Tuesday Night Open Mic for July 21, 2009

Open Mic 1Tuesday night looms yet again. After driving all day to Pennsylvania and back again (about twelve hours total) and dealing with Capital Beltway Traffic (I can’t believe I used to live there and put up with that daily) I am quite exhausted so I am fairly pleased to have an easy night tonight for writing. I will dedicate Topic number one to answering Ray, as he seems hell bent on attempting to prove something, although I am not sure what quite yet! But there are plenty of topics out there in the news, what with Congress attempting to put the screws to us and Hillary out there talking to other nations and California swiping city monies and calling their state budget “fixed”.  I can see tensions are running a bit high here lately. I urge everyone to remain calm and not panic. There is a lot going on. But we are FAR from being sunk yet. There is a lot of baseball yet to be played in this game. There are bad things happening, but remember that the American public may be slow, but they figure it out eventually. And it won’t be “too late”….

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Ray I wanted to answer your outrageous post so I moved it to today’s open mic so that you can find it easier….

    “Democrats should be outraged by the conduct of both this Congress and this White House”
    So what is your issue? With Congress? With President Obama? With Both? You don’t care – you attack them as one in the same. Are you pointing to ARRA or something different?

    My issue is with all of it Ray. Obama claimed he was going to change the lack of transparency in Washington DC. My issue is with Congress and their rushing bills through without reading them or giving the public time to view them and comment as the leader of their party claimed they would do. My issue is with Obama for not holding them accountable by vetoing when they slid things through in the middle of the night. And we can point to tons of bills that fit the description. HR1388 sticks in my mind. So does cap and trade. And now health care. But for the purpose here we can stick to ARRA if you like.

    “Who cares if the tactic is immoral, unfair, un-Constitutional, dirty, or even against the teachings of the God we worship.”
    – Huh? …..against the teachings of the God we worship? What the hell are you talking about?

    You should first slow down and actually read what I write before letting your panties bunch in uncomfortable ways. This was taking a shot at both Dems and Republicans who toss their beliefs and morals in the trash the second that the issue at hand gives them a reason to. “against the teachings of the God we worship” was a direct shot at christians who are willing to go against the tolerance that is taught in their religion in order to not tolerate gays in some cases, muslims in our most recent discussions. But I should have written 3 paragraphs to explain this since I wasn’t sure if you would speed read, take it out of context, and have an aneurism thinking I only talk bad about the left. I forgot your predisposed assumptions about me, erroneous or not.

    “If it takes removing individual rights to spread god’s word, that’s cool.”
    – Huh?

    Again, a shot at the religious right Ray, who generally have held that it is OK to suppress the rights on gays and those seeking abortions in order to “spread god’s word”. As I said above, you would do better to stop assuming that this is somehow a shot against the left. Then you might have actually taken the time to understand what I was saying without blowing a gasket.

    “The point is that there is no transparency in today’s government.”
    – Again – there are three branches last I checked – I guess you hold Obama responsible for all of them eh?

    Right now I hold him responsible for doing what he said he was going to do. Whether you are willing to admit so or not, he is the leader of the Democrat party. He is the President of the United States. If he wanted transparency by putting all the information out on a bill prior to the passing of it, he could go to Congress and tell them to make it happen, or he could veto anything that they don’t give transparency to. That you absolve him of everything is troubling to me. You are letting emotion get in the way of reason.

    “They promised transparency. And stupid Americans bought it. People thought they might actually get transparency. Suckers.”
    – Ok – so clue us all in – what is your definition of transparency? I think this is important here and I am surprised you don’t at least define what you were expecting or looking for. There is no opportunity to debate you when you present your point so subjectively – unsupported, illogical, and disconnected.

    I would argue against your claim of unsupported, illogical, and disconnected. I think I gave plenty of examples of a lack of transparency to explain what I meant. But to appease you I will offer a general definition. Transparency in this case is transparency as OBAMA defined it that mattered, because we were taking him at his word. According to him, we would see transparency on legislation from Congress. We would see transparency on the actions of the White House. He offered a generalization in defining transparency, which has left me wondering as well. But the way he described it I would not see closed door meeting in Congress, 4:00am additions to bills, thousand page bills passing in 11 hours, big usurpations of citizens rights tucked into page 834 of a bill. Yet we are seeing all of this. I didn’t ask him to control Congress….. He TOLD ME he would do so.

    But for giggles, let’s use the definitions that you provided:

    “Transparency, as used in the humanities and Pilatian theories, when used in a social context, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning a “transparent” object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, the freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc.”

    Let’s just take those bolded words shall we. we have closed door meetings between Democratic Congress members who don’t allow Republicans to take part in the discussion on a bill. We cannot get financial disclosure statements on where the TARP money is being spent. We get freedom of information legislation if you can decipher their lawyer speak and have time to read over a thousand pages of bullshit. Budgetary review has not been public. And the last I checked, the Inspector General for TARP can’t get audit information from Geithner, Another IG was fired for doing his job, and Congress has denied Ron Paul the ability to audit the Federal Reserve. And this is just in the first 6 months.

    “In politics transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest. In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, etc., transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available. Thus when courts of law admit the public, when fluctuating prices in financial markets are published in newspapers, those processes are transparent. Open government is the political doctrine which holds that the business of government and state administration should be opened at all levels to effective public scrutiny and oversight. When military authorities classify their plans as secret, transparency is absent. This can be seen as either positive or negative; positive, because it can increase national security, negative, because it can lead to secrecy, corruption and even a military dictatorship.”

    Again the bolded terms there are important. Effective public scrutiny and oversight. Haven’t seen this ANYWHERE thus far. Transparency is the opposite of privacy…. so why are we keeping private something as simple as the white house visitors log? Why are all the papers written by Obama prior to being a politician sealed? Why so much secrecy and failure to PERSONALLY answer the questions about birth certificates and passports? He is the President now. He has no right to privacy in these matters.

    I think Recovery.Gov was a start – read that again – a start. I think frequent and pervasive meetings, public presentations, and face time is a start. Are they as a tranparent as they could or should be? IMHO – no. I’d give them a “C+” at this point as I also now that it can be extremely difficult to change what was ‘business as usual’. I would think to give them a “F” this early into things is extraordinarily short-sighted.

    I see your point that it is short sighted to give them an F thus far, but I disagree. I have provided, in the article and these response multiple things that fail the transparency test. He gets an F thus far. Now it is early in the semester, so he has a chance to better is grade with better results on future exams, but thus far, in terms of transparency, he sucks.

    I challenge you USW to define as to what you were expecting in the way of transparency – and use you logical centers here, not your emotional ones. You claim to have at least some knowledge of how things work inside of the beltway – so do tell – what would have been reasonable and appropriate transparency at this point in the administration? (Not Congress)

    This will take an entire post at some point. But I think you get my point thus far. If not let me know (As if you wouldn’t)

    “The most obvious place to point out is in the legislation being passed in Congress and pushed by the White House. Over and over bills are being passed without the American public being given time to read them or review them, to comment or offer thoughts. Bills over a thousand pages long, full of the pork Obama promised to eliminate. Written in back rooms, added to in the middle of the night, and passed in a matter of hours before a news cycle can even pass. Bills that spend Trillions of dollars that this government does not have. Bills that usurp the right of Americans more and more. Bills that give the government more power and more ability to do even more damage in the future.”
    – Oh – ok – I get it. You’re blaming Obama rather than Congress. Now it makes sense. See what happens when you hate someone? You blame them for things they are not responsible for. Maybe you should blame Obama for C Street as well.

    No hate involved here. I am blaming both. But he promised it to me and you. He hasn’t forced transparency into these massive spending and control bills that are breezing through the Congress. That you would see Obama as deserving no blame in the things that are happening would make you appear to have your head in the sand. He is the leader of the party, the President, and he is absolutely pushing hard to make things happen. Odd that you wouldn’t hold him accountable when he comes right out and says “get me this bill by August, no excuses” but you are quick to hold Bill O’Reilly accountable when some whacko shoots an abortion doctor. Your hypocrisy amuses me.

    “By transparent, Obama meant that they want to move the control of the census into the White House where they can manipulate and transform it to ensure that they quietly use it to maintain control.”
    – Huh? Have you gone Jerry Fletcher on us? Who’d you get this ‘lack-of-factoid’ from? Michelle Malkin? Glenn Beck? Last I checked the Census Director was reporting to Commerce, not Rahm Emmanuel – http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_100/news/33051-1.html?type=printer_friendly – maybe I’m wrong here?

    Were you simply not paying attention when he attempted to pull the census into the White House under his control? When he assigned some responsibility for the census to ACORN of all groups? It wasn’t reported by Beck, the entire MSM reported it. Where was your head then?

    Obama’s citizenship – holy schnike – I think you have gone over the deep end. Is there a line you across where if you continually post about a ’supposed’ conspiracy theory then you likely believe in that conspiracy theory? This has been put to bed many times over – only to be re-hashed time and time again by the Right Wing Extremists such as Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and now, drumroll please, US Weapon. I’m disappointed in you USW. To harangue a week ago about frivolous charges being waged against a popular politician and then turn weak-kneed to this idiocy? I thought you were better than that? No? well okay then. Maybe I will write a guest column detailing the conspiracy theory that suggests Bush I and Bush II supported the successful assassination of JKF Jr. (whom they feared would ruin little Georgie’s ‘I wanna be like Daddy’ plans) – would you publish it or dismiss me as a crackpot?

    I will be happy to publish whatever you wish to write that has something to back it up. This issue has not been put to bed many times over. The only time it is claimed to be put to bed is by folks who wish it to be. But it has not. I will address this again in Topic #2 as I promised.

    I should have followed Todd and not give this an ounce of thought.

    Perhaps so…. Because given what I am reading here from you it doesn’t seem as though you did give it an ounce of thought.

    • I’d like to come up with a definition of transparency. What is it, how do you implement it, keep it up-to-date, make it user-friendly?

      How would VLDG define transparency?

      • So what are your ideas Todd?

        I know some states have open meeting laws. Do you think we should have one for the federal government?

        • JAC,
          Open meeting laws might help, but that still won’t get the info out to the public.

          I’ve thrown out some ideas, but I’m not the one complaining about transparency. I’d like to see a process everyone here can agree on.

    • And a timely example of transparency might be him meeting with blue dog Dem’s behind closed doors on health care. Or his “news conference” tonight. Anyone want to bet Fox will not be called on to ask a question?
      On today’s Morning Joe, co-host Mica stated Fox is the only network not carrying Obama’s address tonight, that they are showing a dance show. Fox is doing Obama’s conference on their news channel, so a clear false statment.

      During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said several times that he intended to negotiate health care reform publicly. In fact, he said, he’d televise the negotiations on C-SPAN, with all the parties sitting at a big table. That way, Americans would be more engaged in the process and insist on real change.

      “That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process,” Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/
      Reply

    • Even the LA Times questions Obama’s “transparancy.

      Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

      Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-healthcare-talks22-2009jul22,0,1752248.story

    • USW, you did know that righties are forbidden the use of sarcasm?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      “My issue is with all of it Ray. Obama claimed he was going to change the lack of transparency in Washington DC. My issue is with Congress and their rushing bills through without reading them or giving the public time to view them and comment as the leader of their party claimed they would do. My issue is with Obama for not holding them accountable by vetoing when they slid things through in the middle of the night. And we can point to tons of bills that fit the description. HR1388 sticks in my mind. So does cap and trade. And now health care. But for the purpose here we can stick to ARRA if you like.”

      – Fair enough, I would suggest however that the leash you have placed him on is unfairly short – changing ‘business as usual’ is very painful, tedious, and at times slow. You paint the nastiest possible picutre of a man who has implemented some measures of transparency. If, in a year, they point to ‘recovery.gov’ as their sole manifestation of transparency then they deserve harsher criticism. I do not believe Congress and the President are the same animal here – each should be taken to task separately – my impression was you took the cheap way out and lumped them all together.

      “You should first slow down and actually read what I write before letting your panties bunch in uncomfortable ways. This was taking a shot at both Dems and Republicans who toss their beliefs and morals in the trash the second that the issue at hand gives them a reason to. “against the teachings of the God we worship” was a direct shot at christians who are willing to go against the tolerance that is taught in their religion in order to not tolerate gays in some cases, muslims in our most recent discussions. But I should have written 3 paragraphs to explain this since I wasn’t sure if you would speed read, take it out of context, and have an aneurism thinking I only talk bad about the left. I forgot your predisposed assumptions about me, erroneous or not.”

      &

      “Again, a shot at the religious right Ray, who generally have held that it is OK to suppress the rights on gays and those seeking abortions in order to “spread god’s word”. As I said above, you would do better to stop assuming that this is somehow a shot against the left. Then you might have actually taken the time to understand what I was saying without blowing a gasket.”

      – No sir, you are wrong – I actually read the post several times which I was left with ‘huh?’ – in that 5th paragraph you do not distinguish between actors – you reference solely Democrats and then ‘this Congress’ and ‘this White House’ which implies you are talking about one party, not both.

      “Right now I hold him responsible for doing what he said he was going to do. Whether you are willing to admit so or not, he is the leader of the Democrat party. He is the President of the United States. If he wanted transparency by putting all the information out on a bill prior to the passing of it, he could go to Congress and tell them to make it happen, or he could veto anything that they don’t give transparency to. That you absolve him of everything is troubling to me. You are letting emotion get in the way of reason.”

      – I do not absolve him of everything. As I have indicated numerous times I am more than willing to hold him accountable for any bill he puts his John Hancock on. My statement was in regards to you insinuating “there is no transparency in government” – knowing you generally to be an absolutist I am asking you to back that up – which you have not done.

      “I would argue against your claim of unsupported, illogical, and disconnected. I think I gave plenty of examples of a lack of transparency to explain what I meant. But to appease you I will offer a general definition. Transparency in this case is transparency as OBAMA defined it that mattered, because we were taking him at his word. According to him, we would see transparency on legislation from Congress. We would see transparency on the actions of the White House. He offered a generalization in defining transparency, which has left me wondering as well. But the way he described it I would not see closed door meeting in Congress, 4:00am additions to bills, thousand page bills passing in 11 hours, big usurpation of citizens rights tucked into page 834 of a bill. Yet we are seeing all of this. I didn’t ask him to control Congress….. He TOLD ME he would do so.

      But for giggles, let’s use the definitions that you provided:”

      – You’re still ducking on how you define transparency, but more on that in a second. How do you think Obama “defined” it? Be specific and specific to things you can measure him on. As of now you are still unsupported, illogical, and disconnected.

      “Let’s just take those bolded words shall we. we have closed door meetings between Democratic Congress members who don’t allow Republicans to take part in the discussion on a bill. We cannot get financial disclosure statements on where the TARP money is being spent. We get freedom of information legislation if you can decipher their lawyer speak and have time to read over a thousand pages of bullshit. Budgetary review has not been public. And the last I checked, the Inspector General for TARP can’t get audit information from Geithner, Another IG was fired for doing his job, and Congress has denied Ron Paul the ability to audit the Federal Reserve. And this is just in the first 6 months.”

      – Ok – lets break these down shall we?

      — “we have closed door meetings between Democratic Congress members who don’t allow Republicans to take part in the discussion on a bill.” – A Congressional issue not POTUS. Closed door meetings are a function of the legislative process that have been exercised for years regardless of who controlled Congress. Do I like that? Nope. Is that POTUS problem. Nope.

      — “We cannot get financial disclosure statements on where the TARP money is being spent” – what specifically are you looking for? I stated yesterday that the recovery.gov data needs to go multiple layers deeper – perhaps that is what you are referring to?

      — “We get freedom of information legislation if you can decipher their lawyer speak and have time to read over a thousand pages of bullshit” – huh?

      — “Budgetary review has not been public.” – which review? Congressional? POTUS? I know you know that not all aspecs of the budget can be publicly reviewed.

      — “Inspector General for TARP can’t get audit information from Geithner” – share a link – I dont know what you are talking about.

      — “Another IG was fired for doing his job” – huh? Who? Specifics USW, specifics.

      — “Congress has denied Ron Paul the ability to audit the Federal Reserve” – why do you think that was the case? Is there a legit reason to allow Ron Paul to do so? Ever participated in an audit process? Have any idea how much an audit costs?

      “Again the bolded terms there are important. Effective public scrutiny and oversight. Haven’t seen this ANYWHERE thus far. Transparency is the opposite of privacy…. so why are we keeping private something as simple as the white house visitors log? Why are all the papers written by Obama prior to being a politician sealed? Why so much secrecy and failure to PERSONALLY answer the questions about birth certificates and passports? He is the President now. He has no right to privacy in these matters.”

      – You’re trying (and failing) to be clever. “An activity is transparent if…….” – you’re lost in your own hate if you insist every activity of the government should be transparent. Are you insisting such?

      “I see your point that it is short sighted to give them an F thus far, but I disagree. I have provided, in the article and these response multiple things that fail the transparency test. He gets an F thus far. Now it is early in the semester, so he has a chance to better is grade with better results on future exams, but thus far, in terms of transparency, he sucks.”

      – I wonder if you felt the same way when you first joined SPecOps – were you a failure out of the gate or a failure at 6 months because your skills or abilities were not consistent with someone at the task for 2 or 4 years?

      “No hate involved here. I am blaming both. But he promised it to me and you. He hasn’t forced transparency into these massive spending and control bills that are breezing through the Congress. That you would see Obama as deserving no blame in the things that are happening would make you appear to have your head in the sand. He is the leader of the party, the President, and he is absolutely pushing hard to make things happen. Odd that you wouldn’t hold him accountable when he comes right out and says “get me this bill by August, no excuses” but you are quick to hold Bill O’Reilly accountable when some whacko shoots an abortion doctor. Your hypocrisy amuses me.”

      – Let me be clear (again) that I am vehemently opposed to fast-tracked legislation – I don’t care if the bill is the best thing since sliced bread stuffed into a latex condom. I do not think he promised me he would force transparency into Congress – he can most certainly influence it but not force it. I honestly think this Summer and Fall will tell the story of how things will go into the 2010 elections and possibly the rest of his term. I voted for change, but not change that is waterboarded down my throat. He still has my support, but I am one of many that views things with sharp skepticism.

      “Were you simply not paying attention when he attempted to pull the census into the White House under his control? When he assigned some responsibility for the census to ACORN of all groups? It wasn’t reported by Beck, the entire MSM reported it. Where was your head then?”

      – Nice try – you’re referring to what was an ill-conceived notion – reactionary to some people whining about the first nominee they had to lead census. You went the conspiracy route – I call it bad management. Case closed.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        There he goes again… whining about people whining 🙂

      • USW: “Inspector General for TARP can’t get audit information from Geithner”

        RAY: share a link – I dont know what you are talking about.

        Ray:

        I do not know if you are getting lazy or what, but try googling neil barofsky and tarp. You will end up with about 479,00 different links in less than a second. Some of them you may actually approve of (ABC, NBC, MSNBC)!! 🙂

        *&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*
        USW: “Another IG was fired for doing his job”

        RAY: huh? Who? Specifics USW, specifics.

        Ray:

        Again, the grey matter between the ears are failing you. I do not follow politics\DC happenings that much and I know what he is referring to. Here is a hint: IG Walpin. If you want more information, you may want to refer to your posts on June 19,2009.
        *&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*

      • USWeapon says:

        – Fair enough, I would suggest however that the leash you have placed him on is unfairly short – changing ‘business as usual’ is very painful, tedious, and at times slow. You paint the nastiest possible picutre of a man who has implemented some measures of transparency. If, in a year, they point to ‘recovery.gov’ as their sole manifestation of transparency then they deserve harsher criticism. I do not believe Congress and the President are the same animal here – each should be taken to task separately – my impression was you took the cheap way out and lumped them all together.

        Both are guilty but if you feel better about them being accused separately then cool. I do offer harsh criticism. But I don’t think it is unwarranted. We are seeing SWEEPING legislation that will be with us for YEARS and YEARS. Perhaps you are willing to give him a pass on transparency now but I am not. It does no good to offer transparency once all the big bills have already passed.

        – No sir, you are wrong – I actually read the post several times which I was left with ‘huh?’ – in that 5th paragraph you do not distinguish between actors – you reference solely Democrats and then ‘this Congress’ and ‘this White House’ which implies you are talking about one party, not both.

        I apologize for not being clear enough. It seems that everyone else understood what I was saying though.

        – I do not absolve him of everything. As I have indicated numerous times I am more than willing to hold him accountable for any bill he puts his John Hancock on. My statement was in regards to you insinuating “there is no transparency in government” – knowing you generally to be an absolutist I am asking you to back that up – which you have not done.

        I am not an absolutist, but your claim here is fair enough.

        – You’re still ducking on how you define transparency, but more on that in a second. How do you think Obama “defined” it? Be specific and specific to things you can measure him on. As of now you are still unsupported, illogical, and disconnected.

        More on this later. Don’t have time in between work stuff to answer this completely.

        – “we have closed door meetings between Democratic Congress members who don’t allow Republicans to take part in the discussion on a bill.” – A Congressional issue not POTUS. Closed door meetings are a function of the legislative process that have been exercised for years regardless of who controlled Congress. Do I like that? Nope. Is that POTUS problem. Nope.

        Yesterday a closed door meeting between blue dog democrats and POTUS. As I said he can demand transparency if he wanted to.

        – “We cannot get financial disclosure statements on where the TARP money is being spent” – what specifically are you looking for? I stated yesterday that the recovery.gov data needs to go multiple layers deeper – perhaps that is what you are referring to?

        Partially yes. But I think my statement also was clear. I want specific details on where the banks are spending taxpayer money. Geithner has the answers. Let’s not pretend he doesn’t. Yet it isn’t being shared. He answers to the POTUS, no?

        – “We get freedom of information legislation if you can decipher their lawyer speak and have time to read over a thousand pages of bullshit” – huh?

        How about a common sense breakdown of everything that is in the bill Ray? A summary of all things in the ARRA or Health Care or Cap and Trade bills? Instead the only “transparency” is once the bill passes the 1,000 page thing is posted somewhere. Do you have time to read all 1,000 pages and attempt to decipher their cryptic meanings and references to other laws? Me either. So let’s start with providing a summary of EVERYTHING that is in these big bills, provided by the White House.

        – “Budgetary review has not been public.” – which review? Congressional? POTUS? I know you know that not all aspects of the budget can be publicly reviewed.

        None of it has been public thus far.

        – “Inspector General for TARP can’t get audit information from Geithner” – share a link – I dont know what you are talking about.
        – “Another IG was fired for doing his job” – huh? Who? Specifics USW, specifics.

        I saw that someone else answered this for me.

        – “Congress has denied Ron Paul the ability to audit the Federal Reserve” – why do you think that was the case? Is there a legit reason to allow Ron Paul to do so? Ever participated in an audit process? Have any idea how much an audit costs?

        Yes there is a legit reason, the FED is up to their ears crooked. They are in bed with the same companies they condemn. And yes I have participated. In a world where it is OK to spend a couple million on signs tooting your own horn, let’s not pretend that a couple million for auditing the controller of American Economics is out of the question here. Cost is not the issue. Do a google search for Ron Paul auditing the Fed… there is plenty to read as he has been attempting to do this for some time now.

        – You’re trying (and failing) to be clever. “An activity is transparent if…….” – you’re lost in your own hate if you insist every activity of the government should be transparent. Are you insisting such?

        No Ray, I am a realist. But to claim that these things can’t be done by the man that made his campaign platform that he would do so is fairly weak. I am unsure where you keep coming up with the idea of my hate clouding something. Who exactly is it that you think I hate?

        – I wonder if you felt the same way when you first joined SPecOps – were you a failure out of the gate or a failure at 6 months because your skills or abilities were not consistent with someone at the task for 2 or 4 years?

        Until someone is proven to not be a failure they are not given a slot on an active team. Bad analogy. As D13 can attest, SpecOps remains a place where you have to prove yourself BEFORE you get the job, not after.

        – Let me be clear (again) that I am vehemently opposed to fast-tracked legislation – I don’t care if the bill is the best thing since sliced bread stuffed into a latex condom. I do not think he promised me he would force transparency into Congress – he can most certainly influence it but not force it. I honestly think this Summer and Fall will tell the story of how things will go into the 2010 elections and possibly the rest of his term. I voted for change, but not change that is waterboarded down my throat. He still has my support, but I am one of many that views things with sharp skepticism.

        Glad to hear it. If I didn’t think you were usually sensible I wouldn’t bother discussing back and forth with you.

        – Nice try – you’re referring to what was an ill-conceived notion – reactionary to some people whining about the first nominee they had to lead census. You went the conspiracy route – I call it bad management. Case closed.

        Yes an ill-conceived notion. Yes a bad management decision. No I didn’t call it a conspiracy theory. What I did call it was a lack of transparency. Pulling the census office into the White House would lessen transparency and lessen legitimate oversight. It was NOT about some nominee to head the census. This was the administration’s plan until public opinion forced them to abandon it as I recall, although it has been months and trillions of dollars since then, so I could be wrong.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I know these bills are triple spaced in font size 15 – but any bill that reaches 1000 pages must be tossed out. I am still reading cap n trade.

  2. Concerned in Michigan says:

    Could we please debate the advantages and disadvantages of the federal government NOT recognizing any marriage/civil union (straight or gay)? If marriages/unions were only recognized by religious organizations and the government was “out of the marriage business” would this be a help or hindrance to our society/culture/nation? What if there were no “marriage penalty,” no vicious arguments about whether marriage is for gays, too, no understood rights of a spouse to inheritance/insurance/etc? Would these (and many others) be helpful to us as a nation or not? I don’t know. What do you think? [And if this has been covered elsewhere on the site, please point me in that direction.]

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      This has been covered on the site before, but it was a while ago. I will leave it to USW or someone else to pull up the reference.

      One of the ideas that some of us had at the time was precisely what you are asking about. Get government out of the marriage business entirely, and leave it up to religious institutions who they choose to allow to marry and who they do not.

      Hopefully USW or one of the others here can point you to that discussion in the archives here… as I recall it was a few months ago at least.

    • Concerned:

      You said: “Would these (and many others) be helpful to us as a nation or not?”

      Anything that removes the Federal and in most cases the State government from out daily lives and our relationship with other people is GOOD for us as Free people and as a nation of free people. It is in fact required in order for us to become FREE.

      Headed your way this weekend. Will hit Michigan middle of next week. Any suggestions on where I should make sure to visit? Detroit is not on my list by the way, unless Peter wants to visit then might pass by on the way to Indy.

      JAC

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        You don’t need to go out of your way just for me, but it would be fun to meet up sometime if I am in your neighborhood or you are in mine 🙂

      • Concerned in Michigan says:

        There’s lots of beautiful places. If you are in the Dearborn area I’d highly recommend the Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village. We live 3 1/2 hours away on Michigan’s “West Coast” (lakeshore west of Grand Rapids). If you are coming this direction, have USW send you my email address and I can give you more specifics on Grand Rapids and the “coast.” Since I didn’t grow up in MI I’m not an expert about the whole state, but will give you what I know. Have a pleasant journey!

    • Okay folks, and USW!

      If you care to check it out . . . In the state of Hawaii . . . Drum roll please! . . . The “Certificate Of Live Birth” IS – and I repeat this for dramatic effect – IS- the document issued in lieu of the actual “Birth Certificate” and cannot be issued UNLESS the individual was ACTUALLY BORN within the the borders of the State of Hawaii.

      GOOGLE IT!

  3. Obama’s Citizenship…yes, I’m going to bring this up. A few days ago JAC asked Ray and I:

    If “authenticated” documents were found to show Mr. Obama’s mother was no longer a citizen before his birth and he was not born on U.S. soil, what would you do then?

    Would you support his removal?

    We both gave one word answers – “Yes”.

    I’d like to ask similar straight forward questions:

    What would it take for you to believe Obama is a natural born citizen?
    If that information was provided, would you discredit this conspiracy theory?

    • USWeapon says:

      Yes I would. I am not of the mind that he is NOT a citizen. I simply don’t understand why he isn’t answering the charges personally. It is a big deal. Each day that passes without him answering the questions brings more people to believe he has something to hide.

      But to answer your question, I would absolutely actively work to discredit conspiracy theories the second proof was offered from a source I feel I can trust.

      • Yes, USW, and here is the deal, as far as I’m concerned:

        IF the appropriate birth records exist he is being an ASS by not releasing them. How appropriate 🙂

        IF they do NOT exist, he is a FRAUD, and is illegally POTUS.

        HE ALONE is 100% responsible for both scenarios.

        • Should Obama respond to every conspiracy theory about himself?

          http://www.davidicke.com

          That man and many others believe Obama is in fact a giant extraterrestrial lizard. Why doesn’t Obama prove himself to not be a giant lizard?

          When you start to try to appease a group of conspiracy theory nuts that wont believe any evidence you produce anyway then all you do is end up banging your head against a wall.

          • Lets get real here folks!! There is a VAST difference between this nut job and those, like myself, who would just like to have Obama answer one little question.

            • Why does David Ickes conspiracy theory have any less relevancy than yours? I would have thought that having a giant lizard for President would be of much greater concern than whether he was a US citizen. I have also heard Obama is a secret muslim terrorist and that he is in fact the antichrist, why does he not respond to those theories as well?

              http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

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

              • He did respond to the Muslim accusation and thus makes the cojoined muslim terrorist moot as the second requires the first.

                But alas poor Bob, why did he address the Muslim issue, along with many others but allowed the air of secrecy to develop on all things Obama that involved written documents?

                Perhaps he wanted it to stay alive? Perhaps answering one question would create more and then more and eventually something is discovered?

                All fun to speculate but doesn’t mean a darn thing in the big scheme of things.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If the giant extraterrestrial lizzard has a valid US birth certificate, he/she is good for President in my book! 🙂

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                JAC – I’m not sure you have this correct – I found the following which would seem to indicate the issue was put to bed, not by Barack Obama, but by CNN. Do you have something that would indicate otherwise?

                http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

              • Bob,

                There is no evidence of the existance of giant extra terrestrial lizards invading earth. There are, however, many examples of lying, corrupt politicians destroying wealth, lives and countries. The reason conspiracy theories thrive, is that the public no longer trusts those whom they’ve traditionally trusted. We’ve been lied to so often, that we can no longer be sure of the truth. Until that problem is corrected, nothing will improve. Trust is the foundation of all human relationships. Ever had a spouse, child or friend you couldn’t trust? How’d that turn out?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Bob,

            How do you, yourself prove that you are not, in fact, a giant extraterrestrial lizzard?

            Also, you probably have a perfectly valid Birth Certificate (NOT a “Certificate of Live Birth”) which you can (and do) produce easily when needed.

            • Simple blood test should do it.

              My original birth certificate was lost long ago.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                My original was lost long ago as well, but I was able to contact the health department in the State where I was born and obtain a certified copy of it. Not sure if that can be done in European countries as well, but I assume there is some mechanism.

                And yes, simple blood test should be sufficient for the giant extra-terrestrial lizzard conundrum, barring bizzare DNA similarities 🙂

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Dee – you’re not even in left field – you’re in the parking lot. The entire theory has been debunked and there is zero value in our President legitimizing this insanity.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ray,

            If the President, in fact, has an actual Birth Certificate (not just a “Certificate of Live Birth), why is it of ZERO VALUE for him to simply produce the darn thing???

            Seems pretty simple to me 🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              It legitimizes the craziness.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                So, when you are asked to produce your birth certificate in order to obtain a driver’s license, that legitimizes the craziness as well 🙂

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                As a normal course of living his entire life he would have been required to supply it (or something as defined by I-9): DL, SF86, law school, employment, etc.

              • Ray;

                Not true if in fact he is a citizen, which I am sure he is. An I-9 only requires a drivers license and SS card or passport as an alternative to the prior two.

                None of those institutions require you prove you were born in the US just that you are a citizen of the US.

                I believe he is a citizen, but to become President you have to have been born in the US or born to US citizens.

                I suspect that he was born in the US otherwise some form of proof to the contrary would have been made public.

                That does not dismiss his obligation as an elected official to prove it beyond a doubt.

              • Black Flag says:

                Not true.

                He has no such obligation

                The onus is upon the elections officials to demand proof!

                If they do not ask, he does not need to provide it.

              • Ray;

                BTW: How about my article published on these pages in May. Barry was hand picked based on his presentation skills, public oppinion, minority status, Kennedy like swagger, and overall image to be the front man of the whole democratic plan to turn the country.

                How about that for a conspiracy?

                More below

                CM

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Oh, and the fact that he refuses to produce a valid birth certificate ENCOURAGES the craziness, by the way 🙂

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Only question then is will Oliver Stone turn it into a movie? Who would play your role Peter? I’m think Tom Cruise (of the Oprah Winfrey jumping on couches days)?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                That would be good! 🙂

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You are missing the entire point of conspiracy theories – they do not go away – ever – regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The JFK conspiracy is alive and well – Oliver Stone be damned. It is a sad testament that conservatives have now latched onto this as an issue when so many other things merit attention.

        • Right you are Ray…but let me offer this. Both you and Bob have a valid point but he is surrounded by a very large staff that can disseminate information. They do it all the time. As a matter of fact, if he let some staff flunkie prove up the documents, it even shows that it is not of concern and was relegated to lower levels of unimportance. But his refusal? Adds to the fire. Obama does not have to answer these directly. It seems that if he or staff can debunk a couple of these issues early on, then other issues later on carry less credibility. I was, at one point, willing to give this man and his administration, some leeway and I really did want to see change for the better…not this abuse of power that is now happening. His cowardice in NOT wielding the VETO to make good his promises to me (ie: the same transparency issues that you and I agreed on earlier)makes him NO DIFFERENT and I will no longer give benefit of doubt….”show me the money” to use a well worn metaphor. Well, show me he has this country at heart and I will, once again, offer some leeway. You do not seem to think he can control congress and the democratic party and I say, yes he can…IF he has the stones to do it. That VETO power is like wielding an atomic bomb…. I don’t think that even the lost liberal left in Congress would have the stones to override….but it can never be proven because, it is doubtful, that it will happen.

          • v. Holland says:

            My only question is :if his citizenship wasn’t proven-why was he allowed to run for President?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I think as you and I are seeing – some of the supposed majority in Congress is beginning to fight back – and rightfully so.

            I can play the devil’s advocate here and suggest that maybe they want the crazies on the right to get into a tizzy on this – works to distract absolutely critical dialogue and debate on very pervasive policy issues.

        • v. Holland says:

          The problem with all this conspiracy theory discussion IMO is that it should never have become an issue. There are rules that govern who can become president and there is an organization that’s responsibility it is to make sure anyone who runs meets that criteria (before they become President). If they have done they’re job than the first time there was a question raised the election whatever should have come out with the proof of his citizenship, if they didn’t do their jobs some heads should roll.

    • Wow – I love to stir things up!

      I asked two little questions, and only USWeapon answered one of them…

      Ray & I are “4 for 4.” See ‘Ditto’ below…

      The rest of you are “1 for I can’t count that high…” 😉

    • A related question, but I don’t mean this related to Obama. And I will not use any answers to defend Obama…

      Is the natural born citizen requirement for Pres/VP really necessary anymore?

      Is US Citizen and 14 year resident enough?

      The natural born citizen was included to stop a foreigner from becoming president and turn the USA back into a European colony.

      I think we’re past that. I don’t see a reason for the natural born citizen part anymore.

      Anyone else?

      • Cyndi P says:

        I see plenty of reason for a POTUS to be a natural born citizen. I don’t believe a foreigner could ever fully appreciate or understand our culture more than a life long citizen. But more importantly, its a matter of alligance. What’s to stop a slick talker from another country from buying his/her way into office for duplicitous purposes? I want an American as American president. The natural born requirement doesn’t ensure that we don’t get a treasonous president butI believe it will cut down on the chances. What country on earth would allow an American to become its leader? I can’t think of a single one. I’m sure they have their reasons. Then there are the give an inch, take a mile considerations. Why even require citizenship? Proof of citizenship or even ID isn’t considered important for voters anymore, the arguemnt being that requiring identification from ALL voters when voting discriminates against non whites! So if ID and proof of citizenship isn’t required for voters, why should it be a requirment for POTUS?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Cyndi – aside from the litany of contradictions in your posting, I will simply add that I have met many newly minted U.S. citizens in my travels that view their newly minted citizenship as the absolute best thing that has ever happened to them – many of them more knowledgeable and passionate about our Country, culture, history and traditions than many born and raised here.

        • Black Flag says:

          The logic of the writers of the Constitution about birth vs. earned citizenship regarding the President was because he is Commander in Chief – he runs the Army.

          The thinking was that a man may still have some allegiance to his birth country -and being in command of the army- could use that power (or not use that power) in favor of his birth nation.

      • Do you really want a President Schwarzenegger or Huffington?

        • Black Flag says:

          Is this an example of freedom, Earl? Getting to pick between these two?

          • They’re just the first two to pop into my head. If you want to add Demjanjuk to that list go ahead.

          • Black Flag says:

            Does it really matter who is President?

            Any person who gets the ‘prize’ must be a corrupt, duplicitous, probably evil, but certainly an immoral man.

            Why do you want anyone to be President?

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Cyndi P. asked me:

    Why are you so adverse to being a conspiracy theorist? Political scheming has been with us through all of human history. Why should it suddenly disappear now? You (and I) have much reason to believe in some kind of conspiracy. We all do if we stop worrying about what the Obamatrons think. I mean, really, why are they so important? They are willfully blind.

    Cyndi, I am averse to being a conspiracy theorist because most of the “conspiracy theories that I read have little to no merit when I look at them rationally. Every now and then I read one worth discussing, however, I have avoided issue like this primarily because of the reaction of people on the opposite side of the topic, as evidenced by Ray’s response to it above. I don’t know the truth about the Obama citizenship thing. But I see this as a major issue if true, and one that the President should be willing to come out and squash quite easily if he chooses to. I won’t accept the childish statement that it is a right wing tactic to say “lack of proof equals guilt”, as someone wrote yesterday. That is a tactic the MSM uses every day, so I guess it would be a right wing tactic according to crazy ass Jeanine Garofalo. The fact is that we are expected to trust factcheck.org as our answer to this question, when the leader of the free world should be willing to step forward and offer an explanation HIMSELF. He dedicates hours of face time to convincing him this farce of a health care bill is good, but can’t take a half hour to do a press conference to address the question raised by thousands of citizens about his eligibility to be President. This issue has been put to bed the same way that the debate about man made global warming is settled…..

    But I avoid these issues because it gets in the way of constructive discussion. You see, the tactics of the MSM and the left include ridiculing anyone who makes a point on the right. To even suggest that a conspiracy theory might be true gets you labeled as a radical wingnut by Ray and his cohorts. And then you can’t have an intelligent conversation with them about anything, because they simply dismiss you as crazy. Sometimes it is OK to discuss some of these theories and hash out what is real and what is not. But as you can see by Ray’s response to them, even that is akin to “going off the deep end”. The most effective way of silencing dissent….. now you have witnessed it first hand from the lips (or fingers) of Ray.

    The claims that I am crazy if I even ask the question are irrational and have no merit. However, it is irrelevant whether I am sane or not. The left will effectively portray me as insane just for evening mentioning a conspiracy theory. So I avoid them because it is easier to do so. I avoid them because those with opposing viewpoints are unable to discuss the theories rationally. If no rational discussion can be had, what is the point of bringing them up? Even if a valid discussion could be had, it isn’t worth the hassle.

    What does everyone else think about this?

    • Cyndi P says:

      Good evening to you USW! At least its evening where I am…..

      Thanks for addressing the conspiracy theory concept as promised.

      I agree that most conspiracy theories have no merit once looked into. However, that’s not to say that all theories have no merit. If observations fit the theory, is it still craziness? I agree that libs will come unglued if we try to have rational discussions about ‘conspiracy theories’. YOu’re correct that they will label us kooks and be dismissive of what we have to say. They also call us racists, and right wing extremists, so they can shut us down. Its very effective if we let it be. Why should we surrender our power to them when so much is at risk? If I recall correctly, Christopher Columbus was labeled a kook for thinking the earth was round. Turns out he was correct. Now, what would have happened if he’d let the ‘sane’ ones stop him from setting sail? History would have been very different. If we let the Left shut us down, might not history be very different?

    • Good morning USW….and everybody. Conspiracy theories abound on both sides….Don’t I hear the left screaming conspiracy of the right trying to silence them? Don’t I hear the right always claiming that the left is trying to silence them through conspiracy? A non transparent government is a breeding ground for conspiracy. Take away the water,fertilizer, and the sun and the weed won’t grow…..(sorry, some home spun analogy here). Open up the government and the theories disappear. Pretty simple actually.

      Conspiracy theorists abound and usually without merit (ie: the twin towers could not be brought down by a single plane or two (heat ratios and such) or the levee’s in New Orleans were blown up by the Bush administration during the middle of a hurricane used as a cover (loud explosions were supposedly heard during the storm or some such like this.)

      You want a conspiracy? How about this one. Obama and the democratic party intentionally lied to get a majority elected and had every intention of not changing anything and jamming in down our throats because we, as a Nation, are too stupid (will believe most anything told to us) and lethargic (laziness) to do anything about it. How about that one…. oh..reality cannot be theory. Darn…I will try another one.

      Nancy Pelosi, Chistopher Dodd, and Barney Frank are actually aliens from outer space on a secret mission to destroy the earth…ohhh…reality again. Elvis and Dennis Rodman MUST be in good company.

      Do not mean to make light of conspiracies (there have been some actual ones) but I have not found much credence in the ones lately (meaning the last 20 years). There is so much deceit going on and power grabs…there is no need for conspiracy except to incite the weak. Not making fun of you Cyndi, really am not, but I have to take all that is happening these days with a dose of reality.

      I encourage you to continue to post here. It is enlightening if not entertaining at times. Continue to be a voice.

      D13

      • OK, this is getting out of hand.

        I can buy off on the citizenship thing with a little stretch. Maybe even the blown levies.

        But this: “You want a conspiracy? How about this one. Obama and the democratic party intentionally lied to get a majority elected and had every intention of not changing anything and jamming in down our throats because we, as a Nation, are too stupid (will believe most anything told to us) and lethargic (laziness) to do anything about it.”

        My God man, have you lost your mind? How irrational must one be to believe that such a thing could ever happen. I suppose the next thing you will be telling us is that these people conspire to go around telling us that the solution to government ineffectiveness and inefficiency is more government.

        Please stop, my sides are aching.

        A very hot 88 here yesterday colonel. Was thinking of you Texicans as I was sitting in the shade reading and looking up at the big blue sky.

        The best to you this wonderful morning.
        JAC

        • JAC;

          That one gave me a gut bust’en laugh, thanks.

          CM

        • Ummm…JAC….that was my point… The stupidity of it…What makes me laugh, my Big Sky Friend, is that you bought it…..that I was actually serious. American politics has always been that. LOL..

          Ok, you better sit down for this next one. Sitting? Ok.

          The ever illustrious US Government has asked me….put on your seat belt JAC..you and BF, CM, and others will probably wilt over this….ok you ready?

          I have been asked to contract…yes…to contract with the United States Army as a civilian contractor to supervise and create new SOP’s for company grade officers (2LT 1LT and Capt.)to teach them small unit tactics in command and control. Ahhhhhhh…..back in the fold of teaching destruction, mayhem, and general blowing things up. Have not accepted yet…still thinking about it. Have my new sports therapy practice to consider…won’t stop me from blogging because as a civilian, I can be politically vocal. As an active officer, we are prohibited from public statements and taking political sides.

          Ok, now get your breath again…the small unit tactics are designed for National Guard Officers and the Texas/New Mexico border areas to help in enforcement of drug and gun trafficking. This is a worthwhile project. Texas is having an increasing problem of drug trafficking in remote areas where the ranchers and their foremen are being shot, cattle killed, homes burned….all on the Texas side. This is something you will never see on the msm. Our border area is like it was back in the 1800’s. Don’t know if you have seen it or not but there are already 1100 deaths across the border from El Paso. On the Mexico side but we want to keep it there. So, small unit reservists are going to help patrol. Not Federal troops but National Guard called up by the governor.

          Gotta think on this one some.

          • My Texas friend: “Ummm…JAC….that was my point… The stupidity of it…What makes me laugh, my Big Sky Friend, is that you bought it…..that I was actually serious. American politics has always been that. LOL..”

            I completely got it and was trying to expand your joke to a size comensurate with your homes state.

            I have no problemo with you contracting with US Army to teach our guys how to survive and do their job. I am curious as to whether there is plans for Guard to actually begin engaging these bad guys or if the command and control is just for small unit recon and intimidation operations. I thought the Pres. had not allowed the Guard units to make direct contact.

            Has that changed to your knowledge? And I am very aware of how bad it is down there in places. Not personally seen but met with those who did, including my spousal unit leader.

            New conspiracy……wait for it………….This is just the beginning of our preparation to invade Mexico.

            Now a proff. question. What would tactical level SOP’s for command and control look like vs. say strategic level? What types of things would be considered, without giving away the farm of course. I would consider CC as basically a tactical level and logistical matter all together.

      • Okay,

        It looks like I’m the one to pick up the banner for Nubian 😉

        I’ll say it again: Some conspiracy theories are quite believable, particularly when observations fit. There is plenty of historical evidence of corrupt politicians destroying wealth, lives and countries. They do this for their own gain, whatever that may be. Why is it so hard to acknowledge the possibility that this is the presnt case? What is so insane about that? As an extreme example, let’s consider Nazi Germany for a moment. Can we say that most citizens imagined what their country would like by 1945? Can we say many of them thought that 6 million people would be exterminated in work camps? Can we say most people thought their cities would be rubble? Can we say most people thought their nation would be devastated? If they thought these things were possible, why did they support Hitler and his party? There were many examples of nations being destroyed, prior to WWII. Can we say they were aware of human history? So, if they knew all this was possible, why did they go along with it? I would say that they thought the possibilty of what actually happened was impossible, too crazy, insane. And yet, it happened in a few short years.

        History, you can’t make this stuff up. 🙂

    • This whole issue is one I’ve followed since long before the election. I initially thought it was ridiculous but continued to research and sought out sites that reported factual information. My conclusion is that there is certainly something here and one that, instead of putting an end to it, BO has hired teams of lawyers and spent a lot of money fighting the lawsuits that have been filed.

      First there is the long form birth certificate issue that has never been presented. Someone mentioned just going to HI Dept. of Records and requesting it? Remember, everything of historical importance on this guy is sealed. So then you wonder if there is such a document.

      The other area of question is what constitutes a Natural-born citizen in that by his own admission his father was a Kenyan, which was under British rule at the time of his birth, and a natural born citizen means born to two US citizens on US soil (McCain was born in Panama while his father was stationed there and prior to the election he asked for an interpretation to verify that he was qualified; it was determined that he was. BO asked for no such interpretation).

      He truly might be a natural born citizen, born in Hawaii and legimate, however, there must be something he doesn’t want out there. Perhaps he exagerated/lied (him???) about something in his two auto-biographical books and the release of the BC will expose him?

      What is absurd is how little proof is required through the election process. I did a FOIA request of my Secy. of State, (I would encourage you all to do this, just to see what your state does), and all I got was a signed form by…….Pelosi! verifying BO’s eligibility. I asked for back up documentation and they said…..”that’s it”.

      I did a FOIA request of Pelosi’s office and have heard nothing back and from what I gather from others that requested such, I will not hear back.

      The ramifications could be significant if someone, somewhere finally talks and he isn’t in fact eligible. I don’t think that will happen, but there is a bill proposed that would prevent this lapse in oversite from happening in future elections, so if BO is pulling crap, it will come out in 2012.

      You are right, USW, by even stating the above, I’m opening myself up to ridicule, so be it. I also have done my own homework, however, will not do others homework, another frequent comeback when, especially Ray and Todd disagree with something. Just do some reading, file FOIA documents, ask why something so simple like a certified long form birth certificate hasn’t been provided.

      Ironically, my son is playing in a state baseball tourney this upcoming weekend and one of the requirements for each player is a “Certified, actual birth recorded, signed birth certificate”. Go figure!

      • Kathy,
        Are you looking for a response??

        a natural born citizen means born to two US citizens on US soil

        This isn’t quite right. It’s born to US citizens or on US soil.

        And it’s really more complicated than that. There’s no official definition of natural born citizen in the constitution, and congress has never passed a law to clarify it.

        Can you provide a link to the information that shows McCain is eligible to be president?
        How about Palin? VP requirements are the same as president.

        a signed form by…….Pelosi! verifying BO’s eligibility

        How could this NOT satisfy you??? Jeez, what do you want?? 🙂

        certified long form birth certificate hasn’t been provided

        A couple thoughts:
        * How should it be provided? Image on a website or?
        * If it was provided, might it be copied, photo shopped to look invalid, and then sent to EVERYONE on the internet? Conspiracy theories just exploded by 100+ fold…

        And then Obama’s Technology Czar would have to shut down the internet in the interest of national security. So keeping the information private is really to protect your first amendment rights… 😉

      • Kathy,

        Can you show me examples that justify this:

        I also have done my own homework, however, will not do others homework, another frequent comeback when, especially Ray and Todd disagree with something.

    • Not the same factcheck.org as the “Obama – Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) – Annenberg Foundation – “factcheck.org”” one?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I see this as conspiracy theory – you do not – that is our fundamental disagreement. Since I see this as a conspiracy theory I am thus required to engage and stand firm on my beliefs on how one should react (or not react) to the theory itself. To respond to the conspiracy theory is to legitimize the theory. As I have explained elsewhere, as evidenced no less by the JKF conspiracy theory, to legitimize the theory is to give it legs that will never ever go away. You have harangued continuously, on a daily basis almost, that you believe almost nothing that comes from President Obama or his administration. Peter, in a posting herein, has made it quite clear that he thinks the President Obama is a liar.

      So – for argument’s sake, let’s say he calls a press conference, hell – put him in front of a full session of Congress. Let’s says the magical + valid original raised-seal birth certificate is produced in front of all the cameras and all the nation. Why am I to believe that, as someone who goes to great lengths to express how dishonest you think he is, you will believe the document to be authentic? What happens then? Maybe you would believe it is true – but what of the ilk in that conspiracy crowd, that in the face of ‘as close to 100%’ evidence as you are going to get – would still believe it was fabricated or faked? You need go no further than your radio dial (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham, etc) to know that short of a video of him being born in a U.S. hospital, there will always be a dispute from now forward. People love conspiracy theory because it makes GREAT FICTION – but we sell ourselves way way short when we latch on to such and pass it as fact or quasi-fact that must be proven true or false.

      You are flat wrong on this USW – and we will forever disagree on this.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        As I have said in many of my posts, ALL politicians lie.

        Obama just happens to be the easiest target to pick on for it at the moment since many of his are blatantly obvious (see my post on #10 where I directly quote things that Obama has actually said and simply make them true/false questions).

        Bush also lied (a lot), Clinton also lied (a lot), Bush #1 lied (a lot), Reagan lied (a lot), Carter lied (a lot)… I am sure you get the picture.

        Out of them all, I liked Reagan’s lies the best, but they were still lies. Obama just makes himself such an easy target for being called a liar since his original quotes are out there everywhere to be easily found.

        • Wait now Peter………. I was with you up to Carter….he went past a lot…it was basically all the time with him. 🙂

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Peter – I am seriously trying to understand rationale here.

          1. If you believe most everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, why in the world would you believe him (or his lackeys) if they all of sudden produced a supposed real birth certificate?

          2. For the President at this point to respond, only adds legitimacy to the issue – legitimacy that it does not deserve whatsoever. I’ll keep coming back to the JFK example – sure – there is compelling circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy, the so-called grassy knoll – but those theories have been debunked time and time again. However – the cottage industry of conspiracy still exists. Why would this be different? The second he produces said document (he never will), the issue becomes perpetuated. And recall – he was the one that put the original ‘certification’ out there – due to dispute over his middle name. The State of Hawaii has validated the original, the newspaper that published his original birth announcement has produced copies of the original announcement. Factcheck (I know I know – they no good right – even though Annennberg was staunchly Republican) has validated accuracy. Its done. Leave it alone.

          3. In validating the lunatic fringe here (and sorry folks, if that is you, then tough – you are purely f’ing crazy if you believe in this horseshit), leading Republicans have sunk to the lowest common denominator – disgusting, despicable, dog-shit-on-my-shoe politics. Funny how the white guys never received this type of scrutiny (George Romney, John McCain, Barry friggin Goldwater) regarding validity of natural citizenship. Conservatives/Republicans/Asshole of the Year Richard Shelby – listen to me – listen to Michael Medved – you are blowing it in a HUGE way. By playing to the crazy ass fringe you are continually diminishing the power of your voice. Yes – I am a Democrat, a left of center liberal – but I know there is some value in a capable conservative base that can focus on their core issues. This shit you are pulling is self-destructive – think about it – regardless of what happens you’re gonna look like shit. If a valid birth cert appears you look like petty assholes. If, as they should, ignore this stupidity, you will continually marginalize your own message – um – whatever the hell the message is anymore. The right ammo is right in front of your damn faces – see the press conference tonight? What a load of crap! Here was an opportunity go Malcolm X and bring the message down to Earth – and – it was a dud.

          • Ray,

            Why do you persist in believing that Obama is who he says he is? Why is anyone who doubts he is, considered crazy? If someone tells you they are descended from royalty do you automaticly believe it, or do you ask for proof? If they refuse it and you begin to question their truthfulness, does that make you crazy? Obama has gained more than most people by being the president of the United States. He stands to lose everything if it turns out he isn’t who he says he is. He has great to incentive to lie, and his cronies as well. The money and power they have becuase of the title are impressive.

            Everything President Bush did in his entire adult life was scrutinzed, some of it very harshly. Yet Obama is a mystery except for two books. He’s not an accomplished individual compared to other presidents. He’s a smooth reader. When he talks without a script, he reminds me of some of the stoner crowd I used to know. Needless to say, the guy doesn’t impress me.

            • CyndiP,
              Do you have any information/proof that Obama is not a natural born US citizen?

              Does innocent until proven guilty apply to any of this?

              Do you really think Obama has not been scrutinized? Did you pay attention during the election? Especially during the primaries? The other Dem candidates – especially the Clintons – dug into every little bit of his past. The problem is there wasn’t much there, so people have latched onto the birth certificate issue.

              • Cyndi P says:

                Todd,

                I don’t have proof that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, anymore than you have that he is, forged/internet created copies excluded. I guess I could make something up that says he was born in Kenya. Better yet, we could just ask his grandmother. Let’s have her swear on a Koran and then show her the proof of her boasts! Let’s talk to the villagers who claim him!

                I believe that Obama has not been fully scrutinized by those who are fascinated by by his creamy skin color. The Clintons are very clever political creatures who will use whatever information they have to good effect. Hillary whipping out the Kenyan records, dancing around waving them in the air would be just as damaging to her, and the Democrat party, as to Obama. Better to use the knowledge discretely. Too many folks are fascinated by his complextion. Its better to wait until his popularity fades before delivering the fatal blow. That’s how I would go about it. Sail with the tide, don’t ya know.

                Obama is not being tried in a court of law, though I’ld really like to see that. Are you proposing this? Oh wait a minute, about thiry cases have been submitted to the Supreme Court and they’ve ALL been dismissed without consideration. But, hey let’s settle it in court. Please.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Cyndi:

                To your comment:
                “I believe that Obama has not been fully scrutinized by those who are fascinated by by his creamy skin color. The Clintons are very clever political creatures who will use whatever information they have to good effect. Hillary whipping out the Kenyan records, dancing around waving them in the air would be just as damaging to her, and the Democrat party, as to Obama. Better to use the knowledge discretely. Too many folks are fascinated by his complextion. Its better to wait until his popularity fades before delivering the fatal blow. That’s how I would go about it. Sail with the tide, don’t ya know.”

                – Fair enough – as an Obama supporter I must mesmerized by his “creamy skin color”. I like that logic – so by extension can state that your opposition to him is based at least partially on the color of his skin?

                “Obama is not being tried in a court of law, though I’ld really like to see that. Are you proposing this? Oh wait a minute, about thiry cases have been submitted to the Supreme Court and they’ve ALL been dismissed without consideration. But, hey let’s settle it in court. Please.”

                – You want President Obama tried in a Court of law? For what? Winning the election? His “creamy skin color”? Please do tell.

              • So Ray,

                You’ve admitted to being a racist. Why should I listen to anything you have to say? I can now dismiss you. But I will say this: I’m simply pointing out that 95% of black and many whites voted for him BECAUSE of his skin color. Gee, I must be a racist. BTW, its not illegal to be one you know. I look at the way blacks treat whties these days. Racist behavoir is perfectly acceptable, so long as its anti white.

                I was willing to give Obama a chance but there isn’t a single thing he did or said that convinced I was wrong about him.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Cyndi – nice job – you have really stepped in it now.

                1. Per your comment regarding 95% of black and many whites voting for President Obama due to his skin color – you have clearly demonstrated yourself to be of the most ignorant, ill-informed and hateful people I think I have ever come across. And yes – a clear demonstation of racist behavior. Its not illegal for you to be a racist – you have every right not to like people based on the color of their skin. You also look at the way black treat whites these days? Care to elaborate? At first I thought you were a poor confused soul with respect the citizenship non-issue – now I clearly see that are deeply ingrained in the lunatic fringe. If you are going to view things based on skin color then you are precluded from offering that you were willing to ‘give him a chance’ – I would suggest that with folks like you he has never had a chance.

                2. My statement made to you was presented in sarcasm – but intended to see how you would respond – of course you went off the deep end. I’d like you to offer up proof as to why I am a racist.

            • Hey Cyndi,

              If you want some kicks, go over to MSNBC amd read:

              “Analysis: Obama’s lackluster health care message”

              At the bottom, be sure to click “discuss story”.

              Maybe, just maybe, people are waking up 🙂

              • Thanks Dee. I hope you’re right. I hate where America is headed. Our problems don’t end with Obama. He’s just a symptom. I don’t know if its even possible to undo the damage that liberalism has done to the US and Western Civilization.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Cyndi:

              “Why do you persist in believing that Obama is who he says he is?”

              – What? Why do I persist in believing Barack Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen? Because there is overwhelming evidence that does not merely suggest, but proves he is. It is evidence provided by people other than Barack Obama. The notion that he is not a citizen was born from the lunatic fringe, which sadly, is becoming the business-as-usual for all conservatives.

              • Do the wods Bush Derangement Syndrome mean anything to you, Ray?

                I can’t believe you accuse me and other conservatives of being crazy, yet you completely ignore the behavoir of liberals when it comes to President Bush.

                You seem to have a set after all.

                BTW, I meant to address this in the other post. I’d LOVE to see Obama in court as much as liberals would love to see Bush in court. Creamy skin isn’t a crime but law breaking is. I want to know if Obama broke the law by taking the oath of presidential office knowing full well he doesnt’ meet the qualifications.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Cyndi –

                “Do the wods Bush Derangement Syndrome mean anything to you, Ray?”

                Sindee – I heav no idia whet yew ar takling abut.

                “I can’t believe you accuse me and other conservatives of being crazy, yet you completely ignore the behavoir of liberals when it comes to President Bush.”

                – You are evidencing yourself Cindi – completely batshit nuts.

                “BTW, I meant to address this in the other post. I’d LOVE to see Obama in court as much as liberals would love to see Bush in court. Creamy skin isn’t a crime but law breaking is. I want to know if Obama broke the law by taking the oath of presidential office knowing full well he doesnt’ meet the qualifications.”

                – So you have drawn a conclusion, even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that he is not a citizen. Well – that renders you either incredibly dumb, incredibly crazy, or both.

          • Hey Ray,
            You forgot about the ‘fake moon landing’ conspiracy theories! Another one to add to the list of ‘great conspiracy theories’ that make their supporters look really smart… 😉

        • Peter,
          I find the “all politicians lie” line a cop-out. You seem to think saying “I don’t support anyone” gives you free license to attack Dem’s and act like an impartial observer.

          If you were impartial, you’d see Fox News for the right-wing croc that it is, and you’d be just as disgusted by the Rep’s non-action as you are by the Dem’s action.

          Just remember the “all politicians lie” line when you form the VLDG party. Because then you’ll be part of the liars.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Todd,

            I am not a politician, and never will be. And yes, all politicians lie. And NO, I AM NOT IMPARTIAL. Anyone who tells you they are impartial is either lying or is a loon.

            I support freedom and liberty as was intended.

    • All;

      I am not one to buy into bullpoop, especially if it smells or looks like bullpoop, but ‘conspiracy theory’ encompasses a great deal of topics.

      Can anyone say “Global Warming”; that IS a Conspiracy Theory. How about 90% of the arms cofiscated from Mexican Drug lords came from the US? How about the idea that outlawing firearms will reduce crime and minimize related injuries or death? How about Viet Nam and our involvement as a country fighting Communisum? How about the Swine Flu? How about WMD’s?

      Was there really only one assasin in Texas in 63….

      (USW / D13: I am sure you two have known some talented snipers in your day. Could one individual have really made those shots given the technology of those days?)

      My point in all of this is that regardless of how a theory, conspiracy or otherwise, gets started, not all of them are based upon crazy. I mean for crying out loud, how many out there really do believe the earth is the only planet within space that houses some form of life?

      I believe that this current regime and those before it really do conspire to control our lives in order to further gain power and enfuse government as a supreme rule. Is that a Conspiracy Theory?

      • Alan F. says:

        Climate Change (warming is a bust and use of that word following “global” is banned by the IPCC) is merely the religion newer than Scientology. Its certainly no conspiracy… no really… people of influence from all over the world conspiring to make billions from a hysterical portion of the populace’s reaction to a Doomsday scenario? Yeah right. Like that could happen. What do you think this is 1999?

        • Allan;

          Man the humor is impressive today, now I have snot running out of my nose I am laughing so hard. Next think you no I will be pulling a “Bucket List” move and crying.

          CM

  5. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    From a Fox News article:

    President Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process — a “hold” by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who’s says he’s not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won’t push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

    Senators are permitted “holds” to prevent a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific reasons.

    “Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein’s record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal ‘rights’ for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts,” the Republican’s spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

    Read the entire article here:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obama-regulatory-czars-confirmation-held-hunting-rights-proponent/

    What are people’s thoughts on this? As a larger topic, what is up with all these “Czars”? I would like to see a lot more transparency on these suckers. They don’t seem to jive with how government is supposed to be working to me. Who do they answer to besides the President? What powers are they given and on what scale?

    • If you read the entire article, it sounds like Mr. Sunstein is all over the map on many topics. Many of the comments from his books, articles, and speeches in the Fox article sound more like questions to be debated then what his positions are on the topics.

      “Banning hunting” is the one comment that jumped out at me as wrong and a non-starter. I don’t know what the context of that was in the speech.

      This Czar is being confirmed by Congress, so it’s different than other Czar’s that are not confirmed. Why the difference?

      • The difference is….once confirmed, they do not answer to Congress and have NO oversight.

        • Hey D13:

          You mean to tell me that if they are NOT confirmed and they answer to Congress and have oversight?? I thought that oversight in congress was just a politically acceptable means to beat the living sh*t out of your political opponents, even if they are not in office anymore.

    • The answer to the question regarding confirmation is that this is not one of the Czar types Mr. Obama has appointed. It is a regular govt post that requires confirmation. Following is an editorial I just plucked from Forbe’s online. Credits are shown to avoid litigation, I hope.

      Commentary
      Cass Sunstein For Regulation Czar
      Richard L. Revesz and Michael A. Livermore, 05.12.09, 05:50 PM EDT
      Neither an easy ally, nor a wilting lily.

      Cass Sunstein

      The painful costs of under-regulation are widely apparent: from a real estate bubble built on bad lending practices, to the looming threat of climate change. Some business leaders may not admit it, but good regulation saves society money by setting the rules of the road. Without wise regulation, economic growth too often comes with a price tag that is more than it is worth.

      More than any position in government, the “Regulation Czar” is charged with balancing economic growth with social risk. To fill this position, President Obama has selected Professor Cass Sunstein, an intellectual heavyweight who is a progressive but no ideologue.

      Sunstein is well known for his academic writings, which touch on everything from constitutional law to behavioral economics. His appointment to director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is a harbinger of the administration’s commitments–yes, we need to grow the economy, but sound economics need not conflict with smart regulation.

      On May 12, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee held a hearing on Professor Sunstein’s nomination. Sunstein’s comments confirm that he is neither a friend nor a foe of regulation. Instead, he discussed a new approach to cost-benefit analysis and regulation that is thoughtful, pragmatic and fair.

      Sunstein’s remarks made clear that for him, cost-benefit analysis is not an intellectual exercise but a means to deliver greater benefits for the American public at lower costs. It should not be used as a hammer to beat back regulation, nor should it be discarded in favor of omnipotent federal agencies. Instead it should be employed judiciously to select regulatory approaches that achieve maximum net benefits for society.

      This new approach to regulation could not come at a better time. The recent fiscal meltdown clarified the degree of our interconnectedness–a loose screw on Wall Street can send homes in Arizona to the foreclosure auction blocks; a blind eye in Washington can result in a tsunami of wet coal sludge in Tennessee. We can no longer afford to pay the social cost of letting corporations “self-regulate,” nor can we afford to place unnecessary burdens on already struggling businesses.

      From his remarks in his committee hearing as well as from his writings, it is obvious that Sunstein is sensitive to this tightrope walk. Those in the business community looking for an easy ally are barking up the wrong tree. Those in the progressive community hoping for a wilting lily will also be sorely disappointed.

      Sunstein believes in a robust regulatory state, but he also acknowledges that regulations can be more or less efficient at achieving their goals. As OIRA director, he will look for strong standards to reduce economic, environmental and public health risks. But he will also look to make sure the market is not shackled and businesses are given maximum flexibility to reduce risks at the lowest possible costs.

      Related Stories
      Obama’s Unwilling Cyber Czars
      Obama’s Back To The Future Of Markets
      Blogola
      Madoff, Markets And Wealth Managers
      Remembering Paul Klebnikov
      Related Videos
      Favors From Your Boss
      Womenomics 101
      Open Mike: Wall Street Rules
      Open Mike: Airline Bailouts
      CIT Lifts Global Markets
      StoriesVideos
      Once confirmed, Administrator Sunstein will have a set of sticky regulatory problems before him made stickier by an economy in the tank. We are pleased that he will be the one to reform and use cost-benefit analysis to find regulatory solutions that work for the American public.

      Many changes are needed–last year we published a book full of recommendations, and in recent months OIRA has received almost 200 comments, many contradictory, for how to reform regulatory review. But if anyone stands a chance of making sense of the jumble and pulling out a sensible solution, it is Sunstein.

      Perhaps he won’t make close friends of those on the far left or right, but that may be the biggest measure of his success. Today it is not ideological purity that will save us, but sound judgment and a pragmatic spirit willing to take what we need from all perspectives, and leave the rest.

      Richard L. Revesz is the dean of New York University School of Law. Michael A. Livermore is the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Together, they are the authors of Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health, published by Oxford University Press in May 2008.

      NOW I URGE YOU ALL TO GOOGLE MR. SUNSTEIN’S NAME AND READ SOME OF THE SUMMARIES ON HIS PRIOR WORKS. THEN COME BACK AND TELL ME IF THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THE ABOVE EDITORIAL, IN A FINANCIAL MAGAZINE, THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU PAUSE.

      OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME KEY WORDS IN THE PEICE THAT SHOULD RAISE RED FLAGS, EVEN IF YOU DON’T DO THE RESEARCH SUGGESTED.

      THIS IS A GOOD PIECE TO TEST YOUR NEWLY DEVELOPED PHILOSOPHICAL DETECTIVE SKILLS.

      GOOD LUCK
      JAC

      • JAC, you’ve been a good teacher. I couldn’t even get by the first paragraph without a big sigh of, “here we go again”

        “The painful costs of under-regulation are widely apparent: from a real estate bubble built on bad lending practices, to the looming threat of climate change. Some business leaders may not admit it, but good regulation saves society money by setting the rules of the road. Without wise regulation, economic growth too often comes with a price tag that is more than it is worth.”

        We are such an undisciplined society – thank god there are those in government that can provide “wise” regulation and keep us in line.

      • Missing Texas says:

        JAC,
        I have been reading here for a while, though this is the first time I have been inclined to post…so I took your suggestion to look…

        “OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME KEY WORDS IN THE PEICE THAT SHOULD RAISE RED FLAGS…

        …regulatory solutions that work for the American public.

        …greater benefits for the American public at lower costs.

        …regulatory approaches that achieve maximum net benefits for society.

        Then I went searching for some of his writings and found this…..

        Sunstein’s 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

        The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

        The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

        The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

        The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

        The right of every family to a decent home;

        The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

        The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

        The right to a good education.

        All of these rights spell security. And after this war (WWII) is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

        I was not aware that the government (city, county, state or federal) was responsible for my education (which I paid for) my employment, my home, my car….not one of them showed up at either the job interview (when I landed the job or negoitated for the salary) or the bank when I bought my house or car.

        No one but me is responsible for my happiness or well-being.

        • v. Holland says:

          “If you want total security
          , go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.”
          Dwight D. Eisenhower

        • Missing Texas:

          Outstanding work. Now re-read the Forbes editorial to see how the real man is covered by the rhetoric.

          Now do you remember anyone else who sounded like that the past couple of years?

          “I was not aware that the government (city, county, state or federal) was responsible for my education (which I paid for) my employment, my home, my car….not one of them showed up at either the job interview (when I landed the job or negoitated for the salary) or the bank when I bought my house or car.”

          Now you see, you just don’t understand cause yer a redneck rightwing radical.

          P.S.: Try Idaho or Wyoming and you won’t miss Texas as much.

          Live Free
          JAC

      • Now I’m confused. There is a “Czar” who defines which laws and regulations require attention and overhaul? I am very confused.. a better solution would be for the politicians to listen to the voters and their grievances. Putting a middleman only contributes to the neat term “Plausible denialibility”. This Czar position only distances the elected officials from the very citizens and voters they are supposed to represent.

      • JAC

        Relative to your homework assignment here is a couple of thought on the article and Sustein:

        “More than any position in government, the “Regulation Czar” is charged with balancing economic growth with social risk. To fill this position, President Obama has selected Professor Cass Sunstein, an intellectual heavyweight who is a progressive but no ideologue.”

        The first words of that sentance scare the little jimmy dickens out of me. One man one rule with all the responsibility…what if he gets it wrong?????

        “This new approach to regulation could not come at a better time. The recent fiscal meltdown clarified the degree of our interconnectedness–a loose screw on Wall Street can send homes in Arizona to the foreclosure auction blocks; a blind eye in Washington can result in a tsunami of wet coal sludge in Tennessee. We can no longer afford to pay the social cost of letting corporations “self-regulate,” nor can we afford to place unnecessary burdens on already struggling businesses.”

        We can no-longer “self-regulate” is basically telling us that the government will regulate as they see fit. Can you say Socialisum?

        Couple that with this guys alleged ideas about Animal rights, global econmony, rules of law and you have a complete left wing nut case.

        CM

        • Holy Obama on PCP laced steroids Batman!

          Sunstein co-authored Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008) with economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. Nudge discusses how public and private organizations can help people make better choices in their daily lives. Thaler and Sunstein argue that

          People often make poor choices – and look back at them with bafflement! We do this because as human beings, we all are susceptible to a wide array of routine biases that can lead to an equally wide array of embarrassing blunders in education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, happiness, and even the planet itself.

          Also packing serious wood for:

          Soft Paternalism, also referred to as asymmetrical paternalism and libertarian paternalism, is a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike ‘hard’ paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.”

          You guys are screwed if this guy has any authority at all.

    • v. Holland says:

      Perhaps we need a transparency czar. 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      No more Czars please.

  6. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    President Obama has irked close allies in Congress by declaring he has the right to ignore legislation on constitutional grounds after having criticized George W. Bush for doing the same.

    Four senior House Democrats on Tuesday said they were “surprised” and “chagrined” by Obama’s declaration in June that he doesn’t have to comply with provisions in a war spending bill that puts conditions on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

    In a signing statement accompanying the $106 billion bill, Obama said he wouldn’t allow the legislation to interfere with his authority as president to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with other governments.

    Read the Rest of the Article here:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obama-irks-democrats-declaring-ignore-legislation/?test=latestnews

    Wow, the President comes right out and says that he has the right to ignore legislation from Congress. I hope liberals are just as pissed about this as they were outraged when Bush ignored laws…..

    • I am.

      • Glad to hear it Todd. When do you think we are actually going to start hearing it from the MSM mouth pieces? I was stuck in a restaurant that had MSNBC on yesterday and I heard nothing about this (was there for about an hour\full news cycle).

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hi all,

          Last week, I read an article at Fox News (can’t remember what it was)…but I do remember that it had some importance and didn’t make the current administration look good — but on all accounts was newsworthy. Anyway, I jumped over the MSM and couldn’t find it for anything. It wasn’t on the front page, nor was it in the appropriate section. I truly was interested in seeing what MSM’s take on the story was.

          Best Regards,
          RS

        • And you kept your food down while MSNBC was on? I bow to you, sir.

          • It was muted and I just read the close captioning. I wonder what my friend was thinking when I would look up and then start muttering to myself about damm fools and complete idiots.

        • This was all over the MSM and NPR a few weeks ago. Where have you been?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Ditto

    • v. Holland says:

      If the President feels that there is something in a new bill that is unconstitutional shouldn’t he veto the bill-He doesn’t have line item veto, doesn’t just ignoring a part of the bill because he thinks it’s unconstitutional giving him a line item veto, which is also unlawful.

  7. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #5

    Just when I was defending her so vehemently….

    Outgoing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated state ethics laws by letting supporters set up a legal defense fund to help her battle ethics complaints, a preliminary report on the issue has found. An investigator hired by the state personnel board recommended Palin — who gives up her office on Sunday — refuse money from the defense fund and ask the state to pay legal fees for ethics complaints that have been dismissed.

    Read the rest of the article here:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/sarah.palin/index.html

    I still stand by everything that I wrote in the article the other night. I was right in the things I wrote then. But preliminary reading suggests that she may in fact have done something wrong here. I will be interested to see what the truth to this matter is once all is said and done.

    • Oh no – not Sarah Palin again! I think maybe USWeapon as a little crush on Gov Palin and just can’t let go!! 😉

      I had seen stories in the past that the ‘legal defense fund’ might violate the law, but hadn’t heard much about that recently.

      It will be interesting…

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Heck Todd,

        I am a heterosexual woman and I have a crush on Sarah Palin! 🙂 Yes, this will be interesting.

        Best Regards,
        RS

        • Richmond Spitfire,
          You know, I don’t really understand ‘conservative’ thinking, but maybe if you explained this, in extremely fine detail, I might understand…

          PS – USWeapon, I withdraw my previous comment – excellent topic!!

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Hello Todd,

            Really don’t understand what there is to understand or not understand on this statement?

            I think I have really made it clear in past postings with Ray that I really do identify with Sarah Palin which includes the “Why’s)…that poor horse has been beat to death.

            I am not ashamed to admit that she brings out good feelings in me. I hope that these new ethics complaints are unfounded.

            Best regards,
            RS

            • Richmond Spitfire,
              Yes, I read your comments to Ray and I understand.

              I was joking here – I wanted you to explain your crush on Gov Palin…

      • Wish my wife would look half that good when she gets that old. 😆

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Yes, I was rather disappointed to see that article too. 😦

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I find it highly ironic that it violates State ethics rules for private citizens to voluntarily set up a legal defense fund to pay for her bills, but the same ethics rule requires her to “ask the state to pay legal fees for ethics complaints that have been dismissed.” Basically what this says is that private citizens cannot voluntarily pay her legal bills, because they are required to involuntarily pay her legal bills through their taxes. Stupid rule! Although, in Alaska, they have oil, so there may be no State income tax, but still… stupid rule 🙂

    • I think its too soon to form any opinion. She should get out of office first, get her legal issues resolved, then decide if she should re-enter the fray. The MSM wants a quick, easy, flashy story, we want truth. They frequently do not mix well.

    • I will also wait to see what transpires…If she is guilty of this, then the hammer should fall on her as equally as if fell upon anyone else.

      • Do you have any doubt that the state run liberal media wont allow the hammer to fall on her, if she is guilty. 🙂 Shoot even if she is innocent, the hammer will fall on her whether justified or not.
        Oh and it wont be as equally as if it fell upon anyone else. YOu know she will get hammered unlike tax cheat gietner or the blatant racist sotomoyor. Rest assured the hammer will fall.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Ok – I actually call b.s. here – I don’t see how she stood to “gain” from the fund. As the sitting Governor she should not bear any burden from the ethics charges filed against her due to her actions as Governor.

    • Bama dad says:

      From AP article

      Kristan Cole, the fund’s trustee, said organizers have frozen the fund pending the personnel board’s review. Many federal politicians, including Hillary Clinton, former U.S. Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and others are routinely allowed to have such funds to pay off legal bills, but quirks in Alaska law can present ethics issues.

      In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.
      An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. “In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure.”
      The ethics complaint was filed by Eagle River resident Kim Chatman shortly after the fund was created, alleging Palin was misusing her official position and accepting improper gifts.

      John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped set up the fund, called the probable cause finding “crazy,” adding that if upheld, it would mean that no governor could ever defend themselves against frivolous ethics complaints.
      “Anybody can keep filing ethics complaints and drive someone out of office, even if you’re a nut,” Coale said.

      Unlike other states, he said, Alaska has no legal counsel’s office devoted to defending the governor from allegations brought against her in her official capacity.

      IMO this is pretty thin, but I’ll wait and see.

      • Bama Man,
        Just to clarify:

        “Anybody can keep filing ethics complaints and drive someone out of office, even if you’re a nut”

        Is the nut the one filing the ethics complaints or the one being driven out of office? Cole needs to use more proper nouns and fewer pronouns… 🙂

    • Bama dad says:
      • Yeah, this was one of my favorites…so when is Julyteenth day…I hope it’s after the 26th!

    • Black Flag says:

      She signed the 10th Amendment declaration for Texas.

      Now, she shoulda declared independence! …. But she wants to be Prez…..

    • Bee in my Bonnet says:

      Let’s just wait for this to play out. Don’t forget, this came from CNN, not exactly Palin’s fan club.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSTRE56L3RH20090722

      This article shows that she is coming out fighting!!

  8. To All:

    The Anti-Slavery Society uses the definition of slavery enunciated in 1880 by the High Court of Allahabad in India, which, in substance, is that a person is treated as a slave or is reduced to a condition of slavery if another exercises power or control over that person:

    (1) to restrain their personal liberty; and
    (2) to dispose of their labor against their will — without lawful authority.

    According to the definition above, are American Citizens SLAVES?

    If your answer is no, giving up what percentage, if any, of your earnings would make your answer yes.

    If you don’t like the definition, don’t bother answering.

    GarthD
    Slavery is ALIVE in America – We are the SLAVES – No OBAMACARE

    • Of course we are slaves….the bonds are different…instead of chains and whips, it is government and politicians and money.

      We have created a slave state bigger than anything we had in the 1800’s.

      Ha, bet you did not expect that from me Garth. Or maybe you did. I am a realist.

  9. I would be interested in knowing where people are getting their information about the world from.

    We all have done a pretty good job of saying that the MSM is basically worthless, so where does that leave us to find out what is going on? Are we relegated to the huffington post and such type sites? or are we just going to have to go foraging around the internet to see what we like?

    All input gratefully appreciated.

    • Hey Rw…top of the mornin’ to ya…..It is all filtered. As mush as I despise the media…both right and left leaning….I do watch them as much as I can stomach. The truth eventually comes out. I actually have no concrete answer. My experience has taught me to watch and listen.

      • A coworker once said that Fox is nothing but right wing Infortainment. It was a nugget of information wrapped up to be entertainment. He had the same deffinition of CNN, but he called it left wing. He proposed Reddit.com, but all I am finding there are summaries of left wing idiocy\talking points\conspiracy theories. I barely have time to keep up with this site, so I have no time to go and read 2,3,4,5 different sites to try and figure out what is going on in this insane place called earth.

    • I am a firm believer in scouring different web sites and sources to build as complete a picture as possible. Bottom line, every web site has an agenda, they may appear neutral, but leave out articles they consider against their editorial policy.
      I get my info from CNN, BBC, CBC, AlJazeera (excellent), Pravda, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/, http://english.people.com.cn/, Brazilnews, Jerusalem Post, Georgian Times, Strategypage, Peopledaily, to name just a few.
      If you are really concerned about world events, then it is important to seek out as many versions of an event to filter out the BS to arrive at the truth. When I was a pre-teen living in France, I used to listen to the shortwave, especially Radio Free America, and Radio Free Moscow. Very quickly, and independently, I learned that opposite sides can take the same event, and twist the description to suit their propaganda requirements.

    • Back when I was a pre-teen living in France, I listened to the shortwave a lot. Two stations, Radio Free America, and Radio Free Moscow were two I regularly listened to, and from them I learned that two different parties can address the same event, yet put their own spin on it to suit their propaganda agenda. So to dig out the real truth, you need to listen to as many different sources, then compare, separate the BS, then finally find the truth.
      I scour the net a lot, and just a small few I seek out are CNN, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera (excellent), Pravda, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/index.html, Jerusalem Post, Brazil news, to name just a few.

      For instance, China has a Mach 10 anti ship ballistic missile designed for just one purpose, to kill carriers. Dong Feng 21. Did you know that?

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.”

    True or False?

    “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

    True or False?

    ” I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

    True or False?

    “My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.”

    True or False?

    “We need earmark reform, and when I’m President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

    True or False?

    “You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

    True or False?

    • PeterB:

      “It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.”

      True or False?
      Government and efficiency are opposites.
      Transparancy – didn’t we cover that yesterday.
      He certainly has been creative. Things are happening that have never happened before.

      “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

      True or False? False! Taxes are going up, up and away. Wish he would.

      ” I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

      True or False? False! In so many cases.

      “My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.”

      True or False? False! Maybe he meant only his supporters.

      “We need earmark reform, and when I’m President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

      True or False? False!

      “You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

      True or False? False! As a smoker I am not sure I could bend over any further.

      • v. Holland says:

        “My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington.”

        I’m actually not sure how anyone can represent all of us-we are a diverse group-which is the one reason that I give our politicians a little slack-it’s hard to know what we the people want-but it sounded pretty.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          V. Holland,

          That is the thing with all politicians (but especially Obama in particular since each and every one of those quotes were direct quotes of him):

          The substance of what he says is of no value whatsoever, but the style of it wins people over – at least enough people. That seems to be changing somewhat as more people are realizing that he lies virtually every time his mouth is open (unless he is simply putting food in it or mouth-breathing) 🙂

      • Darn, Garth….So you are a smoker….I am not and even I cannot even begin to believe the taxes you are paying. If you are going to get..ummm.. screwed..wouldn’t you like to be kissed in the process? Sugar is next, then Caffeine, then……..????????????? Perhaps breathing??? since we exhale carbon dioxide? Oh, yeah…forgot…tax each exhalation.

        • D13:

          Only $50 a carton here in Texas. Was $35 last year. But I feel proud that I am supporting the health care of 4 million children nation wide.

          Non smokers should be ashamed that they wanted the children covered but did not want to pay for it. Just let the other guy get screwed. Did you stand up for fairness or were you immoral.
          Don’t worry your preferences will be taxed sooner or later and I will just smile as you cry. Hope caffeine is next as I don’t drink coffee.

          To Canadians: How much is a carton up there. I remember when a pack of cigarettes was $5 in the mid-eighties on a trip there.

          • I was a smoker right up to that first tax hike. I’m not paying Obama $5 a pack to smoke.

          • Where in Texas, Garth? I am in Fort Worth. Yes, I even see the cigs on the post exchange high..not $50 tho. There are no taxes on the Federal reservation. And, yes, I was appalled and not agreeable to it even as a non smoker. Caffeine…OH NO….what would I do without my Dublin Dr. Pepper…complete with caffeine AND real sugar….I don’t have a yard to cut and edge when I get upset….After 30 years as a homeowner with yards and sand piles and swimming pool and weeds and crab grass, fleas, ticks, sprinkler systems that worked 50% of the time…too much water…not enough water…. fertilizer.. No mas…no mas. Besides, I have to have the extra money for increased taxes now on my Dr. Peppers when it happens.

            • Side note to Garth: You reminded me that in the late fifties and early sixties, I was often sent to the corner store to buy cigs for my mom…… Unfiltered Phillip Morris…$2.75 per carton and they screamed then.

            • I’ve got to finally ask as you mentioned it before. What is a Dublin Dr. Pepper?

              • Hi Kathy…Dr. Pepper was invented in Texas, or so the story goes…and it was credited to Waco, Texas. Dublin, Texas, is actually the home to Dr.Pepper. So, when corn syrup became the sweetener of choice over that of pure cane sugar, it actually changed the taste of this drink, which is unique. Dublin, Texas refuses to go along with this and still uses cane sugar. The caveat to this is that it is more expensive because cane sugar is more expensive due to the trade tariffs put on cane sugar. Corn syrup is more abundant and does not have tariff restrictions…therefore cheaper.

                However, the taste is really different. Far better taste with the cane sugar.

                Help any?

              • Here I thought you were having a little Irish Whiskey along with the good Dr.!

              • Damn Kathy….Whiskey and Dr. Pepper? That would be like Scotch and Root Beer.

              • Kristian Stout says:

                Ewww!

            • D13:

              Carrollton.

              I started smoking when I was eight — Chesterfields from my mothers stash. Got caught – made to smoke 1/2 pack – enjoyed the punishment. Been at it ever since.

              When I was in the Navy, the price was $1 a carton (at sea).

              Bought 5 cartons the other day — 45.99 + tax ea. $227 with Marlboro coupons.

              GarthD
              The Smoking Lamp is Lit in All Authorized Spaces

              • Holy shit….errr…sorry…..hecky dern.

                Dublin, Texas would have to do without me is this ever happens….LOL.

          • Geez, it hurts to even think about the cost of smokes up here in Canada. I usually purchase by the pack, and it cost almost exactly ten bucks. yea, forty cents a cigarette…

            • Whoa !!

            • Good Morning

              We get ours from the Indian Reservations here, and it costs $33.00 a carton, and about $3.55 per pack. A lot cheaper than the regular stores, where they are anywhere from $40.00 to $45.00 per carton. Just thought I’d mention that.

              Have a good day.

              Judy

              • Judy S.

                Thanks for the reminder.

                Will be going to OK this weekend. I’ll pick up another 5 cartons there.

                GarthD
                American Indians – The most Discriminated minority.

              • Garth

                When they raised the prices, of course the reservations had to raise theirs, and they raised them by $10.00, but after a couple months, they lowered them back down. They found they were losing money instead, so that’s why they lowered them down again.

                I agree, that they are discriminated against, but I have quite a few who are friends, from the Paiute and Shoshone tribes. They are a very special group of friends I have, Maybe that comes from my Sioux blood in me, I don’t know.

                Judy

            • DaveE:

              In Mexico last year I paid about $2.50/pack.

              Of course they had a label that said in large type: SMOKING KILLS — Well, so will OBAMACARE. I am in the group that is nearing their last year. I’ll go willingly as I want to lower the cost to the rest of you. Ha, I will not go softly.

              Go South young man, Go South.

              GarthD
              Smoke em if you’ve got em — Say NO to OBAMACARE – Health Care is not a RIGHT

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Dave…

              That is outrageous…

              Down here, I just picked-up two cartons of Marlboros for $33 each (no coupons); a couple of weeks they were selling for $24 each (Philip Morris was running a special here on the new Blend #54).

              I was a Newport smoker, but they are running about $38 a carton.

              My hubby orders his from Indian Reservations and they come to our front door.

              I really do need to quit. It bugs me to support a “sin” tax. Right now is not the time though.

              Best Regards to all,
              RS

              • Hi RS

                Yea, my husband has been trying to quit, even taking those quit smoking pills, but he just can’t quite seem too. I think it’s because of all he has to deal with at work here. Doing the books, as well as dealing with the clients, some who can’t ever be happy with their results, on top of a ton of other stuff he does here,.

                Me, I don’t really want to quit, it’s my only vice I have. Now don’t take this the wrong way here, but I’m also taking care of my 87 year old mother, who has some dementia going on, plus she smokes like a chimney stack.

                My youngest son, who is in pre-med right now used to smoke, but quit over a year ago when he joined the big brother, big sister program, and he didn’t want to be a bad influence on his little brother, he was big brother to. Besides, he said, how would it look for me to be a doctor with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, and telling patients they shouldn’t smoke. Our oldest son smokes as well. Oh! Hell, we all do except for our youngest son. I’m surprised our dog, and 2 cats haven’t taken it up yet.

                Regards

                Judy

              • I gotta find a vice. I obviously have no life. Forty years in the military, college in the 60’s, and I don’t smoke, don’t drink…never even tried a single puff on a marijuana cig….and that was going to college at the University of Texas in the 60’s, for crying out loud…two tours in Vietnam…wow. Wondering now if I missed out on anything. Do like the ladies, however. THAT is something.

              • There ya go D13. Wait, are you married? If you are, then you have to leave the gals alone I’m afraid.

                Hey D13, don’t be so hard on yourself, with all that you accomplished, that’s saying something.

                So, you don’t smoke or drink, that’s the life you chose to live. Look at it this way, at least you won’t get cancer or liver damage. I have to admit, every once in a while, I will have a margarita or two, and maybe sometimes, if I’ve had a really bad day, I’ll take a couple shots of tequila, the good stuff, not that cheap stuff.

                Regards to you

                Judy

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Judy, the chance of getting cancer is 1/5 whether you smoke or not….

              • Your a cold blooded killer of road runners. What other vices do you want?

              • Forgot about that…thanks JAC…can always count on you to help me out. Now I feel better.

              • Mine is shoes……….

                oh yeah and beer, and Captains and a really good Bloody Mary…….

                and now….blogs!

              • Judy S. says:

                Yea. my son’t give me a hard time about bloggng. Every time they come over to the house, they ask me, Blogging again there mom.

              • D13:

                My father died at age 90 and never had a piece of gum. Hard-headed he was as I tried to get him to try a piece.

                Do have to say that I only have a couple pieces a year.

                I have two forms of cancer – neither of which is lung cancer. Lungs are better than they expected.

                GarthD
                $93/carton — must have lots of children need medical coverage up there

          • Bee in my Bonnet says:

            It varies from provine to province but in Manitoba, where I live, it is $93.23 a carton (200 cigarettes).

            http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/pdf/cigarette_prices_Canada_1_April_2009.pdf

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Hey Garth – if a smoker blows smoke and it gets in my face is it okay if I spit in their face since I don’t smoke? As a smoker would you be offended if I spit on your clothes, hair, or in your face?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Ray,

              It has been determined by Judicial Precedent that spitting in someone’s face is considered assault. I suppose that you could make the argument that someone intentionally blowing smoke directly in your face constituted assault as well, but that hasn’t been proven in a court to date yet.

              However, just sitting in a smoke-filled room is ultimately your choice, you are free to go places where the supposedly legal activity of smoking has been outlawed already. Most cities have “public smoking bans” already, so most places you go should be “safe”.

    • False times 6 by my count

    • Howdy Peter:

      ““It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.””

      TRUE

      You see, nobody ever asked him what the goals and objectives were tied to the comments. I would say he is accomplishing the above just as he intended. But no one was really listening.

      Road Trip is getting closer.
      Feet starting to itch.

      The best to you this AM
      JAC

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        I knew SOMEONE would catch that statement #1 was mostly true 🙂 Although to make it all the way true, he should have left out the “more transparent” part. If you read the statement without “more transparent” it is undeniably true, it just doesn’t mean anything close to what people thought that he was saying.

      • JAC;

        Take a fishing rod with you it’s prime time for Bass, Walleye, Mules(Smallmouth Bass), pike, perch, and if you want to contract a charter captain the Kings, Lake Trout and Brown Trout are abundent in Lake Michigan.

        BTW: If you see a feral pig running amuck shoot him, they are legal anytime. Just make sure you are somewhere you can legally discharge a firearm. If you know how to use a bow use that instead.

        • Thanks C.M., a little fisin trip in the middle sounds like a great idea.

          I reckon those captains got rods and such dont they?

          I got a good steelhead rod but would just as soon leave it, unless needed of course.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            JAC,

            If you take a chartered fishing trip in the Great Lakes (which I HIGHLY recommend!), the only thing you gotta bring is the beer (or other drinks) and the sandwiches (or other food). Most charter boats are for 6 people (plus the Captain), and it costs around $100 per person or so, so if you have less than 6, it is pretty expensive.

            However, Salmon and Lake Trout run about $25 per pound at the store, so if you catch some Kings, Coho, and Lakers, you actually come out ahead, and the fish tastes WAY better than anything you will get at the store.

            The Captain has all of the equipment you will need, and has one-day licences for fishing in the State you are in (runs anywhere from $10-$20 depending on the State you are fishing from).

            Charter trips can be anywhere from 4 hours to 12 hours long depending on how much you want to pay and how long you want to fish. If you want to do this (and you really should!), look up charter fishing in a local phone book or on the internet AHEAD OF TIME and book something. The weekends are usually pre-booked for most boats, but during the week you can usually get a boat if you give them a few days notice at least.

            If you do go, I hope you get some good fish. Very fun to catch, and although I am not much of a fish eater, the fish are great if you are into that kinda thing 🙂

            The captain will filet everything for you at the dock after your trip (or cut it into Salmon steaks if you catch a big King).

            The largest King ever caught in the great lakes was about 46 pounds, but they aren’t “good eatin'” if they get that big. 30 pounds or less is good for a king, and 7-12 pounds for Coho. Lakers and Brown Trout are usually between the Kings and the Coho in size, and as good to eat (or better, depending on your taste) than the salmon.

            If you go on a charter, enjoy!

  11. To All:

    Consider the following possibility:

    “One of the most vitally needed services, which only government can render, is the protection of contractual agreements between citizens. Suppose that the government were to protect — i.e., to recognize as legally valid and enforceable — only those contracts which had been insured by the payment, to the government, of a premium in the amount of a legally fixed percentage of the sums involved in the contractual transaction. Such an insurance would not be compulsory, there would be no legal penalty imposed on those who did not choose to take it — they would be free to make verbal agreements or to sign uninsured contracts, if they so wished. The only consequence would be that such agreements or contracts would not be legally enforceable; if they were broken, the injured party would not be able to seek redress in a court of law.” Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness

    Who of you would have any problem if this was how our court system worked on both the Federal and State levels.

    • Garth:

      You will find that I posed this option before. Nobody has opposed so far, therefore it is on the list of possibles for the VDLG.

      I take that back. I think BF indirectly opposed this because I think he opposed the courts involvment in contract issues all together. But that is one of the lines that divides the anarchists from the objectivists.

      And that is part of the big debate that is starting to unfold as we explore our philosophical foundation.

      • Black Flag says:

        No, I actually have no problem with two parties agreeing to any arrangement they want.

        If they want a bully to be a party to their agreement – (shrug) – hope you like the color of blue bruises…but no prob with me.

        Same with marriage – if two people want to invite a violent third party into their arrangement – I can’t imagine why I would want that – but for other people; well, it’s not my life, body or brain so…(shrug)

        • BF:

          Would you have any problems with a similar type of arrangement for Police, Fire, EMS.

          If you didn’t pay the insurance they would not respond if you called.

          If your house was on fire, they would only respond to insure that the fire did not effect an insured neighbor.

          GarthD
          Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

          • Black Flag says:

            Obviously, Fire works well as ‘insurance’ program.

            It failed in Rome because a Senator made it a law that no one else could create a fire brigade and then stole people’s property that was consumed by fire.

            But Police….? Hmmm….

            If I get Police insurance and you don’t – can I use my Police to attack you?

            But if Police are protection only – well, no difference then hiring Security today, right?

      • JAC:

        Is there somewhere on this site that lists the possibilities of the VDLG.

        If BF objected to this, I would like to know why. It gives him the option he wants at no cost to him. Hope he responds to this.

        GarthD
        OBAMA Tightens Noose On His SLAVES — Stand Up to OBAMACARE

        • Garth:

          There is not list as yet.

          As you can see by BF’s response just above, it was not the concept of the tax he voiced opposition to. He was critical of the concept of bringing the courts into the contractual arena. That was my take and I am pretty sure that is expressed in his comment above.

          I will let him explain the concept in more detail because we are not perfectly aligned on this one. Best if the man speaks for himself here.

          • Ignore this Garth:

            Just scrolled down and see you two have already discussed. Guess I’m too right brained today.

          • Black Flag says:

            Correct – but I have no problem with other people bringing whatever party they wish into what ever agreement they wish.

            Just don’t force that on me.

          • USW:

            Is the list that JAC talks about something that you think would be good for what you are trying to do?

            It sure would make it easier to decide on what is important to talk about.

            Everyone on this site appears to feel that something has to be done or everyone must be ready to act when it is appropriate. If that is so, are we looking for agreement on what needs to be done or how we need to act?

            GarthD
            All talk and no action is what got us in this fix.

            • Black Flag says:

              Careful,

              In fact it was all action and no talk that got us into this mess.

              • BF:

                Again clarification required.

                All talk and no action by those who did not agree with what was going on.

                Huh, that is still what is going on with the silent majority.

                GarthD
                Frogs should jump out of the pot before they are boiled and eaten

              • We need more Wangs!!!

    • Black Flag says:

      Consider the following possibility:

      “One of the most vitally needed services, which only government can render, is the protection of contractual agreements between citizens.

      Why do you believe you need protection from your own voluntary actions?

      Suppose that the government were to protect — i.e., to recognize as legally valid and enforceable — only those contracts which had been insured by the payment, to the government, of a premium in the amount of a legally fixed percentage of the sums involved in the contractual transaction.

      If you and I agree that we give JAC the right to put a bullet into our heads if we ‘fail’ – …. well, I guess I’d never sign that but I can’t see why I’d disagree if you sign that.

      Actually, Garth, that is how many governments actually work today – its called a “Stamp Tax”.

      A contract, to be ‘legally enforceable’ needs a stamp. After the parties sign, a lawyer takes it to the Stamp Office, pays a fee, and the clerk pastes on each page what looks like a postage stamp and hole punches it. Now its ‘legal’.

      You don’t have to have the Stamp on a contract – you just can’t go to court to enforce it, either.

      • BF:

        “Why do you believe you need protection from your own voluntary actions?”

        I want insurance that there can be redress. You took my value the other day in your system and I want a way to get it back next time. Thought this was an acceptable method that would have no effect on anyone that did not want to be involved. Would pay for the court system.

        Where do you stand as to what I wrote or as you put it the “Stamp Tax” if it had no effect on you other than the fact that those you might deal with would want an insured/enforceable contract?

        • Black Flag says:

          I have no problem with it whatsoever – it is great idea.

          • Black Flag says:

            And, yes, I got my contracts “Stamped”.

            And here is why (and a great example on how a moral and free society would operate in other areas).

            As I explained, the way in a free society you do contracts is on trust. Since I can’t beat you up if you renege, I have to really really really really trust you to do what you say.

            So trust becomes an incredibly rich commodity to have.

            However, what about a guy like me, who shows up out of the blue with a great, mutually beneficial exchange – that requires you do give me a great deal of money (for example).

            Obviously, it is a huge benefit for you to engage in this trade – but you have to pay first. Wow…what a risk to absorb for a guy you don’t know from Sam the Mass Murderer.

            So, how can we deal?

            Precisely the way you laid out.

            You offer ‘insurance’ – that is we both pay a small fee (in proportion to our mutual gain) to a third party – that has earned our trust OR (and this is key) has no interest in either part of our deal to enforce itself upon the reneging party – then we’ve overcome our lack of mutual trust.

            And since it takes too long (and probably impossible in modern society due to the mass access to mobility) to build a ‘pure trust’ reputation that is transportable – organizations would pop up all over the place – not aligned with any party – to provide a facility to overcome the trust barrier.

            We see this in international banking. There is no way you can enforce your contract on a person in another country. Without that, how could international trade work?

            It works because the trust is really between international banks. Bank A trust Bank B. Bank B does not trust Client A. So Bank B trusts Bank A to enforce its self on Client A because they are in the same jurisdiction and sign a contract between them. Bank B does the same with Client B. The exchange between Client A and Client B can occur, because it is actually a deal between Client A and Bank A in jurisdiction A and Client B and Bank B in jurisdiction B. But it requires Bank A and Bank B to trust each other Since neither A or B is an interested party in the actual deal between Client A and B, there is no reason for them not to do hold the trust. We see this break down when Bank A does have an undisclosed interest in Client A….but the consequence usually is that it is exposed, and Bank A is destroyed since no one will ever trust it again (and it goes bankrupt).

            So there are a handful of requirements that would need to be fleshed out in a fully moral, free society – but the basics are reasonable and do offer a viable solution to the trust problem.

        • Garth, if you remember, Texas basically adopted this theory in addressing Workers Compensation. Paid for by those that stay in the system but an out option without the protection of the State and the option for private insurance without the protections of the State. Payroll taxes were reduced, lump sum settlements were eliminated and the lawyers left, and it is revenue neutral. Only applies right now in Workers Comp and not exactly what you stated but a knock off that does great. Conservative estimates, is that it saved Texas over 178 million so far in expenditures, let employers take one of three options all revenue neutral. But in opting out of the State, the protections were gone.

          • To take BF a little further (not using his example but that of Workmens Comp). When a company opts out of the State, how do the employees feel protected IF the company goes self insured? Where is the employee trust? There are mechanisms in place that utilize the same formula as the State but that the money is put into trusts that are blind to loyalties other than following exactly what the written agreement between the employer and the employee is..in the case of injury. Takes extra work but it is well worth the effort and not a bad approach. Keeps State government out of it…keeps the courts out of it to the extent that the agreement is considered lawful, and creates a better bond and trust between employer and employee.

            • Black Flag says:

              This is great~ We are just smokin’ along here~

              When a company opts out of the State, how do the employees feel protected IF the company goes self insured? Where is the employee trust?

              Indeed!

              So let’s follow thru –

              If a company I am working for declined ‘injury insurance’ for its employees, what are my options?

              1) Quit

              2) Get my own insurance

              3) Do nothing and still continue to work and play the (good) odds that I won’t be injured.

              Note, there is no option to attack the company violently.

              So, yes!

              As I’ve pointed out in the many of the billions of posts here –

              There are many, existing examples of how free people deal with each other already in use in society

              The major problem is that the Government has stepped into many of them and perverted them for its own purposes of power and control.

              • D13:

                “When a company opts out of the State, how do the employees feel protected IF the company goes self insured? Where is the employee trust?”

                I worked for a company that self-insured both Workers Comp, Health Care and Vehicle Insurance. It was a national trucking co. All forms of self-ins worked great. Health Care cost $50/mo per family but only if you had any claims. Cost to company was lower than if purchased through Insurance Co.

                Company went out of business a few years back because of union costs. The company was 1st/2nd/3rd each year in freight carried for 13 years I was employed. Wrote much of the software for the Health Care department.

                GarthD
                Taking from Peter to pay Paul is immoral

              • Ummmm…not quite BF… you had to carry insurance but you did not have to carry the State’s insurance, which used to be, you did. There were minimum requirements but you had the option of the State insurance, self insurance, or commercial insurance. AND, the State did not compete. In that, it was not a subsidy supported by additional taxes. Texas has a biennial budget and our lawmakers are prohibited by constitution in appropriating “slush” funds. Nor can the cost exceed budget, by constitution. So, when it is out of money…it is out. No shifting of funds and no robbing peter to pay paul and this is by constitution. In addition, the budget for the next two years has to take in contingencies and fit the projected revenues. You cannot exceed budget under any circumstances. It is pay as you go, here.

              • In addition, there are no earmarks and last minute add on procedures allowed in our budgeting process and the governor has the line item veto. To override takes a 75% majority in BOTH houses. So, our insurance market was competitive but only because our State has true separation of powers.

              • Black Flag says:

                Ummmm…not quite BF… you had to carry insurance but you did not have to carry the State’s insurance, which used to be, you did.

                I am not rationalizing the State’s invasion of private contracts – the State “requiring” something is the evil.

                I am explaining how a Free Society works – as I said, very closely to how our society works minus the evils of government force.

              • Ah….got it.

          • And to take the Trust concept another step.

            Some of us a few years back developed the same concept into a working proposal to handle the turn over of federal lands to the states, and to do it in a manner that addressed environmental protection while getting the special interests out of the equation.

            In essence the school systems and the environment became joint beneficiaries of the trust.

  12. Black Flag says:

    Conspiracy Theories

    I quote from Murry Rothbard (my highlights)

    Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a “conspiracy theory of history,” “paranoid,” “economic determinist,” and even “Marxist.”

    These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analysis can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party.

    The most common label is “conspiracy theorist,” almost always leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the “conspiracy theorist” himself.

    It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various “extremists” who are outside the Establishment consensus.

    For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the “public good.”

    Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse.

    Let us take an easy example.

    Suppose we find that Congress has passed a law raising the steel tariff or imposing import quotas on steel? Surely only a moron will fail to realize that the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign competitors.

    No one would level a charge of “conspiracy theorist” against such a conclusion.

    But what the conspiracy theorist is doing is simply to extend his analysis to more complex measures of government: say, to public works projects, the establishment of the ICC, the creation of the Federal Reserve System, or the entry of the United States into a war?

    In each of these cases, the conspiracy theorist asks himself the question cui bono?

    Who benefits from this measure?

    If he finds that Measure A benefits X and Y, his next step is to investigate the hypothesis: did X and Y in fact lobby or exert pressure for the passage of Measure A?

    In short, did X and Y realize that they would benefit and act accordingly?

    Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals.

    Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of “conspiracy” analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.

    There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline.The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of “paranoia.”

    First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible.

    He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler’s policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.)

    econdly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy.

    Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume – again without evidence – that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict.

    These reflections are prompted by the almost blatant fact – so blatant as to be remarked on by the major newsweeklies – that virtually the entire top leadership of the new Carter administration, from Carter and Mondale on down, are members of the small, semisecret Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973 to propose policies for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, and/or members of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. The rest are tied in with Atlanta corporate interests, and especially the Coca-Cola Company, Georgia’s major corporation.

    Well, how do we look at all this? Do we say that David Rockefeller’s prodigious efforts on behalf of certain statist public policies are merely a reflection of unfocused altruism? Or is there pursuit of economic interest involved? Was Jimmy Carter named a member of the Trilateral Commission as soon as it was founded because Rockefeller and the others wanted to hear the wisdom of an obscure Georgia governor? Or was he plucked out of obscurity and made President by their support? Was J. Paul Austin, head of Coca-Cola, an early supporter of Jimmy Carter merely out of concern for the common good? Were all the Trilateralists and Rockefeller Foundation and Coca-Cola people chosen by Carter simply because he felt that they were the ablest possible people for the job?

    If so, it’s a coincidence that boggles the mind. Or are there more sinister political-economic interests involved?

    I submit that the naïfs who stubbornly refuse to examine the interplay of political and economic interest in government are tossing away an essential tool for analyzing the world in which we live.

    • BF says: I submit that the naïfs who stubbornly refuse to examine the interplay of political and economic interest in government are tossing away an essential tool for analyzing the world in which we live.

      Therein lies the crux of your post…. good post.

    • BF;

      In the interest of continuing my education and enlightenment I pose some questions:

      1) Do you believe that the majority, if not all those non-representing Representatives seated currently are only looking out for their own gain?

      2) Do you feel that there is little we (the people) can do to stop the “collapse”?

      3) Any idea on the timelines for this collapse?

      CM

      • Black Flag says:

        1) Yes. It is no mystery to why those who achieve political power in Washington soon become millionaires. I do not believe they are paid a salary that would make them so.

        2) There is absolutely nothing we can do. As JAC paradoxically wrote once “You can neither run away nor stop it. You can do nothing”

        3) $1 million fiat currency question.
        How long can a bear dance?
        Until he gets tired, then he stops.

        What is key is that there will be no warning. This is not a transitional thing. It will be wake up one morning, and the game is over. No notice. No sirens. No notice.

        So, when you are sure the game is over – it will be too late mitigate the damage upon you. Therefore, now is the time to prepare – before the panic sets in….you cannot compete with 300 million people also in panic mode – you will be, quiet literally, run over.

        • Black Flag said
          July 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm

          “1) Yes. It is no mystery to why those who achieve political power in Washington soon become millionaires. I do not believe they are paid a salary that would make them so.”

          I recently looked up my state Senators. Both have been in Washington for decades.

          The Republican has a net worth of $2 Million – $6 Million.

          The Democrat $14 Million – $22 Million.

          They both claim to be common folks with humble beginnings, especially the Democrat who is from immigrant parents and grew up “dirt poor”.

  13. Black Flag says:

    Final to Obama Birth Cert.

    1) He was not born in the USA – his Grandmother confirms this

    2) He will never provide the B. Cert – he cannot

    3) and most important …. It Does Not Matter.

    Even if the cert. shows him to be a Kenyan – He is already the President of the United States.

    There is no way or how that will be reversed.

    The lesson that needs to be learned:

    The State will pervert any of its own laws to fulfill its own desires.

    • Question BF: The State will pervert any of its own laws to fulfill its own desires.

      Your definition of State = government or party?

      • Black Flag says:

        What happened today? A gravity wave? It seems there are quite a few of unfoggy brains today!

        I have been waiting for someone to ask that question!.

        I’ve used the word in and out regularly.

        The State:
        the State as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. Any institution, not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a “State”.

        So the key components – it taxes; that is, it does not earn, and second, it supplies a service – defense (Primarily for itself, and accidentally at times for its citizens)

        Here is an important point that many in discussion with me can’t seem to grasp.

        Being opposed to the State, as I am, does not equally mean opposition to the service. I support defense – I do not support coercion and violence forcing people to accept defense services of the State.

        Note: Government and State have slightly different definition – my definition of Government didn’t specifically state the need to tax – though every government does tax. Government is rooted in its essence to initiation of violence – that is, makes edicts it calls a law upon non-violent men that it enforces with violence.

        But often the State and the Government, for most conversations, can be interchanged.

        • Don’t get too excited today BF…..I can’t handle it. Who would I spar wth? Thank you for your definition.

        • BF:

          Just call me foggy brain.

          “Being opposed to the State, as I am, does not equally mean opposition to the service. I support defense – I do not support coercion and violence forcing people to accept defense services of the State.”

          How do we support defense on a national basis without allowing those who do not contribute to benefit?

          Locally — we worked that out earlier.

          GarthD
          Paying for a service that allow non-payers to profit is immoral.

          • Black Flag says:

            First question back:

            1) What part of ‘national’ needs to be defended?

            2) Many things of “perceived” a necessity of society are solved by volunteers and volunteer funding – what makes ‘defense’ immune to these strategies?

            3) How much does defense really cost?

            Consider this:
            I build a wall to protect me and my family. You come to stay with me. How much more did the wall cost me so to protect you?

            I am not advocating this as a solution, but merely to poke an idea: The Swiss have a tax treaty option – you pay a flat amount (about $50,000(1990)) and you get all the benefits of the State, including residency (which implies defense).

            We need to break down our ideas about defense first, then the solutions in a free society will become very clear.

            • BF:

              OK. 12/7/1941. Pearl Harbor bombed. Would you have responded? If so, how so.
              If not, if they continued forward — when would you have gotten involved?

              If this doesn’t start the inquiry to defense – start it in your own manner. It appears to be the major hang-up as most everything else can be handled by some sort of voluntary insurance plan.

              GarthD
              Insure Yourself, Its Later Than You Think

              • Black Flag says:

                But let’s start with: Why was Pearl Harbor bombed?

                FDR, as Dear Leader, provoked and maneuvered Japan into a no-win scenario.

                By forcing the exiled government of the Netherlands (who still controlled Indonesia – know as the “Dutch East Indies”) to embargo Japan’s oil.

                Japan had less than 6 months supply.

                Japan tried to negotiate with the USA to come to arrangements but were totally rebuked.

                Japan had a choice. Collapse or seize the oil.

                To seize the oil, they had to sail their fleet thousands of miles – past British warships and American warships.

                What do you think they needed to do, first, then?

                SO the question is…. would a Free Society engage in purposeful actions to provoke a war with Japan and Germany?

              • BF:

                From this I take it that you would use force against me if I bought up all oil where you live:

                you needed some

                because you reneged on a contract with me in the past I would not let you have any

                though you had a oil heater and it was freezing out.

                GarthD
                Be careful what you do, you may get payback

              • Black Flag says:

                From this I take it that you would use force against me if I bought up all oil where you live:

                Nope. (1) I’d never let myself get into that position.

                Japan did because they are a State – just a stupid and ignorant as the State of USA.

                I am most certainly not apologizing for Japan of 1941.

                They were idiots.

                Their people suffered unimaginable horrors over the hubris of the Japanese government (just as the American people will suffer horribly due to the hubris of the American government).

                HOWEVER – if I pretended to be Japan – and an evil Statist – I would see my options suddenly reduced to a fight or surrender equation. Given surrender was not an option….ergo …. fight.

                The point being, though, was that FDR purposely created a strategy to draw America into war….with Germany.

                He wanted this war badly so to save Soviet Russia.

              • Black Flag says:

                Of course, we haven’t even started to see if the USA should be ‘owning’ Hawaii.

                Hawaii was taken by a Coup d’Etat in favor of American sugar interests.

              • Look damn it, we stole it A fair and square, along with the rest of the US.

                I don’t want to give it back.

                Unless of course anyone can explain why we might want to consider giving the Western USA back to the Indians (including Hawaii and Alaska).

              • Black Flag says:

                So, let’s dissolve the Union and leave it up to each individual State to figure out how they want to deal with the past.

              • Black Flag says:

                So, Garth, here’s the hard part.

                When has the US been invaded unprovoked?

            • I was thinking about this earlier. If we have an all-volunteer army, why can’t we have all-volunteer funding for it?

    • http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf

      Using Obamas Grandmother as proof of his birth is pretty weak sauce Black Flag especially when you read the transcript of the recording that birthers conveniently leave off. I thought you would have done better research.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Nice work Bob. Interested in what the LF says to this.

      • Black Flag says:

        The onus is on Obama, not me, to prove his birth.

        Second if he was born in Hawaii, he would he a real cert. not a COLB

        Third, as I said, it doesn’t matter. The point is completely moot. He is the President, and nothing will change that. It may be good sport to debate whether he qualifies to be Prez, but there is no way or how to change that he is Prez.

        • Hey There BF,

          You’re correct about proving once and for all whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen won’t change that he is president. The people who put him in power won’t give up so easily. I do however, believe that its worth getting to the bottom of this issue. One, voters might realize that they need to pay attention to what’s really going on. And two, it would be easier to slow down some of the madness that is currently going on. Can we ever stop it? I’m beginning to think we can’t. The West is on the path of self destruction. We can walk or run, but the destination is the same.

          😦

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You are incorrect sir, on two levels. By stating the onus is on him to “prove”:

          To prove his birth – he exists therefore he was born – unless you are suggesting he is a product of really good special effects.

          Also you pre-suppose that upon birth he possessed sufficient cognition to know (a) that he was just born, (b) where he was born – such that he can prove his birth to you and having occurred on U.S. soil. The onus is on those certifying and attesting to such, not to him.

          • Black Flag says:

            Oh Ray, no need to be obtuse about it. You know what I meant.

            It is not my job to disprove or prove the details of his birth.

            If I require him to prove the details, he is the one that needs to do it, not me. They are his documents, not mine.

            If I require his b.cert, he needs to get it, not me. The only question I hold is “is the document a fraud?”. But I don’t think any one has claimed that – because no one has seen the b. cert to say that! Can’t claim a fraud if all one has is air.

            • Black Flag says:

              But as I repeat – the point is moot.

              The State will do what ever it wants to achieve what ever it wants.

      • Bob,

        Any body, can put anything on the web. What do you know about who posted and translated the information? Do you speak the local language? Can I see your passport? You know full I’m not not in any position to travel to Kenya and do my own investigation. I don’t speak the language either. And even if I did, Obamatrons would just label me a racist or kook, and dismiss the whole thing.

        Good try, though, Bob.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You are clearly indicating a refusal to believe anything that contradicts your deep seated beliefs here. Why would you believe him even if he showed you his own original copy of birth cert? He could still be lying no?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Cyndi – what say you of the man considered to be the Father of modern conservatism – Barry Goldwater? He was most certainly not born in an official State (he was born in a US territory) – should he never have been allowed to run for office? Or do you only question Obama because of his race and/or party affiliation?

        • To be honest I dont care if Obama was born in Hawaii or not hes not my president. It just amuses me to see people try and twist and discredit overwhelming evidence presented to them, its the same as people who think the moon landings were fake and George Bush planned 9/11, any information you present to them is automatically false just the same as your doing now without any research into the evidence provided.

          You keep on going though Cyndi the truth is out there!!!

          • Cyndi P says:

            Okay Bob, let me see. If someone had posted an unofficial Kenya birth certificate before someone posted an unofficial Hawaii short form certifiacte, that would make Obama Kenyan born? You mean you wouldn’t question the the Kenyan certificate? You’d just say, ‘Oh well, that’s it then. There’s my proof. He’s done.’ Somehow, I don’t think you would, because for whatever reason, you want this man in office doing what he is doing. Just like I want him out of office so he can’t do what he’s doing. So is that as crazy as saying President Bush plotted 9/11 and the moon landings were a hoax?

            You’re right though. The truth is out there just waiting for someone with the clout and motivation to see it free.

            Can you please explain to me why the British Royals, and I presume other European Royals, used to have the custom of a member of Parliment witness the royal births? Do you think there may have been a problem with people not being who they claimed to be, or were the witness just really into watching child birth?

            • Cyndi please detail all the evidence you have that Obama is not a US citizen. Do you think that someone will be able to get evidence against him after going head to head against McCain and Clinton? Do you not think they would have dug up any small piece of crap to discredit him?
              What do you think of the testimonies of the Hawaii health officials that certify Obama was born in Hawaii?

              As regards why the home secretary was present during royal births was due to James II’s son who would have been raised a Roman Catholic and would have been heir to the throne. Catholics were not liked very much at the time and due to the other stillborn and infant deaths of males the populace was suspicious when a healthy boy was born. The home secretary was then required to be present at subsequent births which was fairly retarded considering how public royal births were anyway. So the reason we had the home secretary there was due to a dislike of catholics.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Bob – and we should not leave out as well that the Republican Governor of Hawaii is also in on the conspiracy since she ‘sealed’ his records.

              • Bob,

                If McCain or Clinton would have dugg up ANYTHING on Obama, and used it to discedit him, they would have been discredited as RACISTS. I don’t put it past Hillary to have the information and use it sometime in the future. McCain considers himself above those sorts of tactics. Just look at the compaign he ran. He could have been much nastier.
                I wouldn’t be suprised if Hillary quietly gets the info into the right hands to bring down Obama. She has the clout and resouces to get to the bottom of it. Hell, she has enough power to forge the evidence if she wanted to. She’s smart enough not get dirty. All she has to do, is keep a low profile, let Obama cook his own goose with the voters (which by the way seems to have started), and said voters are fed up with Obama, the info comes out. Obama is forced out of office, Biden the Nincompoop takes over, really making a mess of it. Then comes next election, with good ol’ Hill, loyal party member, who’s spent the last few years, paying her dues, and taking the high road after being shafted by the Democratic Party in favor of Obama. All her middle age female voters are still there, and Hill is more appealing than ever. Does that sound too far fetched? I don’t think so.

                So anti catholic sentiment was the reason? Why were the people suspicious? Did they think they’d get a ruler who wasn’t who he said he was? Is it impossible for that to happen? Was there some precedence? I don’t think it was just the British Royals. I think the medieval people had the same problem we have now. They can’t trust their leaders/rulers. They knew how their leaders/rulers behaved and developed a wariness towards them. Otherwise, a Catholic on the throne wouldn’t be such a big deal if he could be trusted not to force Catholicism on all of them, right?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Cyndi – please point me in the right direction if I am wrong here – but I thought the issue of President Obama’s Grandmother supposedly stating that she was present at his birth in Kenya was sourced from a conversation he sorta had with her over the telephone and then an affidavit stating that he was present when she said this (I guess meaning ‘present’ to be on the telephone). Anyway, Philip Berg (who is also well known for his 911 conspiracy theories) picked this up and referenced it to file lawsuits which have, I believe, all been thrown out – Berg could ever supply any evidence of such a statement or conversation – these folks have merely said ‘take my word for it’. I found the PDF very interesting – sure it could be completely fabricated but it would appear at least marginally more objective than ‘take my word for it’. Would you agree?

  14. Black Flag says:

    Dr. North has published an essay reflecting on the economic future and dispelling many myths about Government debt – primarily, ‘our children will pay for what we spend today’


    All costs are present costs. It is only a question of who pays them and why.

    Anyone who says that we are passing on present costs to future generations does not understand economic cause and effect.

    We are told that we are using politics to leave a massive debt to our children.

    Really? Which children? The typical taxpayer? He or she can vote. As soon as this tax burden grows too heavy, the voters will demand that it be reduced. Congress will then sell more debt, just as it always does.

    At some point, that debt will not find a market.

    The great default will then take place.

    At that point, Congress’s IOU’s will become IOU Nothings.

    The Great Default is coming. Count on it.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      I strongly agree that the great default is coming. Many countries now face a catch-22:

      They cannot sell US debt, because selling US debt will drive the dollar down, which will lower the “value” of any of their remaining US debt holdings.

      Also, they cannot stop buying US debt, because discontinuing the purchasing of US debt will drive the dollar down, which will lower the value of their current US debt holdings.

      These other countries already realize that our paper is worthless, but they are hesitant to take any action which would cause our paper to become as worthless as it really is.

      Very smart of our government to pin other governments in this way, and it is interesting to see China, India, Brazil, and some other countries trying to devise a work-around for this catch-22 without causing the dollar to collapse completely; however, with as much debt as we currently have, complete dollar collapse is basically inevitable.

    • Concerned in Michigan says:

      So, what does the “average citizen” do? (Same question for #17.)

      • Black Flag says:

        Concerned;

        Not to be glib, but everyone needs to put on their thinking caps.

        Economics is a funny science, simply because its premise derives from human action.

        It is not like physics, which derives from natural law. In physics, I can give you a formula.

        In economics, I cannot give you a formula because it all depends on human action – that is, your own decisions.

        So, it always “It depends”. If you know something about Poker, you can figure out Economics. A good poker player will say “It depends” – on position, who is in the pot, the bet, the cards held, what he thinks his opponents hold, what he thinks his opponents think he holds and what he thinks his opponent think he thinks they hold….

        Same in Economics – it depends on your personal situation, where you live, what you do, how old you are, your dependents, what assets, what are your debts, etc.

        So, you have to figure it out for yourself.

        But here is some help to guide you in that.

        1) The first question is binary. Do you believe that the Gov. will default, or it won’t. If you believe it won’t, you don’t have do anything other than what you are doing now. If you believe it will, you have lots of work to do.

        2) Assuming #1 is “Yes, you believe it will default” – you have to start asking questions about what happens when an entity does not pay its debt. Be careful, because government is not the same as a business. For a business, it is destroyed and its pieces are given away to pay for the debt. A government will not suffer this. So what happens instead? Ponder that for awhile.

        3) When you’ve come up with some ideas, then you have to figure out how it will impact you – then you have to make plans on how to a) mitigate the bad effects and b) exploit the good effects.

        You can bounce some ideas along the way here on the blog. It may help generate some not-so-obvious solutions.

  15. TO DAVE E: Question. I am sure that you are aware of the ongoing and becoming volatile discussion concerning National Health Care. I am in the Veterans System here and it really sucks so, quite naturally, I am leaning against National Health care. So, I have a question that could tip my decision drastically. By that, I mean, make me more against it with no hope of recovery or make me think more to the middle of the road. So, please answer my question as truthfully as you can if you know the facts.

    I have read the Canadian Health Care plan pretty thoroughly and there is quite a bit of ambiguity in some areas. (Gee, a government document with ambiguity, go figure)..anyway, it appears that there is a form of what is termed “managed health care”. There are plenty of advertisements on our TV’s here saying that it is possible that health care can be denied.

    Here are my questions… Under your health care system, can health care be denied by a board of physicians or non-physicians on a subjective basis? Does not matter the reason why, just can it? Now, insurance companies here can deny payments but not health care. We have the right to go anywhere private physicians are but under your National Health Care, do you have that option or do you actually have to leave country to get it?

    Second question. I talked to a friend of mine from Canada that told me that specific operations are limited. Example he gave was his hip replacement. He lives in Toronto. He did say that there were only so many available and that his wait time was 18 months. Is this a true statement? Are there operations that are limited in number and you are placed on a waiting list depending upon severity? I am not talking about waiting on a kidney or something but that of normal operations that are not life threatening.

    Third question. Is there a per employee penalty on companies that do not offer insurance?

    and lastly… does an individual have the option of opting out without being penalized financially.

    Thanks.

    • Alan F. says:

      “health care can be denied” – Not even if you show up with a Russian Passport, no Canadian stamp on it and the heroin needle still in your arm. They do however have the right to not carve you up to look like Angelia Joli or give you a big old set of Pamela Anderson personal flotation devices. You want those, pony up for such yourself…. free toys… the nerve.

      Operations are an “in line” based upon “need” and “age” as indeed the number of “needy” exceeds the number of operating theaters and oddly enough anesthetists(nudging daughter 3 this direction). If I really really really want a hip or knee and am not going to get one ASAP, I’ll just go buy the operation myself and get it ASAP(as soon as purchased).

      Penalty for not playing gimme? That’s union talk Mr… en guarde!

      Opting out of taxation? You’re serious? Really? Hows “welcome to PA Correctional, try not to take it in the keister from the natives” sound?

      • Actually, I was serious. Can I choose NOT to be in the health care system?

        • Black Flag says:

          Yes, and pay an 8% tax as punishment.

        • Alan F. says:

          My response is actually dead on in spite of looking too tongue in cheek. No pay tax get nailed. No pay tax enough times go to prison.

          I was nailed a few years back with a change in the labor tax for networking on a new construction. It was no longer considered a part of the construction process of a building (as is phone) and subject to the Saskatchewan PST. We were 30 days amiss (which is when my book keeper became aware of the change) and bills were long gone not charging such. The fine was $1050.00 on $200.00 of missed tax. When I asked the chance of appeal I was told by a friend(CPA retired) who had dealing with them before that the government was at one time 1200+ wins 0 losses on the matter of provincial taxation litigation. His advice was to suck it up and be thankful their audit found you clean in every other regard. He also warned me not to bitch too loud lest I end up on their short rotation list.

      • Interesting…can you explain the concept of age? Do you mean that a 25 year old would get the nod over..say someone 85? If so, how do you separate the “Messiah” complex from this? The health care system that Canada has plays GOD? Wow.

        • Alan F. says:

          I’d guess, (I’m not privy to current specific policy in spite of connections to the hospital, physicians and pharmacists here) the 25 is active in generating taxable income, raising a family and adding to the overall productivity of ye old country. The 85 is done with such. Now that’s without any weeping or touchy-feely going on and just what I would guess the facts are. I have seen many who would not survive surgery ask for such. I have seen those who did and came out as their doctor told them “worse for having done such” pressing once more for surgery in spite of exponentially greater risks. There’s a lot more to it than merely age. A whole lot more.

          As of this day more than half of the Health Care dollars are spent geriatric so the elderly are not being sent off on ice flows nor relegated to munching away on pet food. (I do my set with “Meals on Wheels” here too) I do more with the geriatric set here than most I’ve met outside of those within the industry itself and I’ve yet to see one choose themselves over others younger and with families. The elderly here, where I live, have seen sacrifice and don’t bitch about it nor to they use the word “I” very often. You want to know who the hard core “one for all and all for one” crowd is here in Canada? First clue, they all remember what it was like before TV.

          Q to you: If there’s one heart available and 2 recipients how do you choose in the American system? Top dollar? Intellect of the recipient? Genetic potential of offspring? Political association or affiliation? Cuteness? Here its success of the whole procedure from surgery to acceptance/rejection.

          • Hmmmmm…. great question. I will actually ask someone in the business. As a sports therapist, I do not deal with replacing body parts just working with rehabilitation of the broken ones.

            It seems to me, to make any decisions concerning life is taking ones right away to life. My guess is that here in the States…given the one heart scenario….and private physician service….it would be first come first served if both could pay for it. In a private enterprise system, as a doctor, I would pick who could pay. That is what I am in business for.

            But, thank you for answering. I would really have a problem with a panel deciding that because I might be geriatric in age, therefore, I am less a person. But thank you.

            • Judy S. says:

              I’m going to ask my son this same question tonight, being as he is in pre-med right now, and see what he says.

              But, if I know my son, and we kind of talked about this a while back, I think this is what he would say.

              If he had to choose between a 25 year old and an 85 year old, I think he would choose the younger for this reason.

              Like he said before, it’s not that the 85 year old doesn’t deserve it, it’s just that they lived a lot longer than the 25 year old, and why deprive the 25 year old of a longer life if he/she has that chance of it.

              I know, that’s terrible coming from a future doctor,right? He wants to work in ER, and that’s the specialty he plans on going for.

              He told me, he said, mom don’t take offense at this, but it would bother me more to lose a younger patient than it would be to lose an older one. It’s not that he doesn’t care for the elderly, he said it’s because they lived their life and they have experienced all or most of what there is. Where as, the younger ones, really hasn’t experienced anything at life.

              But, I will ask him anyway, and see what he says.

              Judy

            • Alan F. says:

              Bottom line, I can always buy myself better and I know many right here who can buy the best this planet has to offer. Even in a socialist paradise, money speaks in a clear voice that all can understand and most are attentive towards.

              Those who are too poor to afford dropping a big nut to save their own arses wouldn’t be able to do it in your system either unless they’re discounting for seniors with outstanding health issues. As for Medicaid/Medicare that’s as broken as anything here and many doctors have stated publicly they won’t accept Medicaid at all citing payment problems which have lead many practices to bankruptcy.

              • Agreed.

              • Alan F. says:

                My youngest daughter reminded me of something. The young think themselves indestructible. The insurance system itself relies on the premiums paid by the young and healthy to offset the elderly who are filing claims (I know for a fact dental absolutely counts on this). If given a “cheaper” government option I’d think they’d migrate to it for the short term gain as very few are able to see the long-term cost of credit card debt let alone having a brand of premium health insurance vanish. Would that not leave the insurance companies in the lurch for a demographic whose needed premiums vastly exceed their claims against?

            • And of course we don’t know how many young children that old man might of saved from that bus wreck that happened in front of his house one week after he died from heart failure.

              I just love butterflys.

              • Judy S. says:

                JAC, what does that suppose to mean? Am I missing something here on what you said?

                Judy

              • Which part?

              • Judy S. says:

                The Whole thing about what you said. I don’t understand about the old man who could have saved children from a bus accident and he dies a week befor it happened.

                I hate this darn squishy box, can’t tell what I wrote or any mistakes.

              • Judy S. says:

                JAC,JAC, I think I misread your post.

              • Judy:

                Do you understand it now?

                Just move your responses over to the left to avoid the little box.

                Its OK if it looks like you answer yourself or someone else. If you use the name of your comment we will figure it out.

                JAC

              • Judy S. says:

                Sorry for calling you JAC JAC, I thought I backtracked and started over.

                Do I understand about your comment? Well, not really I guess.Would you mind explaining it better so I can? Would appreciate it.

                BTW, did you watch Obama’s speech tonight, and if you did, what did you think of it.

                We did, and I’m not happy with a few of his ideas. We’ll get into that later, maybe, if I don’t get too riled up first.

                Judy

                P.S.

                Thanks for the help on writing in these little, little boxes.

              • Judy:

                What was D13 and Alan F talking about (starting at 15) just before I posted the comment?

                Then read my comment again. Hint, it was supposed to be a funny but make a point about the topic.

          • Murphy's Law says:

            Alan asked: If there’s one heart available and 2 recipients how do you choose in the American system? Top dollar? Intellect of the recipient? Genetic potential of offspring? Political association or affiliation? Cuteness? Here its success of the whole procedure from surgery to acceptance/rejection.

            There is almost never, in your scenario, 2 recipients who are exactly alike in their medical situation…….the organ goes to the one who is the greater match as far as tissue matching is concerned and/or in greater need, and both factors as well as others are taken into consideration (including the patient’s track record of following drs orders- people who have a history of not taking meds when they don’t feel like it are not likely to receive an organ)……. had a very close family member who had a kidney transplant 13 years ago. At that time the donor/recipient tissue matching was a 6 point procedure, meaning that a 1 point match was not very good, and a 6 point match with the donor was considered a “perfect” match (though the only true perfect match is between identical twins) and theoretically would not need as strong a dose of anti-rejection meds in order for the body not to reject the tranplanted organ.

            If both potential recipients had the same # of matching points, then the one in greater need, or closer to death if they didn’t receive the organ, got the organ. In order to even be on the transplant list the person had to be determined to be a good transplant candidate, as they (transplant drs.) don’t like to transplant an organ into someone who is so unhealthy overall that they may not live long after even a successful transplant. If I remember the stats (again, at the time, 1996) 90% of kidney recipients were alive 5 yrs after transplant, and 70% were still alive after 10 yrs, these stats including death from all causes, not just failure of the kidney. The person to which I refer is doing well although trans. kidney has failed and he is back on dialysis 3x/week. He is able to work part time but also receives disability benefits.

            Does that help answer your question?

  16. Black Flag says:

    British troops relying on Russian supply aircraft
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200772/British-troops-relying-Russian-supply-aircraft.html

    To those that believe we could supply our troops by air when cut off from Basra…. riiggghhhttt!

  17. Black Flag says:

    From the “You won’t see this on Fox, ABC, NBC or CBS (or anywhere else) file

    —–

    In its current issue, HSL reports rumors that “Some U.S. embassies worldwide are being advised to purchase massive amounts of local currencies; enough to last them a year. Some embassies are being sent enormous amounts of U.S. cash to purchase currencies from those governments, quietly. But not pound sterling. Inside the State Dept., there is a sense of sadness and foreboding that ‘something’ is about to happen … within 180 days, but could be 120-150 days.”

    Yes, yes, it’s paranoid. But paranoids have enemies — and the Crash of 2008 really did happen.

    HSL’s suspicion: “Another FDR-style ‘bank holiday’ of indefinite length, perhaps soon, to let the insiders sort out the bank mess, which (despite their rosy propaganda campaign) is getting more out of their control every day. Insiders want to impose new bank rules. Widespread nationalization could result, already underway. It could also lead to a formal U.S. dollar devaluation, as FDR did by revaluing gold (and then confiscating it).”

    • Concerned in Michigan says:

      So what does this mean to us here? What should the “average citizen” do?

    • Black Flag says:

      If you believe this to be possible:

      1) If the government owes you money you will not get it.

      2) Imports will evaporate.

      3) Blackmarkets will thrive.

      4) Many government services, at all levels, may fail due to strike or lack of parts. Water, Sewer, Garbage Police, etc. may not be available consistently.

      5) Inflation will explode.

      • Hi Black Flag,

        About #4…Our rural water association just had a meeting with 500 present to protest a rise in water rates. They are in massive debt and in danger of shutting down, if rates are not increased by 63%….a family that uses 5000 gallon a month will see a $108 bill.

        About #5…I saw where the inflation rate for June was 1.1%. I know you had posted a while back the different danger signs as far as the rate of inflation is concerned. So if that rate continues…that would be 12%+ per year?

        • Black Flag says:

          Re: inflation

          No. Those rates that they publish are always “annualized” – that is, measured as if it was over a full year.

          Because government always assumes any revenue goes into a big pot, it is dangerous to think that water taxes goes to water, fuel taxes goes to roads, etc.

          So if there is a shortfall anywhere in the Statist system, all systems under the State will suffer. This is by design.

          It allows the water to blame the roads to blame the power to blame the unemployed to blame the health to blame the water.

          So who is at fault? Everyone! … thus, no one.

          God help you.

    • RBloom0566 says:

      Black Flag:

      I’ve got a friend who says he’s hearing rumors of a forced Federal Bank Holiday sometime in August, lasting indefinitely, but at least 30-60 days.

      Given the inter-dependency of the world market, and the fact that we are now the largest debtor nation in the world, can such a holiday be enacted by the Fed without the world economy crashing and burning?

      What does this mean for things like structured annuities that reside with federally insured sources (FDIC)?

      • Black Flag says:

        The “Holiday” is the means to provide a massive devaluation of the dollar.

        Will the crash the global economy? It won’t help – but it will be more like this:

        If you had a spendthrift brother, who keeps borrowing from you, suddenly say he can’t pay you back…what would happen to you?

        Well, not much. You only lend him money you weren’t using. Your lifestyle wouldn’t be that badly effected since you didn’t need that money in the first place (or else you wouldn’t have lent it). Your future vacation plan may be tossed that you were going on when bro’ paid you back, but -oh well- your life goes on.

        Your brother though is pretty well toast. He’s going to have to make massive adjustments ’cause you ain’t there to lend money any more.

        As far as FDIC. Remember, nothing changes in the economy of USA if a bank fails.

        The Fed prints money and gives everyone back their paper currency that people deposited. The net loss/gain is zero (as far as the M1 currency measures). It is paper back for paper given.

  18. Black Flag says:

    Sorry, G.A. Rowe, to burst your bubble, but….

    Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence.

    • Black Flag says:

      But, as I said, it doesn’t matter.

      • Hey BF, if you want the facts go here;

        http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html

        And just ask them since it is their bailiwick anyway . . .

      • Black Flag,

        You say it makes no difference if Obama was in fact ineligible to be President, it would be a moot point now.

        Would it not make every bill he has signed, as a fraudulent President, unenforceable?

        • Black Flag says:

          Ask this question, Dee, to yourself.

          Do you believe the Supreme Court, Congress and the Senate would overrule the President signing their own laws that they made into legal force?

          Nope, I don’t think they would either.

          The Income Tax Amendment is fraudulent. Everyone know this (or should know it).

          However, no court will entertain any debate about it. It is moot. You can bring up any evidence of the fraud and the court will throw it out by calling it “frivolous”. The debate is over – as far as the court is concerned – and no matter of law or logic or reason will change their minds.

          The power of government exists in its ability to make its own rules and enforce them on itself.

          If you could make your own rules and chose when or when not to enforce those rules on yourself – do you really believe you are subject to any rules?

          • Black Flag says:

            So the question about Obama is simple.

            Who are you going to find to enforce the rules on him?

    • BF,

      When did that happen? I was HASP in 1962 & 1963 and that was the law then. Had to know since many service members had foreign born wives with children born in different countries – some in U.S.A. and some elsewhere.

      If that law changed after he was born, then his COLB is still considered his legal birth record. So, as you say, it won’t matter anyway.

      FYI – There is a lawyer in SoCal who is still trying to dispute his citizenship on legal grounds, but is not making any headway. And a Soldier in Montana had his case against BHO on the same grounds dismissed for lack of evidence – or so I have heard, and I am sure that you have more knowledge of both those cases than I do. I just don’t seem to get around the legal community since I retired as much as I used to (REALLY can’t say I miss it all that much! ;-)).

  19. Alan F. says:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

    If you don’t already have one, get your copy today!

  20. Black Flag says:

    http://www.pjtv.com/video/Louder_With_Crowder/__PJTV_Undercover%3A_Steven_Crowder_Investigates_Why_CanadaCare_SucksWill_ObamaCare_Be_Any_Better%3F/2153/

    This is Canadian medicine in action. If you don’t have a private physician — and it’s hard to find one that still accepts new clients — you are in big trouble

    • Alan F. says:

      Quebec is a whole other kettle BF.

      • Alan F. says:

        Want to see a GP without giving any symptom as an American guest? It’ll take a couple of days. Emergency now takes the ever crappy phone call for a nurse(this IS idiocy as various afflictions appear to the average person as equal and will always be explained as such by the untrained eye) to do ye old phone diagnosis when after hours(we’re not a major center). Emergency is open to any walking in the door and yes its triage. Spear in the chest trumps pinky splinter. We here have 4 GP’s to service 2400 people and they do take on more patients. None go without.

    • Search the Web on Snap.com says:

      First off, Mr Crowder somehow managed to capture a worse-case scenario. In my life up here, I have never experienced such a farce. The only truths in this article is the long wait times for service, and that family doctors are at capacity, and you do have to wait a few years before you can find a doctor that will accept you. These are issues that everyone is aware of, and we are going to fix that problem. But as someone who has lived the Canadian health care all his life, I consider it a worthwhile program.

      • “Wait a few years….a doctor that will accept you”.

        “we are going to fix that problem…..”

        “worthwhile program”

        What? Why is this acceptable to you?

  21. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

    You will notice how the NY Times finds scientists that still believe that man-made emissions of CO2 are still causing global warming, and they very carefully attempt to cast doubt on the theory that a new Dalton or Maunder minimum are causing global cooling, but even THEY, the cherished NY Times, are starting to publish articles about the sun and its complete lack of activity lately.

    By the way, 201 record low temperatures IN THE US ALONE were either tied or broken on 7/20/09 check http://www.weather.gov for the official NOAA/National Weather Service statistics 🙂

    Last week, there were 2 days in a row where the low temperature in International Falls, MN was a whopping 35 F. Bet they love those summer heating bills on those mornings! Yes, that is right, 35 F for low temps in the middle of July….

    IF man-made global warming is happening (which it isn’t), it is currently being VASTLY OVERWHELMED by Mother Nature, which is the way it always has been and always will be. We have too much of a God complex if we think we have any influence whatsoever on global climate.

    • Black Flag says:

      Another’s blog:

      There’s been an astonishing shift in the global warming debate. RealClimate, a prominent climate blog run by leading alarmist scientists such as Michael ”Hockey Stick” Mann and Gavin Schmidt, has acknowledged that the warming has paused, after all, and probably will not resume (if at all) for at least another decade.

      The site has published an overview by Kyle Swanson of his new paper, which tries to explain why temperatures have cooled since 2001.

      The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming. Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it’s real. Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.

      What’s our perspective on how the climate will behave in the near future?

      The HadCRUT3 global mean temperature to the right shows the post-1980 warming, along with the “plateau” in global mean temperature post-1998. Also shown is a linear trend using temperatures over the period 1979-1997 (no cherry picking here; pick any trend that doesn’t include the period 1998-2008). We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal.
      If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

      And now there is this note of caution that the debate on man-made global warming is far from as settled as so many journalists, activist scientists and politicians have so falsely insisted for so long:

      Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

      Summing up: some of the scientists most prominent in promoting the theory that man is heat the world to hell now promote a paper saying that theory is actually questionable, and we now face a prolonged period of no temperature rises instead, contrary, it says, to what leading climate models predicted.

      And this is the theory that the Government is so sure of that it’s imposing on the economy a colossal emissions reduction scheme that will tax our emissions, from power stations to cows, dragging down growth and putting tens of thousands of jobs in danger.

      One wonders what 22 years of cooling will do the warming debate.

      • BF:

        Get with the program. It is not Global Warming any more. It is Climate Change that is the problem.

        We have climate change problems in Texas. It sure is nice here and then the temperature goes over 95. I am sure that there is something that can be done about it.

        GarthD
        Here Gore, Here Gore — Where has that idiot gone now. Probably inventing another internet.

    • Jabba the Gore will be going on to capital hill explaining that temperatures are down in spite of linear increases in CO2 because Bush intentionally left his fridge open.

  22. Here’s a feelgood story for all.
    “A linebacker with the Edmonton Eskimos football team made his first sack of the season early Tuesday morning when he and another man chased down a purse snatcher and held him down until police arrived.
    Kitwana Jones was on his way to a player appearance around 6:45 a.m. when he heard a woman screaming for help in the area of 100 Avenue and 103 Street. Jones and another passerby ran down a man who had taken a laptop computer and purse from the woman and held him until police arrived.
    Jones, who is six-feet-tall and weighs 227 pounds, said he was just doing what he had to.
    “I don’t have too much fear for anything but God, you know what I’m saying,” Jones told reporters at football practice Tuesday afternoon. “God put me in that situation … to help that woman out, and, like, if something bad would have happened to me, I think it would have just been God willing.
    “Nothing bad happened to me and the guy’s behind bars, everything is good.”
    “The suspect would likely have gotten away had it not been for the quick thinking of these bystanders,” said Det. Bill Allen of Edmonton police.
    “Everyone must keep in mind that there’s always a chance that weapons could be present, and an innocent person could be injured when trying to make a citizen’s arrest.”

    Terrance Allan Walcott, 29, has been charged with robbery.

    The woman’s purse and computer were recovered and returned to her.

    • DaveE:

      You’ve found D13s twin. D13 has a cape to go with his attitude.

      GarthD
      Damn, Used to be easier when they had more phone booths.

  23. Judy S. says:

    Peter,

    Answering you down here, box too squishy. You know, I know you’re right, and I really don’t know why I said that, not thinking clearly today, I’m sorry.

    JAC.

    No different than killing deer, or moose, or even rabbits. Wouldn’t call that a vice, at least I wouldn’t.

  24. this might be of interest to some. I think I saw a few discussions on the topic. Don’t know if anyone’s seen this yet…..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5857074/Fiscal-ruin-of-the-Western-world-beckons.html

  25. On Transparency…this is the revised tax code as it pertains to property taxes in Texas.

    Excerpt– From Senate Bill 18…

    Those governing bodies that have increased their tax rates by adjourning a meeting and
    immediately holding “another” meeting a few minutes later will be stopped. Senate Bill 18
    mandates that two public hearings, publicized in local newspapers in advance, must be held at
    least three days apart.

    In the digital age, all taxing units that host Internet sites (216 of Texas’ 254 counties have
    their own Websites), must post on their sites the details of upcoming hearing at which taxes
    are increased by even a penny.

    This is now in effect.

  26. Black Flag says:

    Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state
    Constitutional rights reasserted in growing resistance to Washington
    Posted: July 20, 2009
    11:08 pm Eastern

    By Chelsea Schilling
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

    Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing resistance to the federal government.

    Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report. The resolution “claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

    Alaska’s House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

    According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

    Alaska’s resolution states:

    Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

    Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

    While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states’ sovereignty resolutions.

    The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

  27. Well, I’m out for the night. It will be interesting to see if there are any comments about Obama’s speech from tonight. I know I have my share of comments about certain things, and they are not very nice, but I’ll do my best to keep my language in tact.

    So, Hope you all will have a pleasant and good night.

    Take care everyone.

    Judy

  28. Ray,

    IF, and I see you missed that word in my previous post, I believed that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, why would I bother with taking it court? I’d just say “ARREST HIM! JAIL HIM!” Why would I bother explaining that I don’t like his Communist/Socalist party agenda and tactics? Why would I point out that Obama uses the tactics of Lenin (class warefare) and the tactics of Hitler as to race “Those cops were stupid” (Gates arrest), “my grandmother the typical white person”, the address to the NAACP the other day, lots of other examples of everyday blacks engaging in anti white behavoir, my own experience of having a black HR rep telling me my opinion is wrong because I’m white. When I pointed out that I’m actually HISPANIC, she responded “well, you LOOK white”. I can provide a list for you, but it would be a waste of time. But whatever, I’ve decided USW is right when it comes to trying to have intelligent conversation with you. Its a waste of time. I believe you have the emotional maturity of a 13 year old, as your childish posts clearly indicate.

    Okay USW, I’m done with him now, too.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Cyndi…

      It is amazing that an “HR Rep” actually said that to you!!!!! That totally blows my mind. HR Reps are like the most PC people ever…

      Best Regards,
      RS

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cyndi – sorry – I am not done with you – and will split my responses herein:

      Your HR Rep – Political correctness aside that is weak and a cop-out to attribute your opinion(s) to you ‘being white’. Here is the rub though – does it feel offensive or uncomfortable to have a sweeping assumption made about you (an HR Rep telling you your opinions are wrong simply because you are ‘white’)? I sense that aggravated you a touch – so perhaps, just maybe, you can see a sliver of my consternation when you state that I, as someone who voted for Barack Obama, is much like the 95% of everyone who voted for him just because of his ‘creamy skin’. Understand, that I consider it offensive to vote for someone simply because of the color of their skin. That includes folks that vote one ticket because its a white guy or another ticket because the candidate is black.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cyndi – to the rest of your posting…..

      Have you left anything out?

      So let’s see here – he is a (or demonstrates behavior of..) Leninist, Communist, Socialist, racist, and so on and so forth. I guess I am waiting for the other shoe to drop – maybe he’s a child molestor, a rapist, a murderer, an illegal immigrant, or as Bob pointed out, maybe he really is an extraterrestrial lizard.

      So all kidding and nonsense aside. I get it that you hate the guy with a passion. Every fiber of his being, every word from his mouth, every bill signed by his pen is another pin in your heart and gash in your soul. I’m not sure I could manufacture that level of hatred for President Bush, or a Sarah Palin. It is likely that we are so immensely far apart in ideology that any engagement is likely to turn ugly. Much as I may look in the mirror from time to time and ask myself – ‘is the bleeding heart bleeding a little too much?’, I challenge you to look at yourself and ask equally hard question – is the passion of your passion productive, or has it enveloped you to the extent you’ve lost objectivity and simply see every breath of Obama as robbing you of oxygen.

      Great debating you when it was such. I’m totally ok if you want to take your toys to a different playground.

      And FTR – if John thinks responding to me is a waste of time, I’ll let him say so. I don’t consider it an honor to have an entire posting (or just about) dedicated to a point by point trash session of me – but that’s ok – it forces to ensure I am on top of what I believe. My skin is thick and I try and stick to my guns and points w/o being too irrational.

      • USWeapon says:

        Ray,

        Let me first apologize if you felt that what I was doing was a point by point trashing of you. I felt the discussion was important and I wanted to give it a place to be seen and discussed. It was unfair of me to do so, perhaps unfair to do it to D13 and TexasChem as well. But I don’t do so as an attack on anyone. If I think some good discussion can come out of it I will pull a discussion and highlight it. I can refrain from doing so if it makes people feel attacked. That is the last thing that I want people to feel like on here.

        As for thinking it is a waste of time responding to you. Yes it is. An absolute waste of my time and energy. But I like wasting time and energy so it is something I try to do.

        Of course that was a JOKE! If I thought responding to you was a waste of my time, I would not do so. On the contrary, I think that you are a very intelligent person. I think that you have your head in the right place and that you generally give a lot of thought to different sides of the issues. I sometimes feel you assume too much conservatism in me, but I will admit that I probably sometimes assume too much liberalism in you. I actually love having discussions with you because I think that you are honest, respectful, and you debate the issues with integrity. I am certain that we sometimes get a little miffed with each other because we come from some topics from opposite directions. But I would have it no other way.

        In short, I am a person who continually looks to become a better person. I am intelligent and know that there is still much for me to learn. There is SO much to be gained by engaging with someone who opposes your point of view. It allows me to refine my argument, or to completely change my mind when I see something from a different angle. You are, in my opinion, one of my most worthy adversaries and simultaneously one of the people who helps me the most to grow as a political thinker and a person.

        I hope that, regardless of the disagreements that we have had or will have in the future, that you will always remember that underneath it all, this is what I think of you.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          You weren’t trashing me – poor choice of words. All this ‘thinking’ would be no fun if there were no one to challenge me (or me challenge them).

    • USWeapon says:

      CyndiP,

      I definitely appreciate your passion and your thoughts. I will readily admit that there are times that I get very frustrated with Ray. But I know him to be a couple of things. He is intelligent and fair. And I think that he debates with integrity. In other words, if I prove him wrong he will admit so. There are times I have to walk away from the computer because I get angry or frustrated. And When that need arises, I do so. But on the flip side of that Ray offers me insight into a different perspective on the issues. While it can be frustrating, I try to always read what he says and question what I have previously thought on the subject. That is an extremely valuable thing for me. I apply this to everyone who espouses a position that is different from mine. I used to be the same way with BF, who can be absolutely infuriating to debate with. But I came to also place great value on his point of view. Both Ray and BF add great value to the discussions here, much in the same way that you do. My only advice is to give some thought to what he posts…. he is usually well thought out. And he is always honest and fair. How many of those liberal websites can you go to and find that from?

      • Cyndi P says:

        USW Weapon, thank you for showing me respect. My issue with Ray is that I feel he shows ME disrespect when he gets emotional. You’re correct that he’s better behaved and smarter than most liberals posting on the internet, but I don’t take to being insulted and talked down to when explaining my thoughts on a particular topic. This morning, and it was 3:20 in the morning where I am, I made a post while waiting for my coffee to brew. Yeah, I had a few typos. Big deal. It doesn’t mean than I’m crazy and stupid. It means I’m a lousy typist, and more so when I haven’t had my morning coffee. I’ve noticed I’m not alone when it come to typing ability. 😉 I’m a field engineer, not a computer data entry clerk. I readily admit my typing and proof reading skills aren’t as sharp as my technical skills in the shop. Good thing, too 🙂 In any case, I have a problem being insulted by someone who can’t or won’t, address my point. The whole ‘Obama is really an extra terrestrial lizard’ thing was childish and condesending. I never made any such claim, nor did I accuse Obama of eating children, murdering people, etc. Yet some of those comments were tossed my way. I have made some very sane comments here, that Ray responded to by attacking me and accussing me of being a kook. That IMO, is BS. Everytime he does it to me, I will call him on it. That pretty much goes for Bob and Todd too, though with Todd I can communicate well enough for it to be enlightening. Thanks for letting me vent.

    • USWeapon says:

      And for the record I share some of your concerns around Obama. I am trying very hard to look at him objectively, but there is a lot that I don’t like when I look at what he says and does. I am hoping to really figure him out soon.

  29. RS

    I was pretty shocked by that too, but it was over a casual Sunday lunch, so I guess her HR Rep hat was off. We live on a small, remote island and everyone mixes with everyone else. You really get to know people in a place like this. I’ve also learned to bite my tongue. Well, as much as is possible for someone such as myself!

    😉

  30. v. Holland says:

    A lot of issues are being discussed here and I think it’s a good thing but what scares me more than anything is the exaggeration that comes with speaking through a computer which can take out the natural limits that we place upon ourselves when we talk face to face. Civility is more than a word, it’s a necessary part of communication, it’s the respect that we show our fellow man that allows for true conversation. SO lets be passionate, lets learn from each other but please remember what can sound like HATE on a computer screen is usually just passion blown way out of proportion by anger and the anger usually causes a gross exaggeration of what the person really feels. Hope I don’t sound preachy, things just seem to be getting a little out of hand.

  31. Ray,

    You don’t seem to defend Obama’s POLICIES, only him. Deny being impressed by his skin color all you want, but I can tell I touched a nerve by bringing it up.

    Show me where I said anything hateful about Obama. He scares me because I can tell he’s being dishonest, and he has done nothing to gain my trust. So that’s hate is it? I have not accused him of bieng an extra terrestrial lizard, murderer, child molester or any thing else. I simply question, like MILLIONS others, his qualifications for being POTUS, his location of birth being just one item. It doesn’t make me a kook, racist or ‘hater’.

    As for naturalized citizens, BOTH of my parents are immigrants. According to the government descriptions, I’m Hispanic. Many of my extended familiy members are immigrants. My ex husband is an immigrant, so don’t imply that I have no clue about or a dislike of, immgrants. Not only is my ex an immigrant, he is a Socalist. Ten and 1/2 have years of him practicing Socialism by intentionally withholding important information, lying and spouting stupid liberal BS while nearly bankrupting me in the process has given me a deep understanding of the liberal mind. I can tell you I’m not immpressed by it in a good way. As for being harrassed for looking white, damn right I don’t like it. However, I’d vote for any black, brown, yellow, red, purple with pink polka dots CONSERVATIVE that I believed would do right by our country. Unfortunately, liberalism has ruined a good portion of the entire population, not just the non white part.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      “You don’t seem to defend Obama’s POLICIES, only him. Deny being impressed by his skin color all you want, but I can tell I touched a nerve by bringing it up.”

      – I do defend some of his policies (which I’ll put forth to include his views). Others I cannot defend or will not defend because of the manner in which they are being put forth (pressuring Congress to pass bills). Other things I outright oppose him on – calling out the Cambridge Police as ‘stupid’ when you admit not having the facts is – stupid. He owes them an apology. Moreover, I will defend the facts as we know them about him as a person. I do not know him personally, would guess he sits further to the left than I do. His skin color? I really don’t get why you ever brought this up in the first place. I’ll admit that some/many people voted for him because of his skin color – these people would clearly sit on the left of center. I’d like to see if you can admit that some/many people voted against because of his skin color – these people would clearly sit to the right of center. I did not vote for him b/c of skin color. You touched a nerve in me because by injecting the notion of skin color into a statement regarding why people would have voted for him (I believe you said 95%) – you have sunken to the lowest common denominator. You have every right to feel that way – but I suggest you look at facts before you make such a statement. Finally, playing the “I’m Hispanic card” will not help you here. My English surname may have you fooled – I was adopted as a child and my name was changed. My ancestry is far more complex (Russians that migrated to Iceland due to religious persecution – live there for a few generations and then migrated to upper MidWest of US – but also, a deep running of Ojibwa blood) and rooted in people that sit a notch or two below Hispanics when it comes to ‘who has been treated the shittiest and thus gets more cred when it comes to calling the shots (we can but should not play that game – my life could have been easier perhaps had I registered with the Nation and/or the BIA).

      Show me where I said anything hateful about Obama. He scares me because I can tell he’s being dishonest, and he has done nothing to gain my trust. So that’s hate is it? I have not accused him of being an extra terrestrial lizard, murderer, child molester or any thing else. I simply question, like MILLIONS others, his qualifications for being POTUS, his location of birth being just one item. It doesn’t make me a kook, racist or ‘hater’.

      – Cyndi – I think we make this easier if we simply admit that you’re far enough away from the center that nothing the man says or does will ever gain your trust, period. Understand that there are the same folks on the far left that viewed Bush II the same way. You can certainly continue to question his birth and whatever else is sitting under the hood. I think you’re flat out wrong on the birth issue, you think you’re right. I have independently verified facts, you have conjecture, innuendo and rumor. Just know that when you sit too far in one direction you’re less likely to have reasoned debate with anyone – and that is no fun either.

      As for naturalized citizens, BOTH of my parents are immigrants. According to the government descriptions, I’m Hispanic. Many of my extended family members are immigrants. My ex husband is an immigrant, so don’t imply that I have no clue about or a dislike of, immigrants. Not only is my ex an immigrant, he is a Socialist. Ten and 1/2 have years of him practicing Socialism by intentionally withholding important information, lying and spouting stupid liberal BS while nearly bankrupting me in the process has given me a deep understanding of the liberal mind. I can tell you I’m not impressed by it in a good way. As for being harassed for looking white, damn right I don’t like it. However, I’d vote for any black, brown, yellow, red, purple with pink polka dots CONSERVATIVE that I believed would do right by our country. Unfortunately, liberalism has ruined a good portion of the entire population, not just the non white part.

      – Its unfortunate you had such a husband. I’d suggest that he speaks for liberalism and Democrats no more than Rush Limbaugh represents all conservative or Republicans. So you know – I spend many hours of my time reading and trying to understand both the liberal mind and the conservative mind. To dismiss or deride an entire scope of political thought as a sham or cover for Fascism, Socialism, Nazism (add any other double meaning/intended -ism here) and the like is unfortunate and dangerous. If you follow what I say you know that I believe any debate must have coherent and cohesive voices from all the sides of the aisle and in as many flavors as possible. Do you believe the same – or does your menu only have one flavor?

  32. Ray,

    Here’s a little something for you to look over. This guy fels pretty much the way I do. The caller, that is… PS Ray, I’m not accussing Obama of treason, yet.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072309/content/01125113.guest.html

  33. Ray Hawkins says:

    Cyndi – I will not debate every point the caller (or Rush) is trying to make – but when I see statements like “His policies have led to 9.5% unemployment, on the way to double-digit” – I do pause, scratch my head, and say ‘here we go again’ – the blame game. I guess its like a fight in Ice Hockey – it isn’t the guy that threw the first punch you see, it is the retaliation.

    Emphasis on – AS an example:
    Do you believe that President Obama’s policies have led to 9.5% unemployment? I hope you do not. I know my last company, and many clients I had started massive job cuts last year – long before the election. This is as weak as blaming Bush for the economic collapse.

    You can rest assured that I would hold the proper people accountable and responsible for what they do. I actually rest in the camp, also populated by many of us ‘deceptive liberals’, that if you cannot explain to me how this Healthcare program will be executed w/o adding to the debt or higher taxes, then you cannot pass it. If you need some more money from me to help pay for it, you better damn well explain why and show me where the money is going. Just be cautious when you throw all of us in the same camp. Thanks!

  34. v. Holland says:

    http://housingdoom.com/2009/06/26/loose-lending-is-predatory-lending-frank/

    I don’t know how to make this where you can go straight to the page, perhaps someone else can do that-but I thought this article was very good.

  35. Oh Ray, where to start. I guess I’ll begin with a thank you. Thank you for at least showing me some respect and actually adressing my concerns.

    As to Obama’s alleged birth certificate. None of us here as the authority and resources to conduct an independant investigation. ALL of us must rely on what is made public. Since anyone can post anything on the internet, and make it look professional, there’s really no way for most of us to be certain if the information is fact. That’s why I say we take it to court, where hopefully, a truthful and non partisan review of the FACTS can be performed. Until that happens, I will always have doubts. BTW, I think you’d be surprised a just how many people are questioning Obama’s eligibility for office.

    You’re right Obama will never do or say anything that will convince me I’m wrong about him. I will say there are things he COULD DO that would change my mind, but I’m sure he won’t do them. For starters, he could stop playing the race card. Two, he can stop behaving like he’s hiding something. Three, he could give up his teleprompter and show some real capability in his ability to speak off script, three show some actual leadership, not just community agitating skills.

    About me mentioning my ethnic background. I didn’t do it to gain sympathy or claim being oppressed. I just wnated to illustrate my exposure to immigrants. I got the impression you think I’m a beneficiary of white priviledge. Yes, I’ve recently been accussed of that by a black person. Nevermind that at one point in my life, I found my self living in a car. A few years later I worked full time while putting myself through college and also supporting a family. Suffice to say, I haven’t had the good life handed to me.

    Now for the voter breakdown. I’ve seen the 95% of blacks voted for Obama in many places. I believe one of them was at The Black Sphere, hosted by Kevin Jackson, a black man. I’ve never laid eyes on him so I have to take his word for it. But I don’t see what he has to gain by lying about it. Here’s the link:http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/

    As for the liberals treatment of President Bush and conservatives treatment of Obama. When conservatives make a film featuring the assasination of Obama, a sitting President, then we can talk. Liberals defended that trash by saying it was a fictional bit of art. My foot! All the lies, and hatred toward President Bush were considered patriotic opposition. Well, I’m just doing a little bit of patriotic duty, without the assasination fantasy film and abundant hatred.

    How is pointing out Obama’s use of the same tactics as Hitler and Lenin dangerous? I’d say its dangerous NOT to point it out. People can learn some history and then come to their own conclusions. They don’t me to do their thinking for them. If you believe they do, then I guess you don’t think much of most people. I say, put it out there, let the folks mull it over, and come to their own conlusions.

    I’d like mention something else: Integrity and trust. This nation is sorely lacking it. Until that trust in our leaders, media and EACH OTHER is restored, we will continue to self destruct. My now ex husband destroyed my trust in him. A marriage without trust, is doomed to fail. ANY relationship, whether personal, public, or professional, cannot succeed without trust. We as a people need to ponder that.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The use of an analogy between Hitler and Barack Obama is an intentional neuro-linguistic device of which the primary purpose is to create a mental link or connection in the minds of people that ‘when you think of Obama you think of Hitler’. Its the same reason that conservatives have cleverly burned in our psyche that we are in Iraq and Afghan to fight a ‘war’. It is not a war, not legally, not literally and not figuratively. Iraq, as an example, is more likely an occupation by the United States (you’ll also recall that President Bush famously called an end to the ‘war’ – he was both correct and incorrect – incorrect as it never was a war, correct in that major combat operations were indeed over – by continuing to call it a ‘war’ conservatives can successfully drive the arguments regarding it in a direction it should not go – a clever but illegitimate device).

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      “As to Obama’s alleged birth certificate. None of us here as the authority and resources to conduct an independant investigation. ALL of us must rely on what is made public. Since anyone can post anything on the internet, and make it look professional, there’s really no way for most of us to be certain if the information is fact. That’s why I say we take it to court, where hopefully, a truthful and non partisan review of the FACTS can be performed. Until that happens, I will always have doubts. BTW, I think you’d be surprised a just how many people are questioning Obama’s eligibility for office.”

      – Let me try this for a last time. The very notion that President Obama was not born in the US and is thus not qualified to be in office would by definition require a conspiracy dating back 40+ years and involving several hundred if not over a thousand people at this point (the lot of which must be very good at keeping the secret). “This” is thus a conspiracy theory. The target of the theory VALIDATES and LEGITIMIZES it by responding directly to it. Most all conspiracy theorists demonstrate, by definition, a measure of cognitive dissonance when it comes to someone being shown evidence dispelling the theory. This is often manifest as confirmation bias. One can be shown the most compelling and truthful and logical of evidence and they will deny it no matter what – they are psychologically predisposed to doing so. As an analogy, it would be akin to me supporting the Cap N Trade bill, even is overwhelming evidence was supplied to me showing me it would be a net loss to the Country. I’m not suggesting you have a psychological problem, I’m suggesting you are precluded from believing anything to the contrary of your belief that he is not a citizen. Years ago, before I learned to think critically, and when I leaned politically far more to the left, I believed there was a JFK conspiracy – I attended presentations and focus groups that showed compelling circumstantial evidence. When I moved more towards the center and learned to think critically, I began to ask deeper probing questions – was this all bullshit? What are the facts? The facts, as they continue to demonstrate, show that all the theories are bunk.

  36. Ray Hawkins says:

    Cyndi – your original statement was:

    “I’m simply pointing out that 95% of black and many whites voted for him BECAUSE of his skin color.

    Your most recent statement was:

    “Now for the voter breakdown. I’ve seen the 95% of blacks voted for Obama in many places. I believe one of them was at The Black Sphere, hosted by Kevin Jackson, a black man. I’ve never laid eyes on him so I have to take his word for it. But I don’t see what he has to gain by lying about it. Here’s the link:http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/

    Do you notice the contradiction? In your first statement you are saying that of the people that voted for President Obama:

    – 95% of the Blacks voted for him because of his skin color
    – “Many” of the whites (50% + ?) voted for him because of his skin color

    In your second statement on the same subject you are stating that, according to a blogger, in many places (50% + of voting precincts?) 95% of the blacks that could vote, voted for him.

    Now – even the first link I brought up on this (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html) shows that the second statement you made is ‘likely’ true – maybe not 100%, but likely very close.

    However, that does not support your first and original statement that the same 95% voted on the basis of skin color. There is no empirical evidence that would suggest such – thus I am left to wonder why you would make such a charge (and understand, I would view such a voting approach to be at least minimally racist on the part of the voter). I think your statement is wrong, inflammatory and thus rejected. Please tell me if I am wrong.

    v/r

    Ray

    • RAy,

      There is no contridiction in my statement. 95% Blacks voted for him. No, I didn’t travel to every precinct and verify exit polls. Stop nit-picking. I wasn’t refering to precincts. I was refering to websites and TV newscasts (AFN TV, so there’s a mix). Thus I provided the link. I stand by my position. Most Obama voters voted for him on account of his skin color, to some degree, with a certain amount going with, primarily. I live in a remote and very small community. I eat in the mess hall. We have people of every ethic group and and more than a few national origins. We all mix. I’ve heard from the mouths of some of the blacks that they were voting for him because, and I’m quoting, “He’s one of us!” Well, he wasn’t on this little island, or a KRS employee, so my next guess ‘us’ meant black. I had several whites tell me it was “about time we had a black president”. So, Ray, what were they talking about if not his skin color? I also had a few whites say they’d vote for him because everybody should have free health care and America can afford to do it. So fair enough. It wasn’t 100% about skin color.

      Do promise that you continue to insist taht Obama is a natural born citizen? Was your jprevious comment REALLY the last time?

      😉

  37. Ray Hawkins says:

    Now now Cyndi – if you’re going to come to the debate and make statements like:

    “Most Obama voters voted for him on account of his skin color, to some degree, with a certain amount going with, primarily.”

    I am absolutely nit picking – I nit pick when people present distorted information with a larger purpose of distorting or influencing agendas (is that not why you hate Obama so much?). What you are offering is your OPINION, pure and simple. You seem to offer that no, I cannot prove you wrong or right. A theory that cannot be proven becomes what Cyndi? A lie? A distortion? I thought the point of most of you folks here was that you wanted to boil things down to logic and reason and truth and fact. I guess you are not one of that ilk – or does that criteria only apply in your favor? C’mon Cyndi – I’m more than willing to call Obama or anyone out (including myself) when wrong, and I would consider it egregious to base your own personal ethos and philosophies and politics on lies (you have said the same thing in attack but do not adopt the same stance for yourself) or at least statements that have no basis in fact, logic or reason.

    What a bummer – and no – I will not comment further on the other issue. I will sleep well knowing I am right.

  38. Cyndi P says:

    Whatever Ray. Are you omnipotent? The only one who knows all? My information is no more distorted than yours. You, like me , are one of the great unwashed masses. How can you be sure you’re correct? I admit, I’m not all knowing. No one on earth is. So, how can any of us prove a theory? Your correct when I offer that you cannot prove me wrong. I cannot prove you wrong either. So, do you just pick someone to trust and leave it at that? I don’t. How many people do? I’ve learned to become VERY careful of whom I trust. My trust must be earned. Its possible but its not easy, I freely admit it. Does that make me a narrow minded bigot, and illogical kook? I’m quite logical, and maybe, more perceptive than some people. That’s where people like you think I’m full of crap. You presume I hate Obama. I don’t like his polices and I don’t trust him. That’s not hate. If I hated him I’d wish him dead. I DO NOT wish him dead, just out of office.

    You made a comment about me comparing Obama to Hilter. I DID NOT. I pointed out that Obama is using anti white racism to his advantage, like Hitler used anti semetic feelings of the German people to blame the Jews for Germany’s woes. Its not a mind game. Its a parallel that should be noted by the citizens of this country. Same with Lenin’s use of class warfare. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t like be manipulated. That’s what I think Obama is doing to the citizens of this country. If no one else thinks that’s what he’s up too, that’s fine with me. I’m sure they’re quite happy with the way things are going. I’m just one voice and in the grand scheme of things, I don’t matter a bit.

    Well, we’ll see soon enough who was right about Obama, and who was wrong. Remember Ray, the Republicans don’t have the votes to stop Obama from doing ANYTHING. So, if he fails to achieve whatever wonderus thing you expect of him, like free abundant health care, a high standard of living for all, no more problems between races, calming the seas, or whatever he promised he’d bring to the earth, know that conservatives were not numerous enough to stop him. Its his show, for better or worse.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cyndi –

      This is becoming blood sport

      “Whatever Ray. Are you omnipotent? The only one who knows all? My information is no more distorted than yours. You, like me , are one of the great unwashed masses. How can you be sure you’re correct? I admit, I’m not all knowing. No one on earth is. So, how can any of us prove a theory? Your correct when I offer that you cannot prove me wrong. I cannot prove you wrong either. So, do you just pick someone to trust and leave it at that? I don’t. How many people do? I’ve learned to become VERY careful of whom I trust. My trust must be earned. Its possible but its not easy, I freely admit it. Does that make me a narrow minded bigot, and illogical kook? I’m quite logical, and maybe, more perceptive than some people. That’s where people like you think I’m full of crap. You presume I hate Obama. I don’t like his polices and I don’t trust him. That’s not hate. If I hated him I’d wish him dead. I DO NOT wish him dead, just out of office.”

      No I am not omnipotent – if you follow this blog closely you’ll know that many times I step back and sorry – ‘sorry folks, I don’t know enough about the issue to comment’ – e.g. cap n trade, healthcare. I like to get my facts straight which is something you seem to struggle with. That’s ok – its ok to have an opinion – even if its wrong. When you enter debate however, you should expect any debate worth half their salt to challenge you. I have, and you’re not able to respond without changing the subject or lashing out with some other un-related charge. You are subscribing to a theory which is built not on fact, but circumstance. I have pointed out the holes in your theory yet you persist, bullheaded in your determination. Finally – I guess I’d ask you how you define hate? The more you link him to the litany of hateful things you have – then I gotta wonder if you really do?

      “You made a comment about me comparing Obama to Hilter. I DID NOT. I pointed out that Obama is using anti white racism to his advantage, like Hitler used anti semetic feelings of the German people to blame the Jews for Germany’s woes. Its not a mind game. Its a parallel that should be noted by the citizens of this country. Same with Lenin’s use of class warfare. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t like be manipulated. That’s what I think Obama is doing to the citizens of this country. If no one else thinks that’s what he’s up too, that’s fine with me. I’m sure they’re quite happy with the way things are going. I’m just one voice and in the grand scheme of things, I don’t matter a bit.”

      So Cyndi – here is your exact statement: “Why would I point out that Obama uses the tactics of Lenin (class warefare) and the tactics of Hitler as to race ….”. Um – sorry – but you are comparing Obama to Hitler. That is how a comparison works. Calling it a ‘parallel’ would require you to compare the two.

      “Well, we’ll see soon enough who was right about Obama, and who was wrong. Remember Ray, the Republicans don’t have the votes to stop Obama from doing ANYTHING. So, if he fails to achieve whatever wonderus thing you expect of him, like free abundant health care, a high standard of living for all, no more problems between races, calming the seas, or whatever he promised he’d bring to the earth, know that conservatives were not numerous enough to stop him. Its his show, for better or worse.”

      Cyndi – here is where I say ‘you are almost right’. True – from a vote perspective the Democrats are going to end up owning all this (in the short term). I have exhaustively put forth that that does not mean its a done deal. Republicans/conservatives can and should drive reasoned and appropriate debate on key issues – instead – they get wrapped up in conspiracy theory or whatever the controversy du jour is. If the American people get fired up enough about an issue then it will not pass as a bill – as USW and others have pointed out countless times – they are more interested in saving their own political asses – political ass comes first for most of these folks, not your ass. If Senator John Doe knows his constituents oppose Cap N Trade he/she will vote against it. If those same people are more up in arms about a conspiracy theory then what do you think Doe does when it comes to bills like Cap N Trade?

  39. Cyndi P says:

    Ray,

    Since I’m so much less sane than you and wrong, please explain to me how Obama’s prior relationship with ACORN, and his telling the country the the white poilce man acted stupidly when arresting the black scholar AFTER adimitting he didn’t have the facts, ISN’T pandering to anti white racists. Explain his blaming the greedy bankers and Wall Street types for the financial mess and ACORN’s busing of protesters to the private homes of AIG executives. Explain his telling the Wall Street types that he’s the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks. I didn’t hear hear the audio on that one, I just read it in a few news articles (not blogs). How about his taxing the rich to pay for free health care? That’s not a form of class warfare? What exactly do you call those tactics? Are they tactics at all, or just stuff that happens?

    If I were comparing Obama to Hiltler, I’d just say Obama is another Hitler. (I’m one of those souls who calls ’em like she see ’em). I would NOT say, that Obama is using a TACTIC of Hitler, if what I really meant is that Obama is like Hitler. I don’t know about you, but in my mind there is a distinction between the two. For example, I’m fairly sure that Obama is NOT working toward a final solution to white people. I don’t see Obama invading neighboring countries for land grabs, either. I don’t see Obama hiring the best scientists to develop offensive weapons. I don’t see Obama funding medical doctors to maintain the health of the ultimate black man. I don’t see Obama rounding up society’s undesirables and using them as lab rats (ever heard of the experiments of Dr. Mengele?). I don’t see Obama setting up a breeding program to make pure blacks. I don’t think Obama is a health nut, or a frustrated artist. These are things that Hilter did, was, or condoned. So I think I can say that Obama is NOT like Hitler.

    So what exactly is my litany of “hate” towards Obama? I’ve explained many times why I distrust Obama, and why I think he’s not what America needs as POTUS. Isn’t hate an emotional reaction? Isn’t it irrational? I’m very rational. Just because you can’t or won’t validate my position, doesn’t make it “hate”.

    I agree with you that a majority of congress men and woman are more concerned about their backside than mine or anyone else’s, however, it only takes a few to work together to ensure they aren’t totally at the mercy of their voters. They know that most voters have short memories, and that as long as the congressperson throws a few tid bits to the loudest complainers, they’ll likely get a pass from the majority. The real problem we the voters have, in addition to corrupt politcians, is that we ALLOW ourselves to be manipulated. The politicians and community ‘leaders’, have divided us by race, economic class, and Liberals vs Conservatives. They’ve made it impossible for us to trust anyone. Its the old Divide and Conquer strategy. We’re so busy fighting each other that we never get around to making an accurate assessment of what’s going on just out of our sight. So keep nit picking away Ray, while our country self destructs in front of you. But don’t worry, because these are just the ravings of an unitelligent, hate filled kook.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cyndi – happy to take you point by point here –

      “Since I’m so much less sane than you and wrong, please explain to me how Obama’s prior relationship with ACORN, and his telling the country the the white poilce man acted stupidly when arresting the black scholar AFTER adimitting he didn’t have the facts, ISN’T pandering to anti white racists.”

      – First off, per wiki, pandering is “portrayal of one’s views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress”. Your first charge of “Obama’s prior relationship with Acorn…..as pandering to anti-white racists”. I think you’re making an informed statement here Cyndi. Either supply with the facts behind that statement or stick a sock in it. This is a tired-ass Rush/Sean/Ann line without a shred of evidence used by conservative nutjobs looking for any angle to discredit the guy. You have no facts to support your view – so I reject your view and offer that you are full of shit. Further – President Obama’s comments with respect to Gates were – idiotic and uncalled for. They were not pandering to anti-white racists as you claim. Your statement of such is as ill informed as Obama’s.

      “Explain his blaming the greedy bankers and Wall Street types for the financial mess”

      – You giving them a free pass? Clearly you have not bothered to understand the layers of this mess and where culpability rests. For every banker there was a politician at sleep at the wheel. Your statement makes no sense.

      “and ACORN’s busing of protesters to the private homes of AIG executives.”

      – The only notion of this I can find is of a statement by Glenn Beck (completely biased, a liar, full of shit) and some other right wing nut job sites. Care to share where your facts are for this? Last I checked the tour was sponsored by the Connecticut Working Families Party

      “Explain his telling the Wall Street types that he’s the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks. I didn’t hear hear the audio on that one, I just read it in a few news articles (not blogs).”

      – I don’t have audio either – here is a link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090427/howl. I have nothing wrong with what he said and why he said it.

      “How about his taxing the rich to pay for free health care? That’s not a form of class warfare? What exactly do you call those tactics? Are they tactics at all, or just stuff that happens?”

      – Please reference the part of the bill where you pulled that. If you heard from conservative nut job radio that doesn’t work.

      “If I were comparing Obama to Hiltler, I’d just say Obama is another Hitler. (I’m one of those souls who calls ‘em like she see ‘em).”

      – Call them as you see them – that usually means facts can be dispensed with. Real good Cyndi – we should all aspire to such.

      “I would NOT say, that Obama is using a TACTIC of Hitler, if what I really meant is that Obama is like Hitler. I don’t know about you, but in my mind there is a distinction between the two. For example, I’m fairly sure that Obama is NOT working toward a final solution to white people.”

      – That you have to contemplate such is scary.

      “I don’t see Obama invading neighboring countries for land grabs, either. I don’t see Obama hiring the best scientists to develop offensive weapons. I don’t see Obama funding medical doctors to maintain the health of the ultimate black man. I don’t see Obama rounding up society’s undesirables and using them as lab rats (ever heard of the experiments of Dr. Mengele?). I don’t see Obama setting up a breeding program to make pure blacks. I don’t think Obama is a health nut, or a frustrated artist. These are things that Hilter did, was, or condoned. So I think I can say that Obama is NOT like Hitler.”

      – You’re right Cyndi – so knowing the callousness of comparing anyone to Hitler why would you do such?

      “So what exactly is my litany of “hate” towards Obama? I’ve explained many times why I distrust Obama, and why I think he’s not what America needs as POTUS. Isn’t hate an emotional reaction? Isn’t it irrational? I’m very rational. Just because you can’t or won’t validate my position, doesn’t make it “hate”.”

      – I do not validate positions based on someone telling me ‘they call them as they see ’em’. I have seen little to nothing from you in the way fo fact – only emotional wrangling and distorted interpretations of everything this ‘guy with creamy skin’ does. You need to look deeper in yourself and your soul with regards to trust issues – clearly the circumstances of your life have had a terrible and unfortunate impact on that. (and before you tell me I don’t know what I am talking about – I have eaten some mighty large shit sandwiches in my life as have people close to me).

      “I agree with you that a majority of congress men and woman are more concerned about their backside than mine or anyone else’s, however, it only takes a few to work together to ensure they aren’t totally at the mercy of their voters. They know that most voters have short memories, and that as long as the congressperson throws a few tid bits to the loudest complainers, they’ll likely get a pass from the majority. The real problem we the voters have, in addition to corrupt politicians, is that we ALLOW ourselves to be manipulated. The politicians and community ‘leaders’, have divided us by race, economic class, and Liberals vs Conservatives. They’ve made it impossible for us to trust anyone. Its the old Divide and Conquer strategy. We’re so busy fighting each other that we never get around to making an accurate assessment of what’s going on just out of our sight. So keep nit picking away Ray, while our country self destructs in front of you. But don’t worry, because these are just the ravings of an unitelligent, hate filled kook.”

      – What was the orginal nit pick here Cyndi? Do you recall? I agree with most of what you state in this last snippet. But I leave you with one final thing – throw everything else I have just written to you into your mental trash can – drop it. Understand this from me if nothing else – a problem is never fixed or corrected or minimized over time if it is not properly understood, viewed and assessed. Clearly state and understand what the problem is. Obama getting involved with Gates? Stupid – but just noise. John Ensign or Mark Sanford and their affairs? Horrible yes – but that is not the core of the problem. As soon as politicians lose sight of why they are there and their mission – they should be gone. I am from Pennsylvania. I am embarrassed that Arlen Specter is still a Senator. Sure – he might give a shit about us 5-10% of the time – but Congress should never be a perm job. POTUS? An aggressive POTUS can and should be counter-balanced, I believe, by a sound and stable Congress AND by States that assert their rights.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Tuesday Night Open Mic for July 21, 2009 « Stand Up For America […]

%d bloggers like this: