance. But as we have learned, once you give that authority you will be damned to keep it in check.

    • LOI

      I almost forgot a major point.

      If it weren’t for those who have knowingly, or unknowingly, supported the “living document” theory, this issue wouldn’t exist.

      Neither Congress nor the Executive branch has the authority to regulate food production and sales that are wholly contained within the State. And growing food for local consumption is just that, LOCAL.

      • JAC my friend. My son has to do a report in 9th grade Gvernment on one of the Bill of Rights. He picked the 2nd Amendment. I can’t wait to help him with it. I continually express this classes importance to him.

        I also monitor why he is being told. I don’t want any revisionist or Socialist leaning bull being taught to him.

    • There is one word I can say that will explain the purpose of this bill and believe you me its purpose is not to look out for the citizens health.
      That word is…Monsanto.

      Monsantos’ biotechnology has genetically altered plants that are resistant to their herbicides.Monsanto has patents on these plants and have been buying up the worlds supply of seeds in record numbers and only selling the genetically altered ones.Buy their seed buy their herbicide.Eventually you will have no choice as they actively pursue litigation against farmers that don’t even use their seed if even one of their genetically altered plants is ever found on his field.I shit you not!

  12. Matt or BF or someone,

    Off topic even though it’s open mic

    I’m not too computer saavy. I use Internet Explorer although I’m getting used to Google Chrome. Am I doing something to cause a “warning: out of memory at line such and such” to keep appearing?

    I’d appreciate some help in Computer for Dummies language please. Thanks

  13. November 18, 2010
    Firing the TSA
    Thomas Lifson
    Janet Napolitano is getting a lesson: treat customers unreasonably and they will leave. Airport operators do not have to use TSA to screen passengers, and the first airport has already announced it will use one of the five private screening firms already approved to offer security screening for air travelers.

    Unsurprisingly, the move comes from a scrappy underdog airport which competes with a larger, more famous facility: Orlando Sanford Airport, which is much smaller and farther from the Disney/Universal Studios attractions than the better-known Orlando International Airport.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/firing_the_tsa.html

  14. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/profile_muslims_or_pat_down_th.html

    The profile here is very specific, as it’s a rare person who will sacrifice his life to destroy an airplane. Protestants aren’t doing that. Catholics aren’t doing it. Nor are Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians or Hare Krishna. In our age, this is a method of people who 100 percent of the time are Muslim jihadists and 99 percent of the time are non-white. And only the idiotic — or the suicidal — ignores such correlation.

    Now, we all know what kind of suicidal idiocy engenders such blindness: a politically correct brand that panders to the sensitivities of vocal, politically favored minority groups such as Muslims. But what about the sensitivities of millions of Americans who have to tolerate intrusive body scanning and pat-downs and watch their children subjected to same? And the kicker is that when Janet Incompetano (as Mark Steyn calls her) was asked if Muslim women sporting hijabs would have to go through the same full-body pat downs, she equivocated and said, “adjustments will be made where they need to be made” and “With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come.” Are you kidding me? Is this Total Recall meets One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? Muslim women are the demographic second-most likely to commit Islamic terrorism. If they aren’t subjected to scrutiny, what is the point (besides “security theater”)?

    • TSA could have chosen a less intrusive screening machine

      By Tony Pugh | McClatchy Newspapers

      WASHINGTON — After 23-year-old Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a flight from the Netherlands to Detroit last Christmas with enough explosives to bring down the plane, officials at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport decided to build a better mousetrap.

      So they installed more than a dozen full-body scanners capable of detecting metallic and non-metallic materials, including explosives, gels, powders and liquids.

      In the 11 months that the devices have operated, Schiphol largely has avoided the privacy and safety uproar that surrounds passenger screening at U.S. airports on the eve of the holiday travel season.

      Ironically, the Dutch can credit their relative success to good ‘ole American ingenuity: the kind that the Department of Homeland Security is now considering.

      Unlike the backscatter imaging devices that provide revealing body images and which have stoked concerns about radiation, the system at Schiphol uses radio waves to detect contraband.

      The Woburn, Mass., firm that manufacturers the system, L-3 Communications Security & Detection Systems, claims on its website that the radio waves are “10,000 times lower than other commonly-used radio frequency devices.”

      If the software identifies a passenger carrying explosives, an outline of the problem body area is displayed on a generic mannequin figure instead of on the actual image of the passenger’s body. The mannequin image, which appears on the operator’s control panel, “can then be used by security personnel to direct a focused discussion or search,” the company website reads.

      The “automatic threat detection” system dubbed “ProVision ATD,” sells for $40,000 to $150,000 and doesn’t use ionizing radiation or X-rays.

      Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/17/103930/us-firm-may-have-solution-to-airport.html#ixzz15fd9m1EM

  15. Initial Public Offering………….Let me say again…… Initial P U B L I C offering. Key word……………….PUBLIC.
    An initial public offering is when a company (called the issuer) issues common stock or shares to the public for the first time. They are often issued by smaller, younger companies seeking capital to expand, but can also be done by large privately-owned companies looking to become publicly traded. In an IPO, the issuer may obtain the assistance of an underwriting firm, which helps it determine what type of security to issue (common or preferred), best offering price and time to bring it to market.
    When a company lists its shares on a public exchange, it will almost invariably look to issue additional new shares in order at the same time. The money paid by investors for the newly-issued shares goes directly to the company (in contrast to a later trade of shares on the exchange, where the money passes between investors). An IPO, therefore, allows a company to tap a wide pool of stock market investors to provide it with large volumes of capital for future growth. The company is never required to repay the capital, but instead the new shareholders have a right to future profits distributed by the company and the right to a capital distribution in case of a dissolution.

    Now, to continue, there are several checks and balances that are supposed to take place in an IPO. There are two time windows commonly referred to as “quiet periods” during an IPO’s history. The first and the one linked above is the period of time following the filing of the company’s S-1 but before SEC staff declare the registration statement effective. During this time, issuers, company insiders, analysts, and other parties are legally restricted in their ability to discuss or promote the upcoming IPO. The other “quiet period” refers to a period of 40 calendar days following an IPO’s first day of public trading. During this time, insiders and any underwriters involved in the IPO are restricted from issuing any earnings forecasts or research reports for the company.

    Let us go further…..there is an item known as a Red Herring. This is a preliminary registration statement that must be filed with the SEC describing a new issue of stock and the prospectus of the issuing company. There is no price or issue size stated in the red herring, and it is sometimes updated several times before being called the final prospectus. It is known as a red herring because it contains a passage in red that states the company is not attempting to sell its shares before the registration is approved by the SEC.

    OK….Why am I pissed! INSIDER TRADING….which is supposed to be illegal!!!!!! Remember that GM was already a publicly held company prior to its takeover by the government. There were thousands of shareholders in GM including large firms that used GM investments to back 401’s and pension plans. The Autoworkers Union and several other unions also were heavily invested in GM through their pension plans. Remember also that this President and his advisors did not divest GM under the current bankruptcy laws. They by passed the laws and the secured creditors were not allocated one thin dime when they were supposed to be first in line. In addition, the stock of the original GM was down-graded to toilet paper….so everybody lost except for the union which was given priority ownership in the new company. Fortunately, three years ago, we, our family, sensed the problems with GM through the quarterly and annual reports and divested all stock at a handsome profit. Fast forward to now….our family business is sitting on a huge amount of cash that we are willing to invest in the economy given the right investment opportunity. We have been waiting for the IPO of the new GM to do the AMERICAN thing and that is utilizing cash to invest in the new company. Free enterprise at work the way it is supposed to work…right? WRONG, Batman.

    First, there was NO…….repeat NO Red Herring issued to the public as required by law. None…nada..Nyet…ziltch….bupkus!!!!! Second, the underwriters that were selected by the “special” commission were…………..are you ready for this…..JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, et al. The VERY firms that were being jumped on by the President and Congress that created this mess to begin with. Third, the vetting process also included………..CHINA, which was guaranteed PRIOR to the release, 1% of the IPO. Now, this commission, whom is supposed to be totally neutral, created, through the SEC a NEW set of rules that required certain qualifications that needed to be met to be part of the IPO. The rules were designed to elimiante qualifiers.

    Mr. “ass wipe” Bloom had the audacity to speak this morning to address the allegations that several have made concerning the IPO. He gave the standard non answers but one thing he said when questioned was that 20% of the IPO was made available to the public if they met the qualifications that were outlined. He further stated that the 20% offering is the largest public offering for IPO’s. He further stated that if the public offering fell short, then that 20% would be offered to the pre-vetted. But the 20% was NOT offered to the public. We use Dean Witter and Merrill/lynch investment firms. We, as individuals, wanted to invest $500,000 in the new stock. Everyone knows that the real money is made in the beginning of the IPO provided that the value increases. We were informed that the public offering was not available because Dean Witter and Merrill/Lynch did not qualify as underwriters and were also not offered any of the “public” stock through the underwriters that did get it. The only ones that benefitted were the same big wall street hustlers that Obama PROMISED…..PROMISED…to get rid of…..and China.

    The winners? All the firms that have investments in union pension funds, the GM union that were part of the IPO, and China….promised and receiving 1%. Bloom states that the normal guidelines were followed and that the public benefitted greatly……indirectly. Anybody can participate in the IPO provided they met the guidelines…..that were not published…..and no Red Herring issued to the public prior to the IPO. It is available now. The hedge funds and the mutual funds that are owned by the Morgan’s and the Sach’s…etal., were also the big winners.

    The losers? You, me, and anyone left holding original GM stock and the bond holders that were given no choices in the bankruptcy and if you wanted to buy GM stock now…..good luck. You will have to wait for the sell off from the IPO investors….then it will not be worth it at all.
    Now, get ready for this…….what happens if the GM stock drops below the IPO? It will take a $53 per share for the taxpayer to break even. All the leading economist are saying that there will be no pay back because the problems that existed at GM prior to this……still exist. Any bets that if the stock drops below and GM gets in trouble……we will bail them out again and still not get in on the profits on any future reorganization.

    That is why I am pissed and that is why Bloom is a god-damned liar.

    NOW, Matt, I will have that drink.

    • Here’s that drink..

      Now, go look up the term “green shoe.”

      • Know the term…the oversell was not allowed in this instance according to Bloom. The original underwriters did not have the option and if they did….it would have gone to hedgefunds and mutual funds anyway.

        • Who are you and when did you replace the colonel with a finance geek?

          • Ahhhh…but my friend Matt…you have notpaid attention in prior posts….I have an MBA in Finance….not that it means anything other than I paid a lot of money to go to school and have some initials to brag about. Came in real handy on the battlefields…..lol

            However, we have significant family enterprises….comes in handy right now.

            Right now, D13 is basking in some praise bestowed on the now public counter insurgency that Texas is doing. So, financial geek is the one that got pissed off this morning.

    • D13,

      Congressional oversight and subpoena powers? It’s legal for the government to ignore or break the law, unless the government says it’s illegal. I saw FOX was reporting this, any network coverage?

      • None…..I flipped to CNN….nothing. MSNBC…nothing.

        • Well there you go, it’s only an issue to that Obama hating FOX. The rest of America doesn’t care when the federal government exempts itself from laws it created, to give special treatment to the major campaign donors of the Washington elite.

      • At the top of Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith cheered the public trading of General Motors stock as evidence that Obama administration’s bailout of the auto industry had worked: “GM’s big comeback. In a stunning turnaround, General Motors begins to sell it’s stock less than 18 months after the government’s massive $50 billion bailout.”

        Smith even went so far as to ask: “Will American taxpayers make a profit on the investment?” Moments later, fellow co-host Maggie Rodriguez praised the companies “amazing turnaround” and observed: “What a difference a year and a half makes….here we are17 months after a bailout GM is trading publicly again.” Later in the show, Rodriguez remarked that she hoped the cost to British taxpayers for the upcoming royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton “ends the way GM’s is ending, with the taxpayers getting paid back.”

        Business correspondent Rebecca Jarvis touted the GM bailout as an essential job-saving measure: “Literally hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in this country were potentially going to go away. The government at the time then steps in with a $50 billion loan, a very controversial decision at the time, to save the struggling automaker.” She described the company trading stock again as a “major milestone.”

        Only near the end of her report did Jarvis acknowledge that there was still a long way to go before GM came anywhere near paying back taxpayers: “Right now today, the stock debuts, like I said, at $33 a share, but it’s significant because it has to continue to climb in order to make back all of our investment. In fact, we have to basically get $44 a share for every share of General Motors in order to get back that entire $50 billion investment.”

        It turns out that Jarvis may have actually been low-balling the amount of money per share needed for American taxpayers to break even. An article for The New York Times ‘Dealbook’ blog declared: “To break even, the Treasury Department will need to sell its remaining 500 million shares at an average price of $53 each in the months and years to come.” In fact, in an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Wednesday, the former head of the U.S. Automotive Task Force, Steve Rattner, explained that, “The government may lose $5 billion to $7 billion on its rescue of the auto industry.”

        Incidentally, according to an Associated Press report, Rattner, “…agreed Thursday to pay $6.2 million to settle civil charges over his role in an influence-peddling scandal involving New York state’s public pension fund.” The article goes on to note that “As part of the settlement, Rattner will also be barred for at least two years from working in the securities industry.”

        The Early Show was the only network morning show to do a full story on General Motors.

        Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2010/11/18/cbs-early-show-declares-auto-bailout-success-celebrates-gms-big-comeba#ixzz15g8Fj4GR

  16. Wow! All kinds of news today! All you guys who are in favor of civilian trials for terrorists..what do you think about this?

    The first detainee from Guanatamo Bay to be tried in U.S. civilian court has been acquitted on all but one of the more than 280 charges he faced for his alleged role in the coordinated terror bombings of two U.S. embassies overseas.

    A jury convicted Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani Wednesday on just one count of conspiracy for the 1998 al Qaeda car bomb attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania — attacks that killed 224. Prosecutors had alleged that Ghailani helped an al-Qaeda cell purchase a truck and components for explosives used in the suicide attack

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/krauthammer-calls-acquittal-of-gitmo-suspect-a-huge-embarrassment-for-obama/

    • Different subject but close to you – Dearborn. Hear anything about this confrontation this morning?

      http://www.ihatethemedia.com/westboro-baptist-church-to-picket-dearborn-mosque

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not really sure why this is such a setback or embarassment. I wasn’t on the jury so am unfamiliar with all of the evidence, testimony, etc., presented in the case. Assuming that the evidence did not meet the threshold to convict on the other charges, then so be it.

      Also, isn’t the sentence on that conspiracy count 20-yrs to life? Not exactly a slap on the wrist.

      • Buck

        I think the embarrassment is from the Administrations bragging that they wouldn’t prosecute in US court unless they knew they could convict. So in the first test they come within a hair of losing.

        But like you, I will not judge without having some idea of what the evidence and arguments were. I know our Govt prosecutors love “piling on” the charges so the fact he was let off on 279 charges is not really important, in my view.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Precisely.

          I guess it could be cast as an embarassment in the sense of the 279 counts he was not convicted on, but it could also be cast as a victory – after all, there was a conviction reached.

        • Not at all, guys. We just convicted a murderer for spitting on the sidewalk. What a joke we have become.

          • D13

            Colonel, I fail to see how this trial or its outcome makes us a joke, either externally or internally.

            And without seeing the same evidence as the jury I can’t judge and I don’t see how you can either. Even if you have intell on the situation, unless that same information was presented in trial it has no bearing.

            Your going to have to explain you view a little better if you want me to understand it.

            • You are quite right about the evidence. I did not see the actual eveidence produced in a civilian trial that never should have been a civilian trial. Twenty years to life? I will await to see what the judge rules for his sentence…..probably time already served and he walks.

              On other days, we have already been through most of this. It is not a criminal action and should never been in civilian court to start with but that has already been hashed out. They rule out evidence because of the way it was obtained…which I have no problem with in a war situation and this is war…..by definition. But this has been hashed out as well and I guess we will never agree on this.

              I will never understand, how you get a lower ranked decision on a conspiracy to commit and then not deal with the action that was committed. If this is what our judicioal system is reduced to,,,,It is sad. Hence, my statement that his conviction was like arresting a jay walker or spitting on the sidewalk.

              I guess that I am more sensitive to this than most because I have dealt with this type of slovenly human being before. They are are more than a radical group of criminals. They are organized terrorists backed by States that we refuse to publicly announce. That is all. This man is guilty of murder…period. I know it…you know it….Buck knows it.

              • D13

                Doesn’t the distinction between just conspiracy and actual murder also exist in Military Court?

                It seems this is the source of your true heartburn.

                I don’t KNOW that this person is guilty of murder. Suspect maybe but I do not KNOW.

                You must remember that I have seen how our Federal Govt creates charges, piles on, and manufactures evidence to support its preconceived notions or broader goals.

                Because of that I try harder not to Judge without all the evidence. Even when we assume the defendant is a scumbag.

                There was something strange about this trial and it may take time to find out what transpired. Why didn’t DOJ appeal the judges decision to forbid evidence? Why was there apparently a single hold out on the jury? Did this person cause the acquittal on the other 280 counts or were they the only one pushing for the single conviction? And of course, why did the jury make the conclusions that they did.

                While we have discussed the broader matter you seem to forget that I had no problem with declaring these types as POW’s. But that means Geneva applies, which means they must be treated as POW or as Spies. In either case they should have had prompt trials to determine their status and their fate.

                It was the creation of some new “classification” that I had heart burn with. One that allowed our govt to detain anyone it chooses for as long as it chooses. That and the Govt wanted to apply this designation to American Citizens. The Constitution simply doesn’t allow that.

              • Hmmmm…darn you JAC……quit making me think. I want my own biased opinions to rule….

                Ok.

                JAC says:”But that means Geneva applies, which means they must be treated as POW or as Spies. In either case they should have had prompt trials to determine their status and their fate.”

                D13 says: Yeah…so what. Actually, you have made a very good point and I acquiesce to it. (Don’t spread it around) (Hell, even BF and I have agreed on a couple of things of late and that is scary enough). But, you are quite right about speedy trials and not holding indefinitely without charge….except in POW cases whereas you can hold a POW to the end of the war….then try him for war crimes. But, you are correct either he is a POW or he is a criminal. If criminal, he is entitled to speedy trial. If POW he can be shunted away without consequence till hell freezes over or the war ends.

                JAC further points out: “It was the creation of some new “classification” that I had heart burn with. One that allowed our govt to detain anyone it chooses for as long as it chooses. That and the Govt wanted to apply this designation to American Citizens. The Constitution simply doesn’t allow that.”

                D13: Agrees.

                JAC Asks: “Why was there apparently a single hold out on the jury? Did this person cause the acquittal on the other 280 counts or were they the only one pushing for the single conviction?”

                D13 reports: “I saw an interview with one of the jurors that voted guilty and the juror that held out. According to this juror that voted guilty, either they agreed with the lady that held out or it would have been a hung jury. The woman that held out was crying and saying that she felt her life being threatened by the other 11. Interesting…..why would just one disagree?” Hmmmmmm

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Believe me, you do not want to go down the never ending spiral of what a jury in ANY case was thinking. It will make your head spin.

              • I beeeeeelliieeeve…..oh yesssss…………..Lordy lordy…………..I beeeelieeeve…….yessssssss…..

              • HOw’s that! Pretty sincere, doncha think?

              • F&*@ em’ and feed em’ hog heads I say!

            • I don’t see that it embarrassed or made the Nation look like anything.

              I see where it made Mr. Reinvent the Wheel look like a fool. Him and his Dumbass Attornet General.

  17. So, our economic guru’s – what and how and when will this whole mortgage “stuff” end up?

    Just When You Thought You Knew Something About Mortgage Securitizations

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/just-when-you-thought-you-knew-something-about-mortgage-securitizations

  18. Yea!! Finally, our counter insurgency that I helped to set up in Texas is public and the rules of engagement are loosened. Time to bring it on. We used to have to stop our pursuit at the rivers edge….we now can take it to the middle of the river.

  19. Here’s another angle on this whole issue. Yesterday D13 touched on private pilots. Here’s a story about private pilot schools.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/10/no-illegal-alien-pilot-left-behind/

    • Kathy,

      A good article, but I’m not sure them training in the US matters, except to show again how poorly big government responds to any problem. They could train in Mexico, or any country, same result. If we don’t secure our borders and screen legal immigrants for possible hostiles, we are wide open.
      There are over 260 US cities with over a million residents and 14,000 airports. Our best security is people with common sense who are not afraid to act. Sadly, many are more afraid of how our government will treat them if they were to question or detain a suspicious character.

      Malkin said,
      “Outside Boston, one shady flight school provided single-engine pilot lessons to at least 33 illegal immigrants from Brazil. But clear counter-terror rules ban illegal aliens from enrolling in U.S. flight schools. Clear counter-terror regulations require TSA to run foreign flight students’ names against a plethora of terrorism, criminal and immigration databases. Head-scratching airport security officials were at a loss last week to explain how dozens of these illegal alien students eluded their radar screen when the agency “performs a thorough background check on each applicant at the time of application” and checks “for available disqualifying immigration information,” the Boston Globe reported.

      A cluebat for the Keystone Kops: No matter how DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano might spin it, the “system” is not “working” in any sense of either word.”

  20. Ray Hawkins

    Re Driving while talking.

    Ray Replies: Do people drink less because an additional tax is levied to cover the cost of emergency responders? NO, and I don’t see how this has anything to do with the question or my response.

    The whole “risk” side of this issue is way overblown. You seem willing to accept Govt mandated intrusion upon your freedoms to reduce some irrational fear of some unknown amount. How much do you give up for ABSOLUTE safety? How much for 50% safety?

    Tell you what you do if you want to have a serious impact on the accident and fatality rates caused by automobile accidents. You outlaw anyone driving under the age of 25.

    You seem to brush over the technological nightmare of needing GPS and remote control of every car under every conceivable condition. Why can’t I use my phone when passing through the west side of town on the bypass? What happens to my daughter trapped in her car by some nutjob?

    Ray replies: Let technology enforce the law instead of cops wasting their time on this.

    If YOU want to use technology to prevent you from using your own phone then have at it. I will make my choices and you make yours.

    Ray replies: The problem will increase JAC – hard to find a kid nowadays w/o a cell phone. I find it sad you think it ok for a kid who is still developing (in a multitude of ways) to somehow learn to multi-task while learning an awesome responsibility such as operating a motor vehicle.

    Always with the absurd projections or assumptions. My comment was obviously in regard to the aging of the current young generation. I watch them talk on phones and type on computers and yap at their friends, all at once. The current youth will have developed multi-tasking skills that my generation will never have, or at least will be rare. I do not think they should learn this skill why learning to drive. But I am absolutely against using the force of Govt to mandate and/or install “technology” to override personal judgment. Which of course leads to the next comment.

    Ray replies: You’re kidding right? Is that the new Driver’s Ed? Learn how to drive and text at the same time? WOW

    There is nothing absurd about this idea but that is not my entire intent. Training includes knowing when and when NOT to use the phones. It is also possible to improve concentration while talking via training and exercises. However, this shouldn’t be the primary focus.

    Ray Replies: We cannot prevent everything – focus on what we can and what makes sense.

    Concentrate on teaching people to be skilled and responsible for their actions. Stop trying to use Uncle to protect you from every potential malady that you think it “makes sense” to prevent.

    Just curious, what technology are you going to deploy that prevents women from applying lip stick or brushing their hair while driving. When I went through drivers ed this was a major point of concern and cause of accidents. How about those folks who like to read maps while driving.

    Ray Replies: Good point. GPS can help with that. The answer really also rests in the mobile device technology. Voice recognition software (which mostly sucks now) would resolve a lot of this.

    If I want it I will decide and I will pay for installation or purchase a vehicle with it installed. I do not need nor desire the Govt to use force upon me when I have not initiated force upon another.

    Ray Replies: Thanks JAC – and with you also. Ramping up for holidays – lots of leaves to rake. Had two dogs come back from kennel infested with fleas so I’ve been busy with that.

    Yes, fleas can be a really, really big pain to get out of your living space. They make a perfect example for Government in that regard. Once they get in the door, it is damn near impossible to get rid of them.

    One more key question to you Ray. Do you believe that we have a “Right to Privacy”? If so, then is that right protected by the Constitution?

    • On the one hand, Ray, I support the rules of the road. If the roads were private, I would consider it the right of the road owner to dictate rules and regulation as part of the transaction of using their roads. Since the roads are government owned for the most part, I still see the logic in having certain rules to be abided by in using the roads. A license that is issued only after someone shows that they understand the rules of the road and have a certain competence at driving. A limit on allowed speed. A rule concerning the use of certain distracting items such as cell phones or the consumption of impairing drugs is also understandable. I do not, however, believe in prevention.

      A violation of the rules should result in the loss of priveledges of road use. It may also involve liability for damages involved in an accident, liability on the person driving in violation of the rules. Prevention, on the other hand, is enforcement on the assumtion of guilt. It is the idea that one is guilty until proven innocent, or in the case of preventative measures, guilty unless forced to be innocent. It flies in the face of freedom at the deepest philosophical level.

      Perhaps even more importantly, it is not effective. In some cases, it is even dangerous. It would not be difficult to install a governor on all cars to prevent exceeding the speed limit. This can be a major liability in cases where speed is warranted, either in avoiding and accident or dealing with an emergency. Also, it is does not prevent surpassing the speed limit on roads with lower speed limits unless the governor was tied to GPS, which opens the door for individual tracking of all movements. A bit Orwellian for my tastes. As JAC mentioned, cell phone jamming technology could be disatrous in the case of an abduction or an accident where help could not be contacted due to some assanine idea of prevention. Worse still, a criminal would need only to grab someone and throw them in their car to prevent a call for help. On a less extreme level, a passenger would also be restricted from cell use, even a taxi passenger. You really think that is reasonable?

      Technology can always be gotten around. A breathalyzer can be fooled with someone else’s breath. A cell jammer can be disabled or overridden with other technology. A speed governor can be removed by any kid with a little mechanical inclination. All the technology in the world will not prevent bad stuff from happening. All it will do is restrict the freedom of people who do not try to override the system. The freedom of people that would not have broken the law or the rules to start with. Only the good people are restricted, the lawbreakers are not affected in the least beyond a monor inconvenience. It is utterly pointless to prevent crime. It is only useful to react to it.

  21. More TSA Bull Dookey.

    I was going to stay out of the TSA discussion but this was simply to precious to pass up. I confess to copying the entire post by Mr. Erickson over at Red State. ENJOY

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Thursday, November 18th at 6:28PM EST
    32 Comments

    A friend of mine sent me this about his TSA experience. He, unlike most of us, was coming back into the country from Afghanistan on a military charter.

    ——–

    As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:

    When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.

    Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.

    First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.

    It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

    The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.

    This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.

    So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

    TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

    Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

    TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

    Soldier: Why?

    TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

    Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

    TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

    Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

    TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

    Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

    Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

    This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

  22. Federal Funding for NPR……….

    TERMINATED

    There you go Anita, one for each day of the week.

    • Yeah but you can’t stop now, you’re just getting started! Let me help..

      Earmarks….

      TERMINATED

  23. Kathy,

    Here you go. My brother is a cop in Dearborn. I couldn’t speak to him until last night. He confirmed the story. Funny, the opposition outnumbered the protesters.

    http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2010/11/18/news/doc4ce568682c870375149094.txt?viewmode=fullstory

  24. President Obama will pull Federal Troops from the border of Arizona and California citing they are not necessary…. Governor Perry says…ok, I will and have sent my own troops to the Texas border, have empowered the Texas Department of Safety with military trained counter insurgency units and a helicopter force, have broadened the pursuit rules to include the middle of the river where the real border lies…no freebies on the splash down techniques used by the cartels, and we are now weapons free left to our own determination as to what is hostile. Life will get better down here.

    His recommendation to Mexico. Don’t cross my border illegally. End of sentence.

  25. Ray Hawkins says:

    Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity dropped from 4th Largest Radio Market

    http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/111810-big-talker-dropping-beck-hannity-from-radio

    There is a big shakeup coming to local talk radio bastion 1210 The Big Talker, as the radio station is dropping Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and helping Michael Smerconish become a national figure.

    Smerconish will not be on in the morning, as of January. He will move to a 3 p.m. to 7 p.m show, with the last three hours broadcast nationally.

    Beck will also be dropped in January in favor of local radio staple Dom Giordano (who is also a Fox 29 contrubutor).

    Hannity will also be dropped to make room for Smerconish.

    Chris Stigall, a radio show host from Kansas City, will take over the morning drive-time shift.

    Beck and Hannity are featured prominently on the Fox News cable channel.

    I actually think this sucks a little bit. 1210 is homebase for conservative radio in Philly – while I like Smerconish (he is less inclined to be a pundit or elevate the bombastic b.s. like Hannity/Beck) I’m not sure this is a great long term move for the station or for a broad range of listeners that seek to hopefully understand other points of view. We’ll see where the two that were dumped end up.

  26. Almost a 1/4 of the women in this country have some sort of mental illness, are they kidding. I noticed they didn’t mention anything specific except depression. Guess what it’s NORMAL to be depressed when one doesn’t have a job. The fact that people believe they need drugs to take care of this natural reaction is also becoming normal. Not saying they can’t help and not saying there aren’t a few cases where it’s needed. But 1 out of 5 of all Americans. The government and these figures seem more nuts than the people I know.

    JAC can we Terminate the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ??

    Nearly 1 in 5 Americans had mental illness in 2009
    Published: Thursday, 18 Nov 2010 | 1:13 PM ET
    Text Size

    CHICAGO – More than 45 million Americans, or 20 percent of U.S. adults, had some form of mental illness last year, and 11 million had a serious illness, U.S. government researchers reported on Thursday.

    Young adults aged 18 to 25 had the highest level of mental illness at 30 percent, while those aged 50 and older had the lowest, with 13.7 percent, said the report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or SAMHSA.

    The rate, slightly higher than last year’s 19.5 percent figure, reflected increasing depression, especially among the unemployed, SAMHSA, part of the National Institutes of Health, said.

    “Too many Americans are not getting the help they need and opportunities to prevent and intervene early are being missed,” Pamela Hyde, SAMHSA’s administrator, said in a statement.

    “The consequences for individuals, families and communities can be devastating. If left untreated mental illnesses can result in disability, substance abuse, suicides, lost productivity, and family discord.”

    The 2009 mental health survey hints at the impact of record unemployment rates, which last year hit a 25-year high as struggling employers slashed jobs to cope with a weak economy.

    For many, lost employment meant loss of health insurance, leaving many of the nation’s mentally ill unable to get treatment.

    According to the survey, 6.1 million adults last year had a mental health need that went untreated, and 42.5 percent said it was because they could not afford it.

    It found 14.8 million Americans had major depression last year, and 10 percent of the jobless did, compared with 7.5 of retired people or those not in the job force, 7.3 percent who worked part time and 5.4 percent who worked full time.

    Only 64 percent of adults aged 18 or older with major depression were treated last year, compared with 71 percent a year ago.

    Being jobless also increased the risk of suicide.

    Adults who were unemployed last year were twice as likely to have serious thoughts of suicide as people who were fully employed, with 6.6 percent of the unemployed considering suicide, compared with 3.1 percent of those who were working.

    The survey also found that 23.8 percent of women had some form of mental illness, compared with 15.6 percent of men.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/40257359

    • Like many of these claims, I take them with a grain of salt. Look around. Are 1 in 5 of the people you know depressed or mentally ill? Antidepressants do not work in my opinion and in the opinion of the author of the book linked above. A good workout will do more to alleviate depression than a pill.

      • T, as someone who takes Anti-depressants for severe bouts of depression (formerly), I must disagree.

        Of course my Depression was caused by things out of my control, such as being put out of work for 5 years due to injuries and the accompanying stress involved. The drug I was given was Effexor. And it worked amazingly well.

        As far as 1/4 of the women in this country being crazy. Hell I THOUGHT THEY ALL WERE CRAZY! :-D

        • When going hunting with buddies, you want to be a little selective, especially if camping for several days. Four or more other men, all with firearms and plenty of ammo. Most will have a few drinks in the evening. After careful consideration, G!, CM, JAC & ESOM are all OK, sane and in control.

          DAMN, it must be me!:lol:

        • Esom, if you are taking antidepressants, I suggest you get and read the book. The basic premiss is that there is only a very small improvement between the antidepressants and a placebos. The author reviewed all of the published and unpublished clinical trials of several modern antidepressants of all 3 major kinds. All should the same relation to the placebo effect. In many of the studies used to qualify the drugs, there was no significant statistical difference between the placebo and the drug. Several of the unpublished studies showed negative correlations.

          I too have seen antidepressants work on a family member. I have also seen them not work, the latter being the more normal case. Unfortunately these drugs have significant side effects that can have long lasting negative neurological consequences. Those negative consequences have cost me $50K/yr for the last 5 years and countless hours in hospital rooms.

          I do not have a solution to the problem. I have seen sea salt (naturlly contains Li) and omega 3 touted as helping. Physical activity also helps although it is hard to motivate a depressed person. A diet of Laurel & Hardy and Abbot & Costello can be good too. The last time I was out of work, I chopped wood. It helped. I also vented my anger on paper, then burned it.

          I have never taken an antidepressant but if they truly worked as advertised, I would be a much happier person.

    • Dr. John Ioannidis, who’s made a career out of meticulously tearing apart mainstream research, says up to 90 percent of all medical studies are just noise and nonsense.

      What’s more, nearly half of even the most highly regarded research — studies cited and repeated so often they’re practically gospel — ultimately turn out to be lies pushed by drug companies and career-chasing researchers.

      In one analysis, Ioannidis reviewed 49 of the most significant clinical findings of the past 13 years, and found that 14 of the 34 that have since been retested — 41 percent of them — were ultimately proven to be flat-out wrong or significantly exaggerated.

      Each one of those flawed and conflicted papers ruined real lives, because they led to everyday treatments used by doctors everywhere.

      Some of those now-discredited studies supported stents that didn’t work and daily aspirin regimens that caused gastrointestinal bleeding while doing nothing to lower heart risk.

      And if those big attention-getting studies can be that flawed, imagine how bad the rest of the crap out there must be.

      One analysis conducted by Dr. Ioannidis estimated that 80 percent of all non-randomized trials — the most common form of research — are bunk.

  27. Interesting post I ran across while perusing through another blog.Makes for an enlightening read.

    As a matter of introduction I am a former United States Marine, and I am a Christian. My friend Bill is delivering this letter; you have already talked to him about this information. I want you to keep one thing in mind, YOU have the ability to understand the information in this letter. YOU have the ability to understand the present law and past law, the Constitution. That’s right!…I’m saying the Constitution is past tense, as a restrictive document on Congress. I do not make this statement lightly and I can prove it. The Constitution was a commercial compact between states, giving the federal government limited powers. The Bill of Rights was meant not as our source of rights, but as further limitations on the federal government. Our forefathers saw the potential for danger in the U. S. Constitution. To insure the Constitution was not presumed to be our source of rights, the 10th Amendment was added. I will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson, February 15, 1791, where he quotes the 10th

    Amendment…

    “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”

    To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

    The created United States government cannot define the rights of their creator, the American people. Three forms of law were granted to the Constitution, common law, equity (contract law) and Admiralty law. Each had their own jurisdiction and purpose. The first issue I want to cover is the United States flag. Obviously from known history our flag did not have a yellow fringe bordering three sides. The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!

    First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

    “The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.” (my note – of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

    A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says: “Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as commander-in-chief of the army and navy.” 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

    The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

    “Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.”

    From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

    “Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides…use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power.”

    The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public’s knowledge. It was kept secret, this is fraud, the American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God’s Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. From being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken under the prize law.

    “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership’ is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” Senate Document No. 43, “Contracts payable in Gold” written in 1933.

    By our allowing to let these military flags fly, the American people have admitted our defeat and loss of status. Read on, you’ll see what I mean. Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law, being governed by the Law of the Flag is Admiralty law. I will cover this in a minute, the following is a definition of the legal term Law of the Flag.

    “…The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

    Don’t be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn’t apply to land, I will prove to you that Admiralty law has come on land. Next a court case:

    “Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all.” Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

    This is the legality I spoke of. When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no longer sovereign. You’re probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court.

    But wait there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here’s how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law governs contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that’s what our forefathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345 (1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

    “The committee also alluded to “the great force” of “the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution….” Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

    It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

    “This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note – remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land.” Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

    And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state’s Constitution, said:

    “Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

    This began the most dangerous precedent of all the Insular Cases. This is where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the states, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from the Harvard law review:

    “These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

    Here are some Court cases that make it even clearer Mr. Hege:

    “…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution…”

    “In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. …And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.” Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

    “The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

    “I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

    “It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

    These actions allowed Admiralty law to come on land. If you will remember the definition of the Law of the Flag. When you receive benefits or enter into contracts with the king you come under his law which is Admiralty law. And what is a result of your connection with the king? A loss of your Sovereign status. Our ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ll give you an example, something you deal with everyday. Let’s say you give me a seat belt ticket. What law did I violate? Remember the Constitution recognizes three forms of law. Was it common law? Who was the injured party? No one. So it could not have been common law even though the State of N. C. has made chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle code carry common law penalties, jail time. This was the only thing they could do to cover up the jurisdiction they were operating in. Was it Equity law? No, there is no contract in dispute, driving is a privilege granted by the king. If it were a contract the UCC would apply, and it doesn’t. In a contract both parties have equal rights. In a privilege, you do as you are told or the privilege is revoked. Well guess what, there is only one form of law left, admiralty. Ask yourself when did licenses begin to be required? 1933.

    All district courts are admiralty courts, see the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    “It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

    When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American’s aren’t aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up. If the judge is pressed, his name for this hidden law is statutory law. Where are the rules and regulations for statutory law kept? They don’t exist. If statutory law existed, there would be rules and regulations governing it’s procedures and court rules. They do not exist!!!

    The way you know this is Admiralty, is from the yellow fringed flag and from the actions of the law, compelled performance (Admiralty). The judges can still move at common law (murder etc.) and equity (contract disputes etc.). It’s up to the type of case brought before the court. If the case is Admiralty, the only way back to the common law is the Saving to Suitor Action under Admiralty. The court and rules of all three jurisdictions have been blended. Under Admiralty you are compelled to perform under the agreement you made by asking and receiving the king’s benefit (license). You receive the benefit of driving on federal roads (military roads), so you have voluntarily obligated yourself to this system of law, this is why you are compelled to obey. If you don’t it will cost you money or jail time or both. The type of offence determines the jurisdiction you come under, but the court itself is an Admiralty court, defined by the flag.

    Driving without a seat belt under Chapter 20 DMV code carries a criminal penalty for a non common law offense. Again where is the injured party or parties, this is Admiralty law. Here is a quote to prove what I said about the roads being military, this is only one benefit, there are many:

    “Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may appropriate money toward the construction of a military road when this is absolutely necessary for the defense of any State or Territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power “to declare war,” “to raise and support armies,” “to provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth the militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowed, in an ample manner, with the war-making power, the corresponding duty is required that “the United States shall protect each of them [the States] against invasion.” Now, how is it possible to afford this protection to California and our Pacific possessions except by means of a military road through the Territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader?….Besides, the Government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.” Inaugural Address of James Buchanan, March 4, 1857,..Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902.

    I want to briefly mention the Social Security Act, the nexus Agreement you have with the king. You were told the SS# was for retirement and you had to have it to work. It sounds like a license to me, and it is, it is a license granted by the President to work in this country, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, March 9, 1933, as you will see in a moment. Was it really for your retirement? What does F.I.C.A. stand for? Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What does contribution mean at law, not Webster’s Dictionary. This is where they were able to get you to admit that you were jointly responsible for the national debt, and you declared that you were a fourteenth Amendment citizen, which I won’t go into in this paper or the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case where Swift v. Tyson was over turned. Read the following definition to learn what it means to have a SS# and pay a contribution:

    Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of “contribution,” a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (foot note * tort feasor means wrong doer, what did you do to be defined as a wrong doer???) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer’s share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

    Guess what? It gets worse. What does this date 1933 mean? Well you better sit down. First, remember World War I, in 1917 President Wilson declared the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, basically stating that he was stopping all trade with the enemy except for those he granted a license, excluding Americans. Read the following from this Trading with the enemy Act, where he defines enemy:

    In the War Powers Act of 1917, Chapter 106, Section 2 (c) it says that these declared war powers did not affect citizens of the United States:

    “Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States of the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.””

    Now, this leads us up to 1933. Our country was recovering from a depression and now was declared bankrupt. I know you are saying. Do What, the American people were never told about this? Public policy and National Security overruled the public right to know. Read the following Congressional quote:

    “My investigation convinced me that during the last quarter of a century the average production of gold has been falling off considerably. The gold mines of the world are practically exhausted. There is only about $11,000,000,000 in gold in the world, with the United States owning a little more than four billions. We have more than $100,000,000,000 in debts payable in gold of the present weight and fineness….As a practical proposition these contracts cannot be collected in gold for the obvious reason that the gold supply of the entire world is not sufficient to make payment.” Congressional Record, Congressman Dies March 15, 1933

    Before 1933 all contracts with the government were payable in gold. Now I ask you? Who in their right mind would enter into contracts totaling One Hundred billion dollars in gold, when there was only eleven billion in gold in the whole world, we had about four billion. To keep from being hung by the American public they obeyed the banksters demands and turned over our country to them. They never came out and said we were in bankruptcy but, the fact remains, we are. In 1933 the gold of the whole country had to be turned in to the banksters, and all government contracts in gold were canceled. This is bankruptcy.

    “Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government.” Congressman Traficant on the House floor, March 17, “1993″

    The wealth of the nation including our land was turned over to the banksters. In return, the nations 100 billion dollar debt was forgiven.

    I have two papers that have circulated the country on this subject. Also, Jesus said: “money is the root of all evil” The Congress of 1933 sold every American into slavery to protect their asses. Read the following Congressional quotes:

    “I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation–they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation–to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government.” Congressional Record, Congressman Patman March 13, 1933

    “That is the equity of what we are about to do. Yes; you are going to close us down. Yes; you have already closed us down, and have been doing it long before this year. Our President says that for 3 years we have been on the way to bankruptcy. We have been on the way to bankruptcy longer than 3 years. We have been on the way to bankruptcy ever since we began to allow the financial mastery of this country gradually to get into the hands of a little clique that has held it right up until they would send us to the grave.” Congressional Record, Congressman Long March 11, 1933

    What did Roosevelt do? Sealed our fate and our children’s’ fate, but worst of all, he declared War on the American People, remember the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. He declared emergency powers with his authority being the War Powers Act, the Trading with the enemy Act. The problem is he redefined who the enemy was, read the following: (remember what I said about the SS# being a license to work).

    “The declared National Emergency of March 9, 1933 amended the War Powers Act to include the American People as enemies:

    “In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”

    “Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.”

    Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

    “As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

    Congressman Beck had this to say about the War Powers Act:

    “I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency there is no Constitution. This means its death….But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its constitutional powers.”

    (Congressman James Beck in Congressional Record 1933)

    The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd

    Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

    “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency….Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”

    “A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency….from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

    You may be asking yourself is this the law, and if so where is it, read the following:In Title 12 U.S.C, in section 95b you’ll find the following codification of the Emergency War Powers:

    “The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C., 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed.” (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

    So you can further understand the word Alien Enemy and what it means to be declared an enemy of this government, read the following definitions:

    The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary as: One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent. 1 Kent 73.

    He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also; 1 B. & P. 163.

    Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king’s special favor, during time of war; 1 Bla. Com. 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166. [Remember we've been under a declared state of war since October 6, 1917, as amended March 9, 1933 to include every United States citizen.]

    “The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as:

    Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as “alien enemy” within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship.” Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

    “Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an “alien enemy: within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder.” Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374.

    “By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an `alien enemy’ as if he were born there.” Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

    Am I done with the proof? Not quite, believe it or not it gets worse. I have established that war has been declared against the American people and their children. The American people that voted for the 1933 government were responsible for Congress’ actions, because Congress was there in their proxy. What is one of the actions taken against an enemy during time of War. In the Constitution the Congress was granted the power during the time of war to grant Letters of Marque. What is a letter of Marque? Well, read the following:

    A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914.

    Think about the mission of the IRS, they are a private organization, or their backup, the ATF. These groups have been granted letters of Marque, read the following:

    “The trading with the enemy Act, originally and as amended, in strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress “to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” Stoehr v. Wallace 255 U.S.

    Under the Constitution the Power of the Government had its checks and balances, power was divided between the three branches of government. To do anything else means you no longer have a Constitutional government. I’m not even talking about the obvious which we have already covered, read the following:

    “The Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Attorney General may require, by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, or otherwise, any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, from time to time and at any time or times, complete information relative to, any transaction referred to in section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.” Title 12 Banks and Banking page 570.

    How about Clinton’s new Executive Order of June 6, 1994 where the Alphabet agencies are granted their own power to obtain money and the military if need be to protect themselves. These are un-elected officials, sounds un-Constitutional to me, but read on.

    “The delegations of authority in this Order shall not affect the authority of any agency or official pursuant to any other delegation of presidential authority, presently in effect or hereafter made, under section 5 (b) of the act of October 6, 1917,

    How can the President delegate to un-elected officials power that he was elected to have, and declare that it cannot be taken away, by the voters or the courts or Congress. I tell you how under martial law, under the War Powers Act. The American public is asleep and is unaware nor do they care about what is going on, because it may interfere with their making money. I guess Thomas Jefferson was right again:

    “…And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-manager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers…”

    (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395

    Submitted January 28

    “Lloyd Bentsen, of Texas, to be U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank for a term of 5 years; U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank; U.S. Governor of African Development Fund; and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.” Presidential Documents, February 1, 1993.

    At the same time, Bentsen was the Secretary of Treasury. Gee I don’t know, this sounds like a conflict of entrust to me, how about you? Also, Congress is the only one under the Constitution able to appropriate money. How about a few months ago when Secretary of Treasury Rubin sent tons of money to Mexico, without Congress’ approval. Also, Secretary of Treasury Rubin was president of the bank that made the loans to Mexico, he was then made Secretary of Treasury and paid Mexico’s debt to his bank with taxpayers money. Again, sounds like a conflict of entrust to me.

    “Without limitation as to any other powers or authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General under any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and empowered to prescribe from time to time regulations, rulings, and instructions to carry out the purposes of this Order and to provide therein or otherwise the conditions under which licenses may be granted by or through such officers or agencies as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate, and the decision of the Secretary with respect to the granting, denial or other disposition of an application or license shall be final.” Section 7, Title 12 U.S.C. Banks and Banking

    Do the issues I have brought up sound like this is a Constitutional government to you? I have not covered the main nexus, the money. If you would like to read about this, read my other papers, The History of Lawful Money and A Country Defeated In Victory. Sheriff Hege, I am one man fighting a giant with a fly swatter (the pen). If you are bold enough to jerk the flags with a fringe on them out and put back the U. S. flag, just make sure you protect you backside. Before you do this, make sure your constituents in your county are made aware of this information. Because if you do this you will find the whole U.S. government against you and for sure they will cut off all money to your county in the short term, and in the long term, do whatever is necessary to remove you. I didn’t make this information up, it is the government’s own documents and legal definitions taken from their dictionaries. I wish the hard working Americans in the government that are loyal to an American Republic could read this, the more that know the truth the better.

    • Bottom Line says:

      “…the more that know the truth the better.”

      Indeed, EVERYONE should read this. And to think…I almost skipped over it because it’s a little lengthy.

      Good find TC!

      Lately, I’ve been doing research on “Admiralty Law” when I have the time. I’m no lawyer, so I’m somewhat lost in what seems like a lot of legal jargon. What I’m curious about is how to detach myself from the jurisdiction of “Admiralty Law” (if there IS a way)without going to jail for simply living a normal life.

      Buck, You know a bit about law …any thoughts?

  28. HEAR YE, HEAR YE! FRONT PAGE OF HUFF PO:

    Grover Norquist: GOP Must Be Willing To Force Government Shutdown In Battle Against Federal Spending

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/grover-norquist-government-shutdown_n_785973.html

  29. HEY ! ! !

    STOP chunking that wood at me Woodchucks ! ! !

  30. Their tactics rival those of Al Qaeda: summary executions, kidnappings, torture, and beheadings.

    Mexican cartels have executed more than 10,000 people since January — five times the rate three years ago.

    Sigh!!!!! I am so glad that we do not have a border problem. Obama and Janet NAP say so.

    • Now it is the name of a paramilitary cartel that poses a significant threat to south Texas. About 200 of these former Mexican Special Forces gone rogue were trained by U.S. Army Special Forces at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga., in the early 1990s.

      The cartel’s origins were confirmed in a video sent to the Dallas Morning News in 2005, in which two men identified themselves as former Special Forces who moonlighted by recruiting from the Mexican Special Forces for the cartels.

      “They were trained in operations, special operations by our best of the best and then they went back to Mexico,” Rep. Ted Poe of Texas said. “And what happened was they didn’t stay with the military, they defected because the drug cartels pay more money.”

      Double sigh!!!! I helped train these bastards in 93/94 after my stint in Kuwait.

  31. WOnder how many of you have been to Mexico in the last 20 years beleive this statement.

    “President Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have recently said the Mexican border is more secure now than it has been in 20 years.”

    • Of course I believe what our fearless leader and his able appointee tell me.
      (slurp, KoolAid good) Nebraska needs 120 FBI officers to handle one gang????

      Persistent pursuit of a story by journalists has in all too many cases been replaced by a dogged determination to keep politically incorrect facts out of important stories.

      An Associated Press item out of Grand Island, Nebraska this morning illustrates this point. It’s not very difficult to identify aspects of the story reporter Josh Funk worked mightily to leave out (bolded items hinting at what’s not there and related number tags are mine):

      Neb. gang raids yield 14 arrests, promises of more

      A massive central Nebraska raid may have decapitated a violent gang, but officials say they have no plans to let up and allow the group to thrive again in the Plains manufacturing and retail hub of Grand Island.

      The arrest of a dozen suspected gang members was trumpeted Thursday after 120 officers from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security [1] and local law enforcement agencies conducted simultaneous raids in the 50,000-resident city 125 miles west of Omaha. Two more arrests were made Thursday evening to complete the gang roundup.

      Local officials welcomed the effort to rein in gang activity but law enforcement offered few details about their continuing investigation into the East Side Locos, which has ties to the international Surenos gang based in southern California [2]. Officials refused to discuss specifics of the gang’s activities and origins Thursday.

      On Wednesday, an FBI SWAT team captured a 24-year-old Grand Island man indicted on 11 federal weapons charges and three federal drug charges. [3] Eleven more suspects were captured between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. Thursday as teams of officers served arrest warrants throughout the area. Two suspects that eluded capture in the morning raid were arrested Thursday evening after Grand Island police received a tip.

      … Mike Feinberg, acting special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations within ICE [4],aid the East Side Locos is one of the largest criminal organizations Grand Island has ever seen and “one of the most violent criminal street organizations in Nebraska.”

      Feinberg’s agents help track international aspects of gangs, and over the past two years Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested 80 gang members, including some in Grand Island. [4] But Feinberg refused to detail the East Side Locos’ international ties or say how many of those 80 arrests were made in Grand Island.

      On Wednesday, an FBI SWAT team captured a 24-year-old Grand Island man indicted on 11 federal weapons charges and three federal drug charges. Eleven more suspects were captured between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. Thursday as teams of officers served arrest warrants throughout the area. Two suspects that eluded capture in the morning raid were arrested Thursday evening after Grand Island police received a tip.

      … The 14 indicted men face a combination of federal weapons and drug charges or state drug and gang recruitment charges. They all lived in Grand Island and were either U.S. citizens or legal residents. [4]

      Notes:

      * [1] — So the FBI and Homeland Security were involved. This must relate to a domestic street gang in the lily-white heartland, right?
      * [2] — Oh, wait a minute, these guys had ties to an “international” gang. Gosh, I wonder what other “nation(s)” might be involved?
      * [3] — Funk seems to have singled out this “24-year-old Grand Island man” because he was considered a ringleader or the ringleader. He has a name, right? In a 750-word story, Mr. Funk somehow didn’t think we needed a to know it. Well, here’s a complete rundown of those arrested and two who were still at large at the time from local-area reporter Sara Geake, in descending order by age at 1011Now.com: “Gilbert Ontivernos, 33; Jose Hernandez, 32; Jose Espinoza, 31; Luis Cruz, 30; Herman Pacheco, 26; Joseph Pecor, 24; Eddy Cervantes, 24; Hugo Galaviz, 22; Anthony Holroyd, 20; Jose Alcorta, 20; Raymond Caseres, 18; and Ricky Amador, 18 were arrested between Wednesday evening and Thursday morning. Two fugitives remain – 18-year-old Adrian Casares and 22-year-old Andrew Esquitin.” Gosh, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that the Eastside Locos are (or maybe were) a H-H-H … Hispanic gang (per this link, they are), and perhaps even M-M-M … Mexican in origin (per this link, they aren’t, at least directly). The word “Hispanic” and no form of a word relating to “Mexico” can be found in either Funk’s or Geake’s stories. But Geake named names. Funk’s omission of the 24 year-old Cervantes’ name (he’s the only 24 year-old in the group) seems deliberately designed to avoid identifying the ethnic origins of the Eastside Locos and their parent gang in Southern California.
      * [4] — Hold on; ICE was involved? Why? That may be because, despite Funk’s last excerpted sentence, some gang members might be ill-ill-ill … illegal immigrants. While assuring us (How does he know? Shouldn’t there be a quote from someone?) that those arrested “were either U.S. citizens or legal residents,” Funk doesn’t tell us why ICE is even involved, or why its spokesman Feinberg is the guy getting lots of microphone and camera time. Funk also seems not to know and/or not to be curious about the immigration status of the “80 gang members” arrested by ICE (the “I” stands for “Immigration,” Mr. Funk) in the past two years.

      As I stated at this post’s opening, it’s not about getting the facts, it’s about filtering them. The AP’s Funk has definitely done his “duty.”

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2010/11/19/ap-story-neb-gang-arrests-takes-pc-route#ixzz15lrGTy7r

  32. Last thought and I will shut up;

    “A federal judge granted a government motion that actor Wesley Snipes be ordered to prison.

    Snipes had been convicted on tax evasion charges in 2008.”

    And Rangel got what? A censure? Wow…..how devastating.

  33. USW: Very sorry to hear about your loss. I’m late to the dance as usual, so please accept my apology. Hope things are squaring away and settling down for you.

    My beloved new york state buffalo bills finally won (in arguably the greatest game in NFL history) … now watch them blow the 1st pick in the draft by winning another … sometimes you can’t win for losing.

  34. First off, let me express my condolences to USW and his family for their recent loss. You are all in our thoughts and prayers.

    Have not been able to get on this thing as often as I have wanted to in the last few weeks due to the discovery that internet access has been shut down in the evenings by either the RV park we are at or by NPG cable in our local area. Needless to say we are not happy campers at this point in time. Working to resolve the situation, and as you all know I am not much on diplomacy . . . nuff said.

    I know about this recent thing on the X-ray scanners, and personally I really don’t care if someone wants to look at this wrinkled old fart body of mine – however I most certainly do understand how other people would feel about this. On that note, I honestly believe we could learn a thing or two about airport security procedures from the Israelis.

    Nuff said.

  35. Oh, and here is one more thing . . . As if any of you would think I had any other position on this subject?

    Arizona . . . We have a REAL problem!!!!

    After all the votes have been finally counted, it seems that proposition 203 has finally passed . . . even after all but three counties defeated it.

    What? Only three counties passed it, and those three counties had enough votes to override the rest of the state? What is wrong with THAT picture?

    It was just last weekend that Fox 10 Phoenix ran a story on how the ballots were being counted, and as I recall the person in charge of the ballot counting stated that the people counting the ballots were instructed to determine what the voters intent was if the ballot was unreadable.

    Really?

    There in lies the problem. These ballots are huge paper ballots that you fill in an oval next to the choice that you want – one next to the yes, and one next to the no. No hanging chads here. Even a six year old child could do that, so to me if it was “unreadable” then it should not be counted at all.

    I just do not understand how ANYONE could be confused over that initiative since it received more local and national publicity than Obama did when he ran his two year campaign for president!

    Here is how it came out; If you wanted to get high with a doctors prescription, vote YES. If not, then vote NO.

    How confusing could that be?

    FYI – Smoking MJ does NOT cure anything. It just gets you high. And to my knowledge there has NEVER been an FDA scientific study to determine the benefits (if anything other than getting someone high if you want to call THAT a benefit) of smoking MJ.

    If anyone knows of any scientific study (personal testimonials are NOT considered scientific studies) that I may have missed, please post the links here. Yes, BF included.

    • Bottom Line says:

      PapaDawg,

      Off of the top of my head, I can’t think of anything that marijuana actually “cures”, however, it does treat symptoms of a number of ailments and has been known to slow down progression of some cancers and diseases.

      Here is a link to wikipedia’s Medical cannabis page:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

      Personally, I use it for relief of anxiety, headaches, muscle and joint pain, nausea, and insomnia…as well as use it for recreational purposes(although it has been at least a couple of months since the last time I smoked).

      It works rather well for me. After a long day of hard work, it certainly takes the edge off of the general shitty feeling of being exhausted with aches, pains, headache, nausea, etc…

      …AND…it doesn’t give me a hangover!

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        A former neighbor of mine has only one eye. He says this causes him headaches and pot is the only thing that relieves the pain. (I know him well and he was not making it up.) Personally, I don’t see why he should have to load up on painkillers when at the end of the day he can have a joint and get his relief and harm no-one.

        • I expressly requested scientific studies, NOT personal testimonials.

        • Bottom Line says:

          A Puritan Descendant,

          I’ve found that it works great for headaches, especially those associated with heat exhaustion and tension.

          On those days that I’ve worked in the heat all day, I often come home with a headache, nausea, and muscle cramps. Stretching exercises, a tall glass of lemonade, and a joint usually does the trick quite well. It’s better than Ibuprofen or aspirin as they can and often do exacerbate the nausea and don’t all that great as a muscle relaxer.

          Marijuana acts great as a gentle muscle relaxer, and completely cures the headache and nausea…PLUS works to minimize stress as it puts me in a good mood.

          It also helps speed up the process of winding down in order to fall asleep at a decent hour. If I am particularly tense, I sometimes have trouble falling asleep soon enough to get a full night’s sleep.

          Marijuana is kind of a cure all for the daily ailments of the working man.

      • First of all, BL, Wikipedia is nothing but an online encyclopedia that is “user contributed”. there is still NO scientific study that states that MJ is nothing more than a way to get high – Nothing but dope.

        Secondly, I expressly stated that personal testimonials do not count as scientific studies.

        • PapaDawg

          The same can be said of Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Pepto Bismal, and a myriad of pain killers and anti nausea medications.

          The link BL gave you was full of cited studies on the various effects of the drug on various ailments. I suggest you research some of them.

          Your playing games here, because nobody has ever claimed that MJ “CURES” anything that I have ever heard.

        • Bottom Line says:

          PD – “First of all, BL, Wikipedia is nothing but an online encyclopedia that is “user contributed”.”

          BL – Well, if you’re not satisfied with Wikipedia, a few key words on a Google search will yield a plethora of scientific studies noting the medicinal uses of cannabis.

          PD – “…there is still NO scientific study that states that MJ is nothing more than a way to get high – Nothing but dope.”

          BL – Actually, not only is there a LONG well documented history spanning over thousands of years of human culture with regard to the benefits, but there are COUNTLESS scientific studies on the effects and benefits of marijuana. We probably know more about marijuana than any other drug out there.

          If you’d actually take the time to research it, instead of just bashing marijuana use out of personal disapproval, you might find that it indeed has a legitimate medicinal value.

          PD – “Secondly, I expressly stated that personal testimonials do not count as scientific studies.”

          BL – I never said that it did. But that doesn’t mean I can’t give one anyway. And to add, I could care less what any official-like scientific study says. I’ve been my own guinea pig off and on for about 25 years. I know all about the effects and benefits of marijuana.

          Count? ..yeah, whatever…

          • To all; Medicinal use of intoxicants has a long and varied history. That doesn’t mean that they actually had medical value, even though many a medical professional espoused their virtues. MJ is an intoxicant. Nothing more, and nothing less.

            • Bottom Line says:

              PD – “Medicinal use of intoxicants has a long and varied history. That doesn’t mean that they actually had medical value,…”

              BL – What about opiates like Morphine? If a Marine gets his leg blown off, should he suffer in severe pain because opiates give you a buzz?

              What about cocaine? It makes a great local anesthetic for use in eye and nasal surgery because it has the added benefit of being a vasoconstrictor.

              PD – “…even though many a medical professional espoused their virtues.”

              BL – So, hundreds of years of progression and development of modern medical science has yielded a bunch of doctors that are clueless because you don’t approve of other people smoking pot?

              PD – “MJ is an intoxicant. Nothing more, and nothing less.”

              Bl – Yes, it gets you high in addition to treating a wide range of ailments. So not only are your ailments being treated, but you end up relaxed and in a good mood as well.

              I’d definitely call that “more”.
              :)

    • Bottom Line says:

      Recent Research on Medical Marijuana:

      http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

  36. Good Morning All :)

    Evil Amish gangs invade Pa. forests! Today is Day 1 of the Pa black bear season! Traditionally, Amish clans unite to drive bears to waiting shooters. While this makes for interesting hunting, it also provides some great picture taking opportunities, as they will also get the deer moving. I’ll be sitting in my favorite ground blind with rifle and camera at the ready (and a thermos of coffee!)

    Considering I haven’t seen a bear this year yet (except pictures on trail cams), I will likely spend the day taking pictures of the Whitetail that passes thru my corridoor of death (I picked this spot because it’s a known escape route).

    Have a great day!

    G!

  37. Something to make some of you smile. At least there is some common sense left in the world.

    Court rules graduation speech ban unconstitutional

    http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20101119/NEWS01/101119008/Court+rules+graduation+speech+ban+unconstitutional

    HELENA (AP) – The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a former Butte High School valedictorian who was banned from speaking at her graduation because her speech contained religious references.

    The Supreme Court on Friday reversed a lower court’s ruling that Renee Griffith’s civil rights were not violated when school officials refused to let her speak with nine other valedictorians at the 2008 graduation.

    Officials reviewed the speech and said she had to remove references to God and Christ. Griffiths refused and she was not permitted to speak.

    Supreme Court justices ruled that the officials violated her rights to free speech and to freedom of religion under the U.S. and Montana constitutions.

  38. Part of me is thinking ‘ya gotta be kidding me’ but then part of me is thinking ‘uh oh..they’re gonna use this against us’.

    Millionaires are ASKING for the tax cuts to expire.. What the….??????????????

    http://fiscalstrength.com

    • Anita

      Of course they are. This is a staged event.

      But I would be willing to bet these supposed “patriotic millionaires” have one hand in the cookie jar taking out more than they are volunteering to put back. Cynical? You bet!

      And in case these brilliant types forgot, the Govt will willingly take their contributions to pay down the debt. They are free to give all they want to that specific cause, all without imposing on their fellow citizens.

      Quite frankly, I think this is what you get when the heat of class warfare is being felt by those targeted.

      Boy, Ol’ Sparty dodged a bullet today didn’t they.

      • Hey JAC..

        I’ve been sniffing this out some more. Now I see that the folks who put that page up are in cohoots with none other than ….GEORGE freaking SOROS! Now what am I supposed to think?

        Yes indeed Sparty got lucky! Go Green!

  39. I’ll be hitting the road in the morning for Oregon. I will be gone all of next week so just wanted to wish everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving.

    Also, if ya’l get a chance to watch the Macy’s parade Thanksgiving day keep your eyes peeled for dancing penguins. One of them will be mine.

    They are supposed to be just ahead of Santa in the parade but you know how scheduling can go.

    So until next week, best o’ wishes.
    JAC

  40. Consumer Risks Feared as Health Law Spurs Mergers
    By ROBERT PEAR
    Published: November 20, 2010

    WASHINGTON — When Congress passed the health care law, it envisioned doctors and hospitals joining forces, coordinating care and holding down costs, with the prospect of earning government bonuses for controlling costs.

    Now, eight months into the new law there is a growing frenzy of mergers involving hospitals, clinics and doctor groups eager to share costs and savings, and cash in on the incentives. They, in turn, have deployed a small army of lawyers and lobbyists trying to persuade the Obama administration to relax or waive a body of older laws intended to thwart health care monopolies, and to protect against shoddy care and fraudulent billing of patients or Medicare.

    Consumer advocates fear that the health care law could worsen some of the very problems it was meant to solve — by reducing competition, driving up costs and creating incentives for doctors and hospitals to stint on care, in order to retain their cost-saving bonuses.

    “The new law is already encouraging a wave of mergers, joint ventures and alliances in the health care industry,” said Prof. Thomas L. Greaney, an expert on health and antitrust law at St. Louis University. “The risk that dominant providers and dominant insurers may exercise their market power, individually or jointly, has never been greater.”

    Lobbyists and industry groups are bearing down on the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, which enforce the antitrust laws, and the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services, which ferrets out Medicare fraud.

    Those agencies are writing regulations to govern the new entities, known as accountable care organizations. They face a delicate task: balancing the potential benefits of clinical cooperation with the need to enforce fraud, abuse and antitrust laws.

    “If accountable care organizations end up stifling rather than unleashing competition,” said Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of the trade commission, “we will have let one of the great opportunities for health care reform slip away.”

    Congress’s purpose was to foster cooperation in a health care system that is notoriously fragmented. The hope was that the new law would push doctors, hospitals and other health care providers to come together and jointly take responsibility for the cost and quality of care of patients, especially Medicare beneficiaries.

    Experts say patients can benefit from a network of care and greater coordination between doctors and hospitals.

    On Tuesday, the Obama administration established a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, to test new ways of coordinating and paying for services, in addition to the accountable care organizations.

    Hospitals have taken the lead in forming these new entities.

    Johns Hopkins Medicine, which operates a hospital in Baltimore and 25 clinics in Maryland, has just acquired Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, 16 months after acquiring Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Md.

    “This is being driven largely by health care reform, which demands an integrated regional network,” said Gary M. Stephenson, a Johns Hopkins spokesman.

    In Kentucky, three of the largest hospital networks are negotiating a merger, prompted in part by the new law. In upstate New York, three regional health care systems are seeking federal permission to merge their operations, which include hospitals, clinics and nursing homes in Albany and surrounding counties.

    With potential efficiencies come incentives for doctors and hospitals to control costs, and a potential for abuse. Judith A. Stein, director of the nonprofit Center for Medicare Advocacy, said she was concerned that some care organizations would try to hold down costs by “cherry-picking healthier patients and denying care when it’s needed.”

    Under the law, Medicare can penalize organizations that avoid high-risk, high-cost patients.

    Peter W. Thomas, a lawyer for the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, a national advocacy group, expressed concern about the impact on patients.

    “In an environment where health care providers are financially rewarded for keeping costs down,” he said, “anyone who has a disability or a chronic condition, anyone who requires specialized or complex care, needs to worry about getting access to appropriate technology, medical devices and rehabilitation. You don’t want to save money on the backs of people with disabilities and chronic conditions.”

    Nearly one-fourth of Medicare beneficiaries have five or more chronic conditions. They account for two-thirds of the program’s spending.

    Elizabeth B. Gilbertson, chief strategist of a union health plan for hotel and restaurant employees, also worries that the consolidation of health care providers could lead to higher prices.

    “In some markets,” Ms. Gilbertson said, “the dominant hospital is like the sun at the center of the solar system. It owns physician groups, surgery centers, labs and pharmacies. Accountable care organizations bring more planets into the system and strengthen the bonds between them, making the whole entity more powerful, with a commensurate ability to raise prices.”

    She added, “That is a terrible threat.”

    Doctors and hospitals say the promise of these organizations cannot be fully realized unless they get broad waivers and exemptions from the government.

    The American Medical Association has urged federal officials to “provide explicit exceptions to the antitrust laws” for doctors who participate in the new entities. The F.T.C. has accused doctors in many parts of the country of trying to fix prices by collectively negotiating fees — even though the doctors do not share financial risk and are supposedly competing with one another.
    Readers’ Comments

    Share your thoughts.

    * Post a Comment »
    * Read All Comments (28) »

    Hospitals and doctors have also asked the administration to waive laws intended to prevent fraud and abuse in Medicare.

    In a recent letter to federal officials, Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, said, “To provide a fertile field to develop truly innovative, coordinated-care models, the fraud and abuse laws should be waived altogether.”

    These laws are an impediment and, in some cases, “a total barrier” to creation of accountable care organizations, Mr. Kahn said, making it difficult for hospitals to reward doctors for cutting costs or following best practices.

    Similar legal concerns arise when health care providers want to divide up a lump sum of money provided for an episode of care. The new law encourages such “bundled payments,” which may cover the services of hospitals and doctors, as well as nursing homes and home care agencies.

    One of the laws, intended to protect consumers, says that a hospital cannot knowingly make a payment to a doctor “as an inducement to reduce or limit services” to Medicare or Medicaid patients. Hospitals that do so, and doctors who accept them, are subject to civil fines up to $2,000 per patient and can be barred from Medicare and Medicaid.

    Other laws broadly restrict financial relationships between hospitals and doctors. With some exceptions, it is a crime to pay “any remuneration” intended to induce or reward the referral of Medicare and Medicaid patients to a particular care provider.

    A major purpose of accountable care organizations is to encourage doctors to work closely with selected hospitals, and the rewards paid to doctors — typically, a percentage of the money saved — could run afoul of this law, hospitals and doctors say.

    Dr. Donald M. Berwick, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hails the benefits of “integrated care.” But, Dr. Berwick said, “we need to assure both patients and society at large that destructive, exploitative and costly forms of collusion and monopolistic behaviors do not emerge and thrive, disguised as cooperation.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/health/policy/21health.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

    “we need to assure both patients and society at large that destructive, exploitative and costly forms of collusion and monopolistic behaviors do not emerge and thrive, disguised as cooperation.”

    Then maybe we shouldn’t pass bills which encourage huge monopolistic organizations.

  41. From Ron Paul:

    Introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act
    Saturday, November 20, 2010 – by Dr. Ron Paul

    Dr. Ron Paul
    Washington D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul Thursday introduced legislation designed to stop abusive TSA practices that treat American air travelers like criminal suspects. “Enough is enough” Congressman Paul declared in a speech before the House of Representatives earlier tonight. “We are supposed to sacrifice our liberty… I say that is wrong!” Paul stated.

    HR 6416, the “American Traveler Dignity Act,” will subject TSA personnel to the same laws ordinary Americans must obey. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

    As follows:

    Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation’s airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines.

    In one recent well-publicized case, a TSA official is recorded during an attempted body search saying, “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.” I strongly disagree and am sure I am not alone in believing that we Americans should never give up our rights in order to travel. As our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. This TSA version of our rights looks more like the “rights” granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens — right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms.

    The incident of the so-called “underwear bomber” last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines, but a Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane. Additionally, there have been recent press reports calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of these potentially dangerous machines.

    My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

    Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries.

    I warned at the time of the creation of the TSA that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend our basic freedom to travel. Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency– in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9-11. Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified.

    The solution to the need for security at US airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, “The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.” In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel.

  42. A Puritan Descendant says:

    As many as 35 years ago listening to the media I jokingly wondered if there were Aliens among us as I wondered how the media could make such bizzare statements. The following is an interesting article >

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/they_walk_among_us.html

  43. IndyMac Attack: Did Schumer, Paulson, Soros, and the CRL Kill the Bank and Profit From Its Collapse?
    by Andrew Mellon

    At the end of 2007, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson invested $15 million in the leftist non-profit, Center for Responsible Lending, their largest single donation ever. Around the same time, Paulson and his employees contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed, at the time, by Sen. Chuck Schumer. Roughly six months later, CRL and Sen. Schumer both launched a highly public attack on the California-based mortgage lender, Indymac. The lender failed, wiping out the investment of thousands of people. Roughly six months after that, John Paulson, in partnership with George Soros, bought up the remnants of Indymac for pennies on the dollar.

    It is a drama that no longer surprises us, unfortunately. Wealthy investors use their access to elected officials and their checkbook to advocacy groups for private profit. But this story has a twist; a top executive of CRL when this deal went down, Eric Stein, is now working at the Treasury Department, heading up the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Mr. Stein will be the chief federal official designing regulations to protect consumers. Right.

    This is that story.

    1221-Hedgefunds-Tepper-Soros_full_600-1

    Financial crises create opportunities. Prudent and discerning entrepreneurs who save their capital for a rainy day are able to acquire assets at firesale prices and put these assets to higher and better uses. Market forces cleanse wasteful malinvestments, innovative business models make existing ones obsolete and the economy roars forward all the stronger for it.

    But while market entrepreneurs generally prosper during times of great dislocation, ultimately to the benefit of all participants in the economy, today political entrepreneurs have hijacked the economic system. The politically connected elites have used this downturn to carry out a massive wealth transfer from the people to the public and private sectors, fleecing the middle class for their own enrichment. In their hypocrisy, the long ago small businesses that grew large because of free markets have helped chain these markets through lobbying for regulations and subsidies to shield themselves from competition and their own errors.

    This has occurred most egregiously in the financial sector, where there has been a veritable free-for-all in legalized political plunder. Those who understand the illusory nature of our monetary and symbiotically related political and financial systems have clamored to profit as much as possible before the house of cards falls, with the sanction of our supposed representatives.

    The biggest asset bubble contributing to this Depression, occurring in housing, was largely attributable to artificially low interest rates, government agencies and concomitant policies that pushed profligate lending, and the lobbying and more brutish efforts put forth by the groups that proliferated around and prescribed to the pollyanish at best and perverse at worst “home-ownership for every American” persuasion.

    Here at Big Government we have been working to pull the veil back and expose these organizations, most notably in the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). As readers may recall, most recently we examined the Center’s alleged lobbying violations. This organization is highly significant in that for its efforts, the CRL has won a front row seat in helping design the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), as one of its major architects is former CRL senior executive Eric Stein who is serving as the Treasury Deputy Secretary for Consumer Protection and will likely be tabbed as the CFPA Czar.

    Like with all of the economic and social justice-peddling shell organizations, in the case of the CRL the acorn does not fall far from the ACORN. Hidden beneath an innocuous title is an organization in the CRL whose activities serve ends directly opposite of those they purport to promote. Under the guise of fostering fairness in lending, the CRL has been used as an attack dog to force banks to lend to poor credit risks. Due to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), redlining lawsuits and the intimidation of groups like the CRL, many banks were threatened into creating mortgage products such as Alt-A and NINJA loans, discarding all rational lending standards and helping create a market ripe for speculators and sure to ultimately be delinquent homeowners.

    That the CRL has been largely funded by the Sandler family of option-ARM (and SNL) fame in itself stinks. The Sandlers, Co-CEOs of Golden West Bank were major underwriters of these mortgages generally structured to have low “teaser” rates in early years, followed by massive increases in rates when the mortgages reset, rates that many borrowers could never afford. The explosion in this imprudent lending helped pump housing prices to epic levels, and the Sandlers wisely dumped these mortgages on Wachovia as the bubble reached its apogee. This is a Soros-like strategy of playing the market, which is likely no coincidence as we will soon see.

    John Paulson, recently back in the news due to the SEC’s civil suit against Goldman Sachs was the most famous winner of the subprime mortgage debacle, as he used derivatives to bet against mortgage-backed securities that in some cases he had worked with banks to create in order to profit when the housing market crashed. He has received much acclaim for being an astute investor who took a contrarian view and put his money to work accordingly even in the face of rising housing prices, placing bets that ended up paying off handsomely. Paulson & Co. earned an unprecedented $15 billion from the trades, and Paulson himself was said to pocket approximately $4 billion in 2007.

    While overnight, Paulson became a celebrity in the financial community, with the media following his every move, interestingly one tidbit seems to have largely evaded them. As John Paulson noted in a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in November of 2008,

    As we saw the difficulty homeowners were having in making mortgage payments, in July 2007, prior to the initiation of any government support programs, Paulson & Co. made a $15 million charitable contribution to the Center for Responsible Lending to form the Institute for Foreclosure Legal Assistance (IFLA). The institute supports local groups across the country providing legal representation to families facing foreclosure.

    Incidentally, the IFLA is being managed by the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA), another ACORN-like organization that helped inflate the housing bubble with its dubious practices.

    That Paulson would make such a donation is ironic, in that his contribution came from money that Paulson & Co. had earned from the collapse of the very housing bubble that the CRL had helped to blow. While most in the media remained mum on this curious gift, to its credit, Business Week provided a disturbing but logical reason for it, insinuating that Paulson was to financially benefit from a bankruptcy reform bill that the CRL was advocating.

    According to a trade publication called the Credit Union Times, in early 2008 Republican Representative Patrick McHenry sent a letter to Democratic Representative Barney Frank requesting a hearing on the use of non-profits to manipulate markets, citing Paulson’s donation as being reflective of this problem. Specifically he asserted, “In October, he [Paulson] gave $15 million to the Center For Responsible Lending, which has been leading the charge in lobbying for a law that would let bankruptcy judges restructure mortgage loans. By forcing servicers to accept lowered monthly payments, market values would likely fall even further, and Mr. Paulson would most definitely benefit financially.” This issue though quite suspect is not nearly as significant as the one we are approaching.

    Paulson was not the only major benefactor of the CRL. As Activist Cash notes, George Soros’ Open Society Institute has donated at least $100,000 to the CRL. Soros of course seems to be behind almost all of these leftist groups as has been well-documented in numerous articles and in David Horowitz’s 2007 book, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party. When it comes to Soros’ character and aspirations, it bears noting that Soros willingly confiscated property with the Nazis who slaughtered his own Jewish people during the Holocaust, and was quoted in a damning 2004 Newsmax article as saying that he wanted to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.” He has also had a penchant for making bundles of money off of collapses resulting from the socialist policies that he so ardently supports. Needless to say that in my view, George Soros is a dangerous and diabolical character.

    During the throes of the credit crisis with banks failing across the country due to their collapsing loan portfolios, friends of the CRL John Paulson and George Soros along with a handful of other money managers formed an investment vehicle called IMB Management Holdings to acquire these beaten down assets. The first bank that they purchased? IndyMac.

    As you may remember, IndyMac was the struggling bank that New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer curiously was said to have caused a run on in July of 2008, and I say curiously given that a. IndyMac was a commercial bank in California, about as far as could be from Schumer’s constituents, and b. normally it does not fall under the job description of members of Congress (even ones with a fetish for the camera as great as that of Schumer) to leak statements that may materially affect financial institutions. Schumer’s statements on the problems of IndyMac were eerily similar to those divulged in a report released by the Center for Responsible Lending entitled “IndyMac: What Went Wrong? How an “Alt-A” Leader Fueled its Growth with Unsound Abusive Mortgage Lending.” The very business that the CRL had helped push banks like IndyMac into was now being criticized by the CRL as abusive.

    The timing of Schumer’s actions and those of CRL are worth noting. Sen. Schumer released his “concerns” about Indymac on a Thursday. On the following Monday, CRL released their “report” on Indymac. Understand, the CRL report was the first time in the organization’s history that they released a full research report on an individual company. Built on interviews with former employees, the report would have taken some time to compile. It may have been a weird coincidence, but a PR firm could not have designed a better schedule.

    Whether or not Schumer and the CRL orchestrated the bank run, within 11 days of Schumer’s revelations, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from IndyMac. A bank that at its peak in March of 2008 had held $32 billion in assets was sold to Paulson and Soros’ holding company for $13.9 billion in a deal that closed in March of 2009. Created out of IndyMac’s remains was OneWest Bank.

    Senator Schumer and The Center for Responsible Lending appear to have been on the same page for some time. In February of 2008, the CRL cited Senator Schumer in a white paper critical of Countrywide’s lending practices. In March 2009, Schumer co-sponsored a bill to create a “Financial Product Safety Commission,” supported by “over 55 national and state organizations, including Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, La Raza, AFL-CIO, SEIU, National Consumer Law Center, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, and US PIRG.” Additionally, in June of 2009, Senator Schumer was honored by ACORN, one of the CRL’s closest allies. When these points are considered in context of Schumer’s ideological bent and constituency, I believe it is safe to say that at the very least Schumer is sympathetic to the CRL’s agenda.

    Senator Schumer has also had substantial financial ties to George Soros and John Paulson.

    Most recently, in June of 2009 Soros donated $2000 to Schumer. In 2005, Soros hosted a fundraiser for Democratic Senatorial candidates headlined by Schumer. In general, given the millions of dollars that Soros has contributed to Democrats and Democratic causes over the years, it is likely that other benefits both direct and indirect have accrued to the New York Senator courtesy of Mr. Soros.

    Meanwhile, John Paulson’s hedge fund Paulson & Co. has been a very generous donor to Democrats. In 2007, Paulson made a $25,000 donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) chaired by none other than Senator Charles Schumer (outdoing even Soros who only contributed a measly $21,750 to the DSCC that year), and also contributed $2300 each to Senate Finance Committee Chairman and Democrat Max Baucus, and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services Chairman and Democrat Dick Durbin. All told, during the 2007-2008 fundraising cycle, Paulson & Co. contributed $105,000 to the DSCC, $20,700 to Baucus and $19,400 to Durbin. More recently, Paulson is reported to have held a $1000-per-head fundraiser for Democratic Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd.

    Now to be fair, it is common practice for Wall Street firms to donate to politicians that legislate on issues dear to them, but in the case of these two gentlemen, donations have been decidedly partisan and closely connected to Schumer.

    To review, George Soros and John Paulson are major supporters of the CRL, the ACORN-like group that helped contribute to the financial crisis and whose former principal Eric Stein is now building and set to run the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Chuck Schumer likely shares the CRL’s agenda and appears to have helped precipitate a run on IndyMac at the same time as the release of the CRL’s critical report on the same bank, a bank that Soros and Paulson were later able to purchase in a sweetheart deal with the FDIC (though the FDIC has reacted in unprecedented fashion in vehemently denying this claim). Soros and Paulson have been major contributors to Senate Democrats including Schumer and his allies.

    To add another wrinkle to the story, in July 2008, shortly after regulators seized IndyMac, Self Help, the financial parent of the CRL that spawned in response to the CRA chartered a credit union in California with $5 million. The purpose of the union was to serve “low-wealth California families,” likely the same families that IndyMac had targeted before its collapse. According to the Credit Union Times, Self Help has swelled since its inception and now controls $150 million in assets.

    Can this all be a coincidence? Given George Soros’ proclivity for shady dealings in his profiting from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in his downright frightening instigation of “velvet revolutions” abroad, it is hard to imagine him partaking in a venture in which the odds are not decidedly in his favor. Soros’ investing style is to guarantee success by supporting policies that undermine countries and their industries, and profit handsomely off of their failures and at times subsequent bailouts, be it in the case of the British pound or Citigroup. What is peculiar is how wedded Soros has become to John Paulson, a man whose past I have not found to be checkered with progressivism, but I suppose their profits trump partisanship.

    The above shameful narrative is in my view illustrative of the rule rather than the exception in contemporary America. Simply put, the house always wins. The house is the government-financial complex. The best political entrepreneurs enjoy the spoils of this corrupted system at the expense of market entrepreneurs and the American people. This system can only last so long before it collapses, and knowing this, the most adept players are cashing in under the pretense of crises that will pale in comparison to the ones we will ultimately face if we do not reverse our path as a people.

    The MSM’s reticence to investigate the CRL represents another failure on their part to do their job. More important however are the the implications herein regarding the CRL’s potential complicity with Senators and hedge fund managers which appears to be not only outrageous, but hazardous especially in light of the CRL’s role in forthcoming financial regulation. Yet this particular story represents a mere symptom, albeit writ incredibly large, of a socialistic and thus immoral system that is fast accelerating our demise.

    http://biggovernment.com/amellon/2010/04/22/indymac-attack-did-schumer-paulson-soros-and-the-crl-kill-the-bank-and-profit-from-its-collapse/

  44. since Prince William County in Virginia became more strict in dealing with illegal immigrants in 2007, the jurisdiction has enjoyed a substantial drop in crime – including a 32 percent drop in violent crime – while neighboring Fairfax County has seen crime levels remain steady.

    Introducing an interview with Prince William County board of supervisors chairman Corey Stewart, co-host Doocy began: “Back in 2007, Prince William County in Virginia became the first large jurisdiction in the country to adopt a strict immigration enforcement policy. That move was widely criticized.”

    Co-host Carlson added: “But a new study by the University of Virginia shows crime has dropped since the policy went into effect. … After a three-year study, here’s some of the stuff that’s happening: 41 percent drop in the hit-and-run accidents; 46.7 percent decrease in aggravated assaults.”

    After noting that the University of Virginia and other “neutral organizations” were behind the study, guest Stewart informed viewers that violent crime had dropped substantially in his county compared to neighboring Fairfax County. Stewart:

    Well, you know, more than anything, it saved us lives. And we had a 32 percent drop in our overall violent crime rate in Prince William County. Prince William County, by the way, very large county. Second largest county in Virginia. And in Fairfax County, neighboring Fairfax County, they had a stable crime rate, and Prince William County’s dropped by 32 percent over the same period of time.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz161HKfVnz

    • I see that less illegal’s means less crime-but why does more illegals increase crime. Is it just poverty driven? Is it because of the drug trade? Even if we close the borders we are going to have illegals in this country. I’m of the opinion like many that we can’t send all these people back to wherever they came from-so what is the answer? Personally, I think we have to find a way to get these people out of the shadows. Some should leave but I think many should be allowed to stay and be given the possibility of citizenship after a number of years. I don’t know the answer but two things I think are essential. 1. the border must be closed first-so we can deal with the people who are here without having to deal with a new influx of people everyday. 2. No citizenship without waiting at least 5 years and showing that they want to be a law abiding part of this country. I remember the McCain plan-charge them 5000 dollars and send them back to reapply-seemed beyond stupid to me.

    • LOI….Fort Worth, Texas. Crimne rate drop 32% in last 8 months on adoption of zero tolerance policy on illegal immigrants and homeless. This crime is defined as car thefts, shop lifting, trespassing, residential crimes (theft of yard implements, lights, fixtures, tools,etc and sold at flea markets), food theft (shoplifting from food markets), etc. Violent crime has dropped 42% directly related to closing and eradication of tent cities, sanctuary apartment buildings, zero tolerance on gang issues (Example: gang grafitti is almost non existent now as it is no longer treated as a misdemeanor, gang paraphanalia is not allowed worn in schools and malls and thing sof the like.) Enhanced neighborhood watches tied directly to police neighborhood precints where license plates are routinely written down and checked out if they are not recognized. Any car with Mexico license plates are routinely stopped and checked for insurance and registration and entry papers. Increased security in rail yards from the border areas. Increased surveillance at major truck stops in and around I-35w and checking of manifests and inspections of truck cargo. (This has stopped almost entirely transportation of human trafficking in this area. Everyone goes through Dallas now, where they do not have a zero tolerance policy.) Increased checking in neighborhoods where single family dwellings have built in garages and storage units that have increased trash and refuse pick up. Many Latinos buy single family homes and turn them into safe houses by reconstruction of garages and intalling “storage units” in their backyards. Routine neighborhood patrols have found many homes that have 4 or 5 “peee-cups” parked in front or the driveway. Helicopter flyovers are finding numerous cars parked in backyards out of sight of the street and late at nights. All city parks have a 12 midnight to 5am curfew unless prior permission with a written document (late night parties, etc).

      Arrests of Hispanics have dropped over 59% in this same time period. You do the math. NOw, in fairness, this is not totally tied to the illegal immigrant issue BUT the gang issues as well. But the drop in arrests for the different races have not been as significant as the Hispanic population.

      So No sanctuary areas…no apartment rentals, increased surveillances of Home Depots, hospitals, schools, neighborhoods, etc have resulted in less issues and much less crime. NOt saying……but it is easy to figure out.

  45. These numbers actually surprised me-they are so bad. I don’t see how anyone can read this and not identify the problems. To continue to vote for this kind of results seems to go against people’s actual interest. A claim the left keeps laying at the feet of conservatives. Perhaps they need to realize that we aren’t voting against our best interest. They are.

    California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?
    Nov. 15 2010 – 10:36 am | 128,358 views | 0 recommendations | 122 comments
    By JOEL KOTKIN

    In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.

    California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.” Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. On Friday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced yet again to call an emergency session in order to deal with the state’s enormous budget problems.

    This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

    In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy–backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels–virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.

    Texas’ trajectory, however, looks quite the opposite. California was recently ranked by Chief Executive magazine as having the worst business climate in the nation, while Texas’ was considered the best. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Lone State State generally embrace the gospel of economic growth and limited public sector expenditure. The defeated Democratic candidate for governor, the brainy former Houston Mayor Bill White, enjoyed robust business support and was widely considered more competent than the easily re-elected incumbent Rick Perry, who sometimes sounds more like a neo-Confederate crank than a serious leader.

    To be sure, Texas has its problems: a growing budget deficit, the need to expand infrastructure to service its rapid population growth and the presence of a large contingent of undereducated and uninsured poor people. But even conceding these problems, the growing chasm between the two megastates is evident in the economic and demographic numbers. Over the past decade nearly 1.5 million more people left California than stayed; only New York State lost more. In contrast, Texas gained over 800,000 new migrants. In California, foreign immigration–the one bright spot in its demography–has slowed, while that to Texas has increased markedly over the decade.

    A vast difference in economic performance is driving the demographic shifts. Since 1998, California’s economy has not produced a single new net job, notes economist John Husing. Public employment has swelled, but private jobs have declined. Critically, as Texas grew its middle-income jobs by 16%, one of the highest rates in the nation, California, at 2.1% growth, ranked near the bottom. In the year ending September, Texas accounted for roughly half of all the new jobs created in the country.

    Even more revealing is California’s diminishing preeminence in high-tech and science-based (or STEM–Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) jobs. Over the past decade California’s supposed bulwark grew a mere 2%–less than half the national rate. In contrast, Texas’ tech-related employment surged 14%. Since 2002 the Lone Star state added 80,000 STEM jobs; California, a mere 17,000.

    Of course, California still possesses the nation’s largest concentrations of tech (Silicon Valley), entertainment (Hollywood) and trade (Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach). But these are all now declining. Silicon Valley’s Google era has produced lots of opportunities for investors and software mavens concentrated in affluent areas around Palo Alto, but virtually no new net jobs overall. Empty buildings and abandoned factories dot the Valley’s onetime industrial heartland around San Jose. Many of the Valley’s tech companies are expanding outside the state, largely to more business-friendly and affordable places like Salt Lake City, the Research Triangle region of North Carolina and Austin.

    Hollywood too is shifting frames, with more and more film production going to Michigan, New Mexico, New York and other states. In 2002, 82% of all film production took place in California–now it’s down to roughly 30%. And plans by Los Angeles County, the epicenter of the film industry, to double permit fees for film, television and commercial productions certainly won’t help.

    International trade, the third linchpin of the California economy, is also under assault. Tough environmental regulations and the anticipated widening in 2014 of the Panama Canal are emboldening competitors, particularly across the entire southern tier of the country, most notably in Houston. Mobile, Ala., Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., also have big plans to lure high-paid blue collar jobs away from California’s ports.

    Most worrisome of all, these telltale signs palpable economic decline seem to escape most of the state’s top leaders. The newly minted Lieutenant Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, insists “there’s nothing wrong with California” and claims other states “would love to have the problems of California.”

    But it’s not only the flaky Newsom who is out of sync with reality. Jerry Brown, a far savvier politician, maintains “green jobs,” up to 500,000 of them, will turn the state around. Theoretically, these jobs might make up for losses created by ever stronger controls on traditional productive businesses like agriculture, warehousing and manufacturing. But its highly unlikely.

    Construction will be particularly hard hit, since Brown also aims to force Californians, four-fifths of whom prefer single-family houses, into dense urban apartment districts. Over time, this approach will send home prices soaring and drive even more middle-class Californians to the exits.

    Ultimately the “green jobs” strategy, effective as a campaign plank, represents a cruel delusion. Given the likely direction of the new GOP-dominated House of Representatives in Washington, massive federal subsidies for the solar and wind industries, as well as such boondoggles as high-speed rail, are likely to be scaled back significantly. Without subsidies, federal loans or draconian national regulations, many green-related ventures will cut as oppose to add jobs, as is already beginning to occur. The survivors, increasingly forced to compete on a market basis, will likely move to China, Arizona or even Texas, already the nation’s leader in wind energy production.

    Tom Hayden, a ’60s radical turned environmental zealot, admits that given the current national climate the only way California can maintain Brown’s “green vision” will be to impose “some combination of rate heights and tax revenues.” Such an approach may help bail out green investors, but seems likely to drive even more businesses out of the state.

    California’s decline is particularly tragic, as it is unnecessary and largely unforced. The state still possesses the basic assets–energy, fertile land, remarkable entrepreneurial talent–to restore its luster. But given its current political trajectory, you can count on Texans, and others, to keep picking up both the state’s jobs and skilled workers. If California wishes to commit economic suicide, Texas and other competitors will gladly lend them a knife.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/joelkotkin/2010/11/15/california-suggests-suicide-texas-asks-can-i-lend-you-a-knife/

    • We are keeping any eye on a problem here, VH…..Rapid growth so fast as to out pace the infrastructure. Efforts are being considered now to slow the pace of growth to sustain the infrastructure without increasing taxes. Picking and choosing the business’ is high on this list as to what incentives to give certain busness’. Things of this nature. Growth is good…but unsustianed growth is not.

  46. Is this a good idea? It sounds better than what we’re doing now but I wonder how hard it would be to get the insurance industry to cover this age group.

    Ryan-Rivlin Health Care Plan Unveiled
    November 18, 2010

    Many of the recent debt reduction plans—including, the fiscal commission’s Co-Chairs’ recent proposal, the Galston-MacGuineas plan, and the Debt Reduction Task Force plan have included the important idea that health care cannot continue to grow without constraints. Now, two members of the White House’s fiscal commission have put forth an innovative proposal to fundamentally change public health care.

    Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Alice Rivlin just unveiled a health care proposal that would substantively change federal payments for Medicare by instituting a voucher system for retirees entering the Medicare system after 2021. This would gradually change Medicare from its traditional “fee for service” approach into a system where senior citizens would purchase their own health insurance with these vouchers. The amount of the vouchers would be calculated based on the average cost of each Medicare enrollee in 2012 and permitted to grow at the annual rate of growth in GDP per capita plus one percentage point. The retirement age would also be increased by two months every year until it reaches age 67 by 2032.

    The plan also has a cost-sharing mechanism that would start in 2013 and in future years would be indexed to growth in spending per beneficiary for Part A and B. The cost-sharing changes would establish a single $600 deductible for Parts A and B, impose a 20 percent coinsurance cost for Part A and B after satisfying the deductible, and establish a catastrophic cap after accruing more than $6,000 in cost sharing payments. For Medigap, the beneficiary would be subject to a $500 deductible, require the beneficiary to spend at least $2,750 before being subject to the catastrophic cap and would limit cost-sharing coverage between the deductible and a catastrophic cap to 50 percent of the Medicare cost-sharing requirement.

    Medicaid would be turned into a block grant to the states. Block grant funding would grow with the currently projected Medicaid population and with GDP per capita plus one percentage point. Capping the growth of the vouchers and the block grant would lead to significant savings of what the federal government will spend on health care.

    For people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, Medicaid would no longer receive Medicaid assistance for Medicare premiums but would instead receive money from a newly created federal savings account. This account would equal $6,600 in 2012 and would grow at the rate of GDP growth per capita plus one percentage point. Their proposal would also repeal the CLASS Act and strengthen malpractice laws.

    The CBO analysis of the Ryan-Rivlin plan projects it would reduce budget deficits by $280 billion over 2011-2020 and would significantly lower federal health care expenditures after that. The largest piece of this savings comes from the Medicaid block grants by 2020. Even still, under this proposal, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid will be about 7 percent of GDP in 2020 and 10 percent of GDP in 2050.
    Provision 2011-2020 Deficit Changes ($ Billions)
    Malpractice Reform $60
    Repeal CLASS Program -$70
    Modify Medicare Cost Sharing $110
    Medicaid Block Grants $180
    Total $280

    In a piece in the New York Times, Ryan wrote that this proposal may be “tough medicine,” but is critical to the future of the country and of Medicare, saying that its current path is unsustainable and could bankrupt our government. We completely agree.

    http://crfb.org/blogs/ryan-rivlin-health-care-plan-unveiled

  47. Passenger Chooses Strip-Down Over Pat-Down
    By R. STICKNEY
    Updated 7:54 AM PST, Mon, Nov 22, 2010

    Print Share Buzz up!
    19retweet
    3diggsdigg

    When a San Diego man opted out of security screening using the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) at Lindbergh Field Friday, he stripped down to his underwear in an attempt to avoid the pat-down procedures.

    Samuel Wolanyk took the protest started Nov. 13 by Oceanside’s John Tyner to a whole new level.

    While Tyner videotaped his refusal to be patted down, telling the agent “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested,” Wolanyk decided to give TSA a look at his body down to his Calvin Klein’s.

    Through a statement released by his attorney Sunday night, Wolanyk said “TSA needs to see that I’m not carrying any weapons, explosives, or other prohibited substances, I refuse to have images of my naked body viewed by perfect strangers, and having been felt up for the first time by TSA the week prior (I travel frequently) I was not willing to be molested again.”

    Raw Interview: Passenger Refused TSA Pat-Down
    Raw Interview: Passenger Refused TSA Pat-Down
    WATCH

    Raw Interview: Passenger Refused TSA Pat-Down

    Body Scanners Installed at Lindbergh
    Body Scanners Installed at Lindbergh
    WATCH

    Body Scanners Installed at Lindbergh

    Weird News Photos
    Weird News Photos
    LOOK

    Weird News Photos

    Wolanyk’s attorney said that TSA requested his client put his clothes on so he could be patted down properly but his client refused to put his clothes back on. He never refused a pat down, according to his attorney.

    Wolanyk was arrested for refusing to complete the security process and for recording the incident on his iPhone, according to his attorney.

    San Diego has played a role in the controversy. From Tyner’s videotape and U.S. Rep. Bob Filner’s call for a Congressional hearing, to the parody song penned by Poway musician and Grammy-winner Steve Vaus.

    Source: Passenger Chooses Strip-Down Over Pat-Down | NBC San Diego

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html?dr

    We all knew this was coming-I have to admit the(Put your clothes on so you can be properly patted down” was a little amusing. :)

  48. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

    I scored a 70 on both-said I was a libertarian.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      50% personal and 70% economic – Centrist on the Liberterian Conservative side.

      • I was a little surprised by my score-I don’t really consider myself a libertarian. Somewhere in the middle between a conservative and a libertarian. But when I take these quizzes I keep coming closer to a libertarian.

        • We are rubbing off on you, lol. :)

          Seriously, tho, libtertarian thought is VERY mainstream. Most people agree with at least some of the libertarian platform, if not most of it. Where the Libertarian Party loses support is the marketting, education, and habits of people. That and there are a bunch of crazy people running the party.

          The LP needs people to get out of the Republican/Demcrat false dichotomy.

          It needs to do more to spread it message in a realistic way, without touting removal of all drug laws as its primary objective.

          It needs people to get more educated about what they really think and how that applies in politics and in real life.

          And most of all the LP needs to run normal people, not extremists. The problem is, the only types of people willing to run are the die-hard extremists, the crazies, the power seekers, and the status quo types. All of them are useless.

          • I’ve gotta say-I understand that people believe we would have been better off if so many things had never started. But to have someone running under the banner of getting rid of social security or medicare is crazy. As you said it is a long term goal-why let them label you an extremist if you aren’t one. They should run on reducing these programs. And the conversation should be about reasonable steps we can take to regain our freedoms slowly.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I scored 100.

      I’ve taken similar surveys just for fun, and to test their accuracy. Most call me something like “hardcore Libertarian”.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey all

        I just took it 50% personal, and 100% on economic. Conservative.

        Hope you’re all doing well. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everybody.

      • Can anyone offer some additional information about this?

        U.S. in Vast Insider Trading Probe
        By SUSAN PULLIAM, MICHAEL ROTHFELD,JENNY STRASBURG and GREGORY ZUCKERMAN

        Federal authorities, capping a three-year investigation, are preparing insider-trading charges that could ensnare consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders, and analysts across the nation, according to people familiar with the matter.

        The criminal and civil probes, which authorities say could eclipse the impact on the financial industry of any previous such investigation, are examining whether multiple insider-trading rings reaped illegal profits totaling tens of millions of dollars, the people say. Some charges could be brought before year-end, they say.

        The investigations, if they bear fruit, have the potential to expose a culture of pervasive insider trading in U.S. financial markets, including new ways non-public information is passed to traders through experts tied to specific industries or companies, federal authorities say.

        One focus of the criminal investigation is examining whether nonpublic information was passed along by independent analysts and consultants who work for companies that provide “expert network” services to hedge funds and mutual funds. These companies set up meetings and calls with current and former managers from hundreds of companies for traders seeking an investing edge.

        Among the expert networks whose consultants are being examined, the people say, is Primary Global Research LLC, a Mountain View, Calif., firm that connects experts with investors seeking information in the technology, health-care and other industries.

        “I have no comment on that,” said Phani Kumar Saripella, Primary Global’s chief operating officer.

        Primary’s chief executive and chief operating officers previously worked at Intel Corp., according to its website.

        In another aspect of the probes, prosecutors and regulators are examining whether Goldman Sachs Group Inc. bankers leaked information about transactions, including health-care mergers, in ways that benefited certain investors, the people say. Goldman declined to comment.

        Independent analysts and research boutiques also are being examined. John Kinnucan, a principal at Broadband Research LLC in Portland, Ore., sent an email on Oct. 26 to roughly 20 hedge-fund and mutual-fund clients telling of a visit by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

        “Today two fresh faced eager beavers from the FBI showed up unannounced (obviously) on my doorstep thoroughly convinced that my clients have been trading on copious inside information,” the email said. “(They obviously have been recording my cell phone conversations for quite some time, with what motivation I have no idea.) We obviously beg to differ, so have therefore declined the young gentleman’s gracious offer to wear a wire and therefore ensnare you in their devious web.”
        {if djIsFlashPossible} The version of Adobe Flash Player required to view this interactive has not been found. To enjoy our complete interactive experience, please download a free copy of the latest version of Adobe Flash Player here {else} This content can not be displayed because your browser does not support the Adobe Flash player required to view it. {/if}

        The email, which Mr. Kinnucan confirms writing, was addressed to traders at, among others: hedge-fund firms SAC Capital Advisors LP and Citadel Asset Management, and mutual-fund firms Janus Capital Group, Wellington Management Co. and MFS Investment Management.

        SAC, Wellington and MFS declined to comment; Janus and Citadel didn’t immediately comment. It isn’t known whether clients are under investigation for their business with Mr. Kinnucan.

        The investigations have been conducted by federal prosecutors in New York, the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Representatives of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, the FBI and the SEC declined to comment.

        Another aspect of the probe is an examination of whether traders at a number of hedge funds and trading firms, including First New York Securities LLC, improperly gained nonpublic information about pending health-care, technology and other merger deals, according to the people familiar with the matter.

        Some traders at First New York, a 250-person trading firm, profited by anticipating health-care and other mergers unveiled in 2009, people familiar with the firm say.

        A First New York spokesman said: “We are one of more than three dozen firms that have been asked by regulators to provide general information in a widespread inquiry; we have cooperated fully.” He added: “We stand behind our traders and our systems and policies in place that ensure full regulatory compliance.”

        Key parts of the probes are at a late stage. A federal grand jury in New York has heard evidence, say people familiar with the matter. But as with all investigations that aren’t completed, it is unclear what specific charges, if any, might be brought.
        [PROBEjump]

        The action is an outgrowth of a focus on insider trading by Preet Bharara, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney. In an October speech, Mr. Bharara said the area is a “top criminal priority” for his office, adding: “Illegal insider trading is rampant and may even be on the rise.” Mr. Bharara declined to comment.

        Expert-network firms hire current or former company employees, as well as doctors and other specialists, to be consultants to funds making investment decisions. More than a third of institutional investment-management firms use expert networks, according to a late 2009 survey by Integrity Research Associates in New York.

        The consultants typically earn several hundred dollars an hour for their services, which can include meetings or phone calls with traders to discuss developments in their company or industry. The expert-network companies say internal policies bar their consultants from disclosing confidential information.

        Generally, inside traders profit by buying stocks of acquisition targets before deals are announced and selling after the targets’ shares rise in value.

        The SEC has been investigating potential leaks on takeover deals going back to at least 2007 amid an explosion of deals leading up to the financial crisis. The SEC sent subpoenas last autumn to more than 30 hedge funds and other investors.

        “Today two fresh faced eager beavers from the FBI showed up unannounced (obviously) on my doorstep thoroughly convinced that my clients have been trading on copious inside information…. We obviously beg to differ, so have therefore declined the young gentleman’s gracious offer to wear a wire and therefore ensnare you in their devious web.” John Kinnucan, of Broadband Research, in an Oct. 26 email to clients

        Some subpoenas were related to trading in Schering-Plough Corp. stock before its takeover by Merck & Co. in 2009, say people familiar with the matter. Schering-Plough stock rose 8% the trading day before the deal plan was announced and 14% the day of the announcement.

        Merck said it “has a long-standing practice of fully cooperating with any regulatory inquiries and has explicit policies prohibiting the sharing of confidential information about the company and its potential partners.”

        Transactions being focused on include MedImmune Inc.’s takeover by AstraZeneca PLC in 2007, the people say. MedImmune shares jumped 18% on April 23, 2007, the day the deal was announced. A spokesman for AstraZeneca and its MedImmune unit declined to comment.

        Investigators are also examining the role of Goldman bankers in trading in shares of Advanced Medical Optics Inc., which was taken over by Abbott Laboratories in 2009, according to the people familiar with the matter. Advanced Medical Optics’s shares jumped 143% on Jan. 12, 2009, the day the deal was announced. Goldman advised MedImmune and Advanced Medical Optics on the deals.

        A spokesman for AstraZeneca and its MedImmune unit declined to comment.

        In subpoenas, the SEC has sought information about communications—related to Schering-Plough and other deals—with Ziff Brothers, Jana Partners LLC, TPG-Axon Capital Management, Prudential Financial Inc.’s Jennison Associates asset-management unit, UBS AG’s UBS Financial Services Inc. unit, and Deutsche Bank AG, according to subpoenas and the people familiar with the matter.

        Representatives of Ziff Brothers, Jana, TPG-Axon, Jennison, UBS and Deutsche Bank declined to comment.

        Among hedge-fund managers whose trading in takeovers is a focus of the criminal probe is Todd Deutsch, a top Wall Street trader who left Galleon Group in 2008 to go out on his own, the people close to the situation say. A spokesman for Mr. Deutsch, who has specialized in health-care and technology stocks, declined to comment.

        Prosecutors also are investigating whether some hedge-fund traders received inside information about Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which figured prominently in the government’s insider-trading case last year against Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam and 22 other defendants.

        Fourteen defendants have pleaded guilty in the Galleon case; Mr. Rajaratnam has pleaded not guilty and is expected to go to trial in early 2011.

        Among those whose AMD transactions have been scrutinized is hedge-fund manager Richard Grodin. Mr. Grodin, who received a subpoena last autumn, didn’t return calls. An AMD spokesman declined to comment.

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704170404575624831742191288.html

      • 100% by 100%.
        Not that I would put some of those issues up front if I were campaigning. The drug war and the removal of all welfare and social security have to be done carefully, and they might not be the first things to go, just for the sake of political reality. Nothing wrong with keeping those things as part of your longer term goals tho. :)

        • 90% & 100%. Consenting adult, no laws could mean public sex.
          Sorry, but I don’t think strangers of either sex should be where my kids learn about the birds and the bee’s. Happy meals might take on a whole new meaning!:lol:

      • 80/100

    • 70% personal

      100% economic

      Said I was Libertarian.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Here’s a good one.

      http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

      My “X” was in the lower right-hand corner, as far as it could go.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      80% personal
      10% economic

      I am a Liberal. I know, I know – no one saw that coming!

  49. I’ve been thinking(resist the urge :) ) Smoke and mirrors comes to mind-Have you noticed the change in policy by the TSA and the lame duck Congress coincide.

  50. Bottom Line says:

    I found this video yesterday, and thought I’d share. I suggest everyone that has 94 minutes to spare, should watch it.

    The New American Century – PNAC Exposed:

  51. I knew they would come up with some way for them to build this mosque with taxpayer dollars!! What I don’t get is why are they allowed to try to get part of this fund when the building isn’t at ground zero.

    Article: GZ Mosque Builders Apply for $5 Million From 9/11 Rebuilding Fund

    * Posted on November 22, 2010 at 2:36pm by Jonathon M. Seidl Jonathon M. Seidl
    * Print »
    * Email »

    *
    *

    An artist’s rendering of the Ground Zero Mosque. (Photo: AP)

    Developers behind the controversial Ground Zero Mosque are trying to secure $5 million from a federal fund dedicated to rebuilding Lower Manhattan after 9/11, the Daily Beast reports.

    The fund contains taxpayer dollars, the report says, and those behind the mosque are trying to secure that money through a “community and cultural enhancement” grant.

    The Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Corporation (LMDC), created after 9/11 to oversee rebuilding and fund distribution, is in charge of distributing the grant, designed for community development.

    From the Daily Beast:

    Park51’s developers clearly had a legal right to apply for the grant. A list of Frequently Asked Questions that accompanied the application specifically states that religious organizations can make funding requests for capital projects “as long as the request is for a facility or portion of a facility that is dedicated to non-religious activities or uses.” According to an individual familiar with the Park51 application, it requests funds to cover a number of cultural, educational and community development aspects of the proposed 13-story building—but the prayer room is excluded from the grant application.

    But the question on whether they could have is trumped by the question of whether they should have. The stated aim of the Park51 developers is to provide a community center for lower Manhattan’s 4,000 Muslim residents. Their own website explained that they understood the need to “appeal to the undecided, and change the conversation about Muslims in America.” It’s pretty clear that this play for federal dollars will generate none of that, starting with the lack of disclosure or community consultation before developers submitted their application, which was due November 5th.

    “If Imam Feisal and his retinue want know why they’re not trusted, here’s yet another reason,” Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam and Director of the Moral Courage Project at NYU, told the Daily Beast. “The New Yorkers I speak with have questions about Park51. Requesting money from public coffers without engaging the public shows a staggering lack of empathy—especially from a man who says he’s all about dialogue.”

  52. Hello all,

    Well, I had a little chat with one of my co-workers who just flew in from the USSA. I asked him about his TSA experience. He’s still fuming. In San Diego, he got the groping which made him very angry and feeling violated. In Honolulu, he opted for the porno scanner since he didn’t feel like being sexually abused. While in the porno scanner, he assumed the position and give the finger with each hand (he got Cyndi points for that, lol). The woman in charge of him ordered him to stop making an obscene jesture. So my co-worker, God Bless him, kept right at it. Then the overseer started yelling to her supervisor “He’s still doing it! He won’t stop”. Coincidently, or not, my coworker’s lugguge was searched with a fine tooth comb and didn’t make his flight. He said he may still have to travel for business but he’s done traveling for pleasure (if there is such a thing when in the USSA). Heil Obama.

    • You had to say Honolulu didn’t you!

      Lots of acronyms for TSA flying around right now. Here’s Rush’s take: TSA= Tough Shit America

  53. And so it continues………….The White House on Tuesday condemned North Korea’s artillery attack against the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, the latest in a series of provocations that have reawakened concerns about the threat posed by the communist country and its reclusive leadership.

    BO condemns the North…..now THAT will make them stop. China refuses to intervene and does not condemn the artillery attack.

    Come on…North Korea…..keep it up.

    • And we shall taunt you yet again….your mother smells of elderberry wine…..take that.

    • From the little I have read -they seem to think this aggression is a little more serious than what has happened in the recent past. The north sinking the ship and now attacking civilian targets. The dictators son coming into power and wanting to look powerful and of course the nuclear situation. What do you think is going to happen?

      • With “Chicken Heart” at the helm…nothing.

        • North Korea will extort the United States for more aid…..saying we will quit if you give us more.

          • My answer would be to China……keep your child (NOrth Korea) in check or we will obliterate it and you can do what you want China….we are not afraid of you. Bring it on.

            • Do you think it is a possibility that China actually directs the movements made by N. Korea or does N. Korea just believe(understandably) that China just being there will stop any real threat to them being carried out.

          • My first thought was this is how they have extorted aid in the past, and their aid is being withheld. A dangerous game to play. If they attack the border, is the US response not automatic? Not needing Obama to give any orders?

            • Good question, LOI. Yes, there is an SOP in place for defense. The truce brokered in 1953 is also quite explicit.

  54. More truth to come out…..”Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.

    Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.”

    • Al Gore did it for money? didn’t see that coming.

    • And to get elected!

    • Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.
      Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.
      “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol,” Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. “First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
      “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” the wire service reported Gore saying.
      Credits for corn ethanol subsidies expire at the end of the year unless Congress moves to renew the $7.7 billion annual program. Opponents of the corn subsidies say that it removes valuable food products from the table because the U.S. ethanol industry drives up the price of corn. . . .

  55. From my email box.. I FAIL..

    Imagine this…

    What it took to get an 8th grade education in 1895…Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895?This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

    8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS – 1895
    Grammar (Time, one hour)
    1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
    2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
    3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
    4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of “lie,””play,” and “run.”
    5. Define case; illustrate each case.
    6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
    7 – 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

    Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
    1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
    2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
    3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare?
    4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
    5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
    6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
    7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. Long at $20 per metre?
    8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
    9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
    10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

    U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
    1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
    2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus
    3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
    4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
    5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
    6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
    7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
    8. Name event s connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

    Orthography (Time, one hour)
    [Do we even know what this is??]
    1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
    2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
    3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
    4. Give four substitutes for caret ‘u.’ (HUH?)
    5. Give two rules for spelling words with final ‘e.’ Name two exceptions under each rule.
    6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
    7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
    8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
    9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
    10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

    Geography (Time, one hour)
    1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
    2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
    3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
    4. Describe the mountains of North America
    5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco ..
    6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
    7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
    8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
    9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
    10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

    Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.
    Gives the saying “he only had an 8th grade education” a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?! And, NO! I don’t have the answers!

    • I love how all the math is made up of relevant questions that they would have related too. They would have been able to see the value of learning and how the knowledge would be an asset to them personally.

  56. This is my third and final attempt to post this article. Tired of retyping my response but I thought this was interesting. Hope it posts.

    Smile, You’re on Candid Scanner
    The public no longer blindly submits to authority—and that’s progress.

    By PETER FUNT

    I’ve never worked for the TSA. But once I spent a day putting airline passengers through what they believed was a full-body scanner, and I learned a few things about the American psyche. I also got sued, but we’ll get to that later.

    It was 2001, just a few months before 9/11. We were doing a sequence at the airport in Bullhead City, Ariz., for “Candid Camera” that was designed to parody the passenger screening process.

    Pre-9/11 airport “security,” you may recall, was far different than it is today. Indeed, the very lapses that prompted me to do such a satire were undoubtedly clear to Osama bin Laden as well.

    With the help and encouragement of airport officials, I posed as a security guard. As passengers entered the boarding area, I examined them and their carry-on bags. I claimed that the metal detector wasn’t working properly, and instructed passengers to lie down on the conveyor belt so they could ride through the X-ray machine along with their bags.

    Regardless of your position regarding airport security, it was a hilarious sight. The “X-ray machine” was a flimsy prop made from a large wooden box with holes cut in each end, placed over a rented conveyor belt. We attached a few blinking lights to the box, along with our version of the classic airport sign: “Everything Said Will be Taken Seriously.”

    There were no actual X-rays involved. In fact, the airport’s real X-ray screening device was in another room several hundred feet away.

    We put 15 passengers through the wooden box that day—too few to be scientific, but instructive nonetheless. All but one passenger, a middle-aged man, willingly laid on the conveyor belt, belly down, and was transported through the box without protest.

    Of course, we were aiming for comedy, so I peppered my instructions with cracks like, “Looks like you ate a pretty big breakfast. What is that, a glazed doughnut?” And, “I don’t see any weapons, but you might want to have your gallbladder checked.”

    In reviewing the footage the other day, I realized that these jokes are the very ones showing up in editorial cartoons and on the Internet since full-body scanners were recently introduced at many U.S. airports.

    What seems clear to me is that pre-9/11 passengers were generally tolerant of inconvenience and obeyed authority far more than they do today. Part of the impact of 9/11 is that Americans are more concerned than ever about safety. Yet they are increasingly suspicious of the ways government goes about providing it.

    One of the recurrent themes on “Candid Camera” has involved examining many people’s mindless obedience in the face of unreasonable demands by “authority.” It’s important that we trust and obey police and other agents working to protect us. It’s certainly not reasonable to obey, without question, a uniformed guard who says the state of Delaware is “closed for the day,” or a cop who tells pedestrians they’ve entered a “walk backwards zone.” Yet I’ve got a library of footage showing that the public willingly accepts such instruction, time and again.

    About that lawsuit: One man bruised his leg getting off the conveyor and took us to court. The case, which he won, then settled after we appealed, turned out to be less about the mishap than about his claim that his privacy had been violated.

    That was then—and in recent days an increasingly frustrated public is being asked to submit to possibly risky scans and highly intrusive pat-downs, which many travelers believe violate their privacy.

    I’m tempted to say that nine years later life is imitating art in many ways, but I don’t have the audacity to call what I did for a living art. I do believe, however, it’s helpful in understanding where we’ve been and where we seem to be heading.

    I’m glad to see that many travelers are no longer simply submitting blindly to airport scanners, and are questioning invasive pat-downs. That’s actually something worth smiling about.

  57. Obama’s Economy Team Will Lose Farrell, Treasury’s Barr as Turnover Widens
    By Nicholas Johnston – Nov 22, 2010 11:00 PM CT

    Diana Farrell, deputy director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, and Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr are leaving the administration, adding to the turnover in the ranks of the White House economic team that worked on the government’s response to the worst financial crisis in more than 70 years.

    Farrell will leave by the end of the year and Barr’s last day at Treasury will be Dec. 3. Both played key roles in shaping Obama’s financial regulatory overhaul plan, which was signed into law in July.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/economic-advisers-farrell-barr-set-to-leave-administration.html

  58. U.N. Ignores Haiti and Darfur But Points Fingers at U.S., Israel

    By Anne Bayefsky

    Published November 23, 2010

    | FoxNews

    Over in Turtle Bay, the U.N. General Assembly is now wrapping up its key fall session. After taking a good hard look at human rights violations around the globe, it has come to the following conclusions about the world’s ills: In 2010, eighty percent of all its condemnations of alleged human rights abuses – twenty-one resolutions – will have been directed at Israel alone.

    The Assembly will also finish the year having decided that only six more of the 192 U.N. member states raise human rights concerns. Warranting a single resolution each are Afghanistan, Burma, Georgia, Iran, North Korea, and the United States.

    This astonishing result percolates up primarily from the General Assembly’s main committees, such as the third committee on humanitarian affairs and the fourth committee on decolonization which finish their business before Thanksgiving. All U.N. members sit in each of these committees, so that over the past two months a thousand diplomats have huddled in meetings and churned out documents, speeches, webcasts and press releases.

    All these busy bees, however, could not manage to come up with a single resolution about the horrors in Sudan – where reports of government forces killing and raping civilians in Darfur continue to surface. Tens of thousands have fled in fear this year alone, while humanitarian relief is deliberately impeded by the government in Khartoum.

    Nor did the General Assembly think Haiti warranted a resolution, though the U.N. is at the center of recent riots amid claims that its peacekeepers have fueled the cholera epidemic already affecting eighteen thousand residents.

    The billion Chinese without elementary civil and political rights went unnoticed.

    Millions of Saudi women, trapped in their homes at the will of their male guardians, were forgotten.
    And no mention was made of the other myriad number of non-democracies and human rights basket cases where torture, female genital mutilation and gross violations of every kind are routine.

    The virtual ban on country-specific human rights resolutions – except when it comes to demonizing the Jewish state – is a result of a theory of international human rights protection that has taken the U.N. by storm. It goes by many names, such as “non-selectivity,” “impartiality,” “objectivity,” and “de-politicization.” “Naming and shaming” used to be considered an important tool for encouraging change.

    At the Assembly last week, Sudan described the prevailing view of this now out-of-vogue idea. Too “negative” they called it. Today, it’s all about “constructive dialogue.”

    Every U.N. diplomat, of course, can translate this babble. “Non-selectivity” means don’t select my state, or any of my pals, for criticism. “Politicization” means any politics that is not in sync with my state’s politics is unacceptable. The game is really an old Soviet trick for avoiding scrutiny and criticism, which Islamic states and dictatorships everywhere have fully embraced.

    The problem is that Western governments have recently fallen for this nonsense too. Only two weeks ago the Obama administration sat in the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva and allowed the United States and its human rights record to be ridiculed by some of the world’s most notorious abusers – in the name of even-handedness.

    A few days later, on November 9, the Council followed-up by presenting the administration with a list of recommended reforms, itemized together with the proud sponsors. They included: “end all forms of racial discrimination” (Libya); “ensure the implementation of U.S. obligations under international humanitarian law…” (Iran); “end excessive use of force by law enforcement bodies” (China); and “ban torture and other ill-treatment in U.S. detention facilities” (North Korea).

    How did the Obama administration react to this travesty? Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, told the assembled: “The work of this very Council is very close to the history and culture of our country.” — A rolling-over-in-the-grave moment for Founding Fathers, if there ever was one.

    Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is the only senator to insist on an annual accounting of all the money U.S. taxpayers send to the U.N. every year. He finally extracted the information for the fiscal year 2009: $6.35 billion, or about 23% of the U.N.’s budget from all sources.

    Isn’t it about time our dollars were put to better use?

    Anne Bayefsky is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/23/ignores-haiti-darfur-points-fingers-israel/#ixzz168ZNLeMm

    • UN Meeting

      At the emergency meeting of the UN regarding another conflict in the Middle East, the floor has been given to the Israeli Consul.

      The Israeli Consul began, “Ladies and gentlemen before I commence with my speech, I wanted to relay an old story to all of you… …When Moses was leading the Jews out of Egypt he had to go through deserts, and prairies, and even more deserts… The people became thirsty and needed water.

      So Moses struck the side of a mountain with his cane and at the sight of that mountain a pond appeared with crystal clean, cool water. And the people rejoiced and drank to their hearts’ content. Moses wished to cleanse his whole body, so he went over to the other side of the pond, took all of his clothes off and dove into the cool waters.

      Only when Moses came out of the water he discovered that all his clothes had been stolen… And I have reasons to believe that the Palestinians stole his clothes.”

      Yassir Arafat, hearing this accusation, jumps out of his seat and screams, “This is a travesty…It’s A lie ! It is widely known that there were no Palestinians there at the time!!!”

      “And in agreement with Chairman Arafat,” said the Israeli Consul, “let me begin my speech…”

  59. November 23, 2010
    Thanksgiving with Obama, Palin, Bush … and Drudge?
    By David Paul Kuhn

    Editors Note: Below is a partial transcript from a dinner Monday night at the White House. In attendance: Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Janet Napolitano, George W. Bush and Matt Drudge. (White House officials correctly deny the dinner took place.)

    Barack Obama: I’d like to thank all of you for attending this White House pre-Thanksgiving feast. It’s a chance to sit down like Indians and pilgrims and smoke a peace pipe.

    Janet Napolitano: You can’t say that Barack.

    Obama: Yes, you’re right.

    Sarah Palin: That’s what’s wrong with you folks. You’re so politically correct. It’s why you won’t profile terrorist suspects.

    Obama: We will get to the policy discussion shortly. Firstly, I’d like to thank President Bush for coming on behalf of John Boehner, who apparently had another scheduling conflict.

    Napolitano: He’s probably at a tanning bed.

    Palin: In Alaska, the only things we tan are hides. I’ve killed things with a gun, ya know.

    Obama: Yes, Sarah, I’ve seen your reality show-

    Palin: Sundays, 9-8 central, on TLC–

    Obama: Well thank you for coming George.

    George W. Bush: My pleasure, though I didn’t know Michelle would make us eat fake tofu turkey.

    Palin: Liberals.

    Michelle Obama: Apologies, Sarah. I don’t know how to cook moose.

    Obama: Ok then. On to less contentious issues. Thoughts on this TSA mess?

    Napolitano: What mess? So people aren’t happy getting frisked. They’d be a lot unhappier with a terrorist attack. And why is it that President Bush does warrantless wire-tapping and there’s no big outcry? He lies about Iraq being linked to 9/11 and starts a war in Iraq over it. And those mythical WMDs. But Americans support him for years. People die in war. They’re only getting felt up here.

    Bush: Who invited Keith Olbermann to dinner? See, you need a color-coded alert system. It warms people to new security measures. Actually, wait until election year for that. Now Janet, let me explain this to you. First, you have tea party folks rallying a national movement with stuff like “don’t tread on me” flags. And you think it’s a good idea to start a frisk-America policy. And you got to understand, people are being touched here like it’s their prom date. This bothers everyone because everyone goes on planes and no one likes what’s being done.

    Obama: Yes, war without cost. Tax cuts without paying for them. Brilliant.

    Bush: See Barry, that’s what gets you in trouble. Are you going to offer another metaphor–yes, I know what a metaphor is–about how placing a car in reverse is like voting Republican?

    Obama: Actually, George, that’s a simile.

    Bush: Thanks professor. I realize you won a Pulitzer–

    Obama: It was a Nobel Prize. I’ve won a Grammy and Emmy too.

    Palin: I won the Alaska high school state basketball championship. They called me “Sarah Barracuda.” How ’bout a game of basketball sometime Mr. President?

    Obama: Anytime Barracuda. But don’t call the referee a liberal if you lose.

    Bush: There you go again, Barry. You can’t be so partisan. It’s not your brand.

    Obama: Yes, I forget the bridge-builder mantra sometimes. Mea culpa.

    Palin: Mea watsa? I only speak American.

    Bush: Barry, she’s joking again (Bush slaps Obama on the back).

    Obama: I’m sorry, yes. You are very humorous Sarah. You were saying George.

    Bush: Maybe the issue is the folks doing the searches. If the TSA agents looked liked Sarah here, everyone would be ok with it.

    Palin: Oh Mr. President.

    Bush: I’m joking around (chuckling). Well, a bit. I’m offering solutions here. That’s what I do. Solutions. And as we Texans would say, most of these TSA folks are so ugly it looks like they were in an outhouse when lightening striked… We should hire only good-lookin’ TSA agents. No one would complain then.

    Obama: George, we cannot discriminate against homely people.

    Bush: Sarah’s right. You’re too politically correct. You’d rather pat down old nuns than offend bad guys.

    Obama: May I remind you, you didn’t get the bad guy. You know, Osama.

    Bush: And have you? Not so easy being president, is it? And wasn’t that funny when Fox News wrote your name as Osama during the election Barry?

    Obama: Not especially.

    Bush: You need to laugh at yourself more. But really, I don’t get all this fuss about profiling. Shucks. If a bunch of white Texas good ol’ boys, you know average Joes, guys with pickups, who have ranches like real cowboys, real Americans, like me, were trying to use planes as bombs, I wouldn’t mind getting profiled.

    Obama: Real Americans?

    Bush: Oh Barry. You’re so sensitive. Don’t mind Sarah. You’re a real American… Sarah, don’t roll your eyes.

    Palin: Sorry Mr. President.

    Obama: That’s alright.

    Bush: She was apologizing to me, Barry.

    Obama: Of course. … Matt, are you posting about this under the table?

    Matt Drudge: No, Mr. President.

    Obama: Look, Matt, people didn’t want me to invite you. But in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I wanted to make peace with you as well. Off-the-record. I understand tabloid sensibilities, why the people go to your page–

    Palin: Why’d you use air quotes Mr. President for “the people?”

    Obama: Sorry. Old habits die hard–

    Palin: Like socialism?

    Obama: More like smoking–

    Drudge: You’re still smoking. Ha, I got that one right!

    Obama: I’m not smoking!

    Palin: Big sis probably won’t let you.

    Obama: Alright, allow me to finish my point … Now Matt, I don’t read Drudge, of course. But I noticed you have been obsessed with these TSA screenings.

    Napolitano: This is all your fault, Matt! You’ve made this a national sensation. Mr. President, I told you he shouldn’t be here. No one should read Drudge–

    Drudge: Hold on. Janet, didn’t you say you knew you “made it” when you saw “Drudge has a nickname for me.”

    Napolitano: I was joking.

    Drudge: Not very well.

    Bush: Ok folks. Let’s calm down. See, I’ve been thinking–

    Napolitano: That’s news–

    Bush: Not bad, big sis. But don’t forget I created your job. And you’re welcome, by the way. Back to this TSA stuff. See now, the Israelis not only profile but they use psychological screening. You know, like shrinks. That would be better. Now I personally don’t mind these new security measures. It got me out of Thanksgiving with the old man. Just told him, that on principle–see I’m a man of principle– I refuse to fly under these conditions.

    Obama: I wish it could get me out of Thanksgiving with Michelle’s family.

    Michelle: Ahem.

    Obama: Sorry dear. … You were saying George.

    Bush: This frisking bothers most folks. So here’s what you do. Fire big sis over here, and say TSA will only do this if there is probable cause. And yes, profile a bit, one-way tickets, visits to countries that hate us, every other world power profiles. Do that and I’m sure Drudgey will give you a siren. Drudgey?

    Drudge: Don’t fire big sis. She’s good for clicks. But sure, I’d give that a siren.

    Obama: And the banner headline?

    Drudge: Sure.

    Obama: And a red font?

    Drudge: Yes, and a red font.

    Obama: Hmm. I probably shouldn’t be hasty though. Maybe I should let a few committees in Congress consider the issue for the next year. Perhaps set up a commission–

    Bush: See Barry, that’s what you’re doing wrong. Just decide. Then let the eggheads squawk over it. No offense Barry, I mean other eggheads. Really though, you’re now the decider! That’s why you have this fancy house. Have you used the bowling alley by the way? It’s awesome. I used to run as fast as I could in my socks and see how far I could slide down the lane. Laura hated that.

    Obama: You’re still lucky. Michelle won’t even let me have real turkey on Thanksgiving.

    Michelle: Ahem.

    Obama: Sorry dear. … I can’t wait to eat. Actually, we should cut this organic tofu. And look at these veggies grown in our wonderful sustainable garden. Please let’s begin. Sarah, do you want to say grace?

    Palin: I knew it! You don’t even know grace, do you? Glenn was right about you. And why do you ask the conservative mom from Alaska? You think we’re all bible thumpers, don’t ya?

    Obama: Sorry, perhaps I too was profiling.

    Bush: Oh shucks. Lay off the professor, cheerleader.

    Palin: Huh, Bushey?

    Bush: I’m just playing around. I’ve been having a lot of fun lately. This book tour is great. Talking to folks, going to Denny’s a lot, watching a former critic see what it’s like to be in charge. It’s good not to be king.

    Obama: I can imagine.

    Palin: Don’t worry Obama, I mean Mr. President, I’m thinking about sorting that out for you.

    Obama: That’s actually what I do pray for.

    Bush: Barry, you’re getting all Pelosi-like again. See now, you just got your butt kicked in the election. You should be humbler. A regular fellow. Like me. Show people that you get the message. Fire someone, like I did with Rummy. Again, fire big sis over here. Do it. It’s great. Once your vice president gives you permission, you can fire anyone you want. … relax people, that’s some Cheney humor.

    Obama: I’ll take it under consideration George.

    Napolitano: What!

    Palin: You should fire yourself. You can do that, ya know. I did. It worked out great! Now I have a reality TV show, a regular position at Fox, a new book coming out and I’m a leading presidential candidate. I’m sure MSNBC would give you a primetime show.

    Michelle: Will someone please say grace?

    Palin: Ok, I’ll do it. Dear Lord, thank you for this liberal feast of tofu and raw vegetables. Please bless this table and please help this socialist president find the right path, so that he no longer molests this nation like his security agents are molesting Americans. Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

  60. Hi Ya’ll :)

    I recieved an e-mail with a WMV file of the JFK assassination. It was colorized and enhanced for clarity. It showed that the driver of the limo turned around and with his left hand firing a pistol at JFK, hitting him in the head. This peeked my interest, so I went to the Warren Commision hearings site and brought up the original 8mm film, frame by frame. Here is a chilling link to this with a clear view of the driver just before the shot and at the time of the shot. Thought this would interest some of you.

    http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0042b.htm

    • Bottom Line says:

      Lol…I just discussed the very same thing with someone the other day.

      Greer didn’t do it. What looks like a gun is actually a reflection of the sun on the front passenger’s(Roy Kellerman) hair.

      Youtube – Did the driver shoot JFK? (revised)

      JFK’s head explodes in frame #313 of the Zapruder film.

      Frame #312 (1/18th of a second before frame #313) clearly shows Greer’s hands on the steering wheel as he’s looking backward. Frame #313 also shows Greer’s hands on the wheel, …just not as clearly as frame #312.

  61. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Anyone care to speculate as to what is REALLY going on between North and South Korea, who is actually behind it, and what their motives are?

  62. Peter…..NK has been doing this for years. It is theor way of extortion of the West. They are out of food. They do not want a real war and are rolling the dice…..Obama will do nothing. NOt sure he should unless NK attacks.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: