Obama and His Radical Czars

Radical DemocratsI was going through conversations the other night when someone, I forget who, posted a video that they wanted all of us to watch. I watched, and was enraged immediately. The video was basically talking about how one of these new czars was espousing the idea of fining bloggers for writing things that were negative about the government. I had to do a little research, but I knew I would be writing an article about any jerk-off who thinks that THAT is an OK thing to do. I was going to stick to that topic, but then in Tuesday’s comments, I was challenged by Ray, who didn’t believe that the czars being appointed by Obama were all that radical. He demanded proof. I then decided that tonight would be dedicated to all the czars, and the radical pasts they have. Because make no bones about it, Barack Obama has surrounded himself with perhaps the most radical group of advisors in the history of the Presidency. I thought I could write about these jokers in one night. I realized I was wrong. There was simply too much to write. So it had to get pushed to tonight instead of last night. And for the record, the logo to the left is the logo for the Radical Social Democratic Party.

Before you condemn the Amount of them, Remember that GWB had a ton of them too.

Before you condemn the Amount of them, Remember that GWB had a ton of them too.

You know, during the Presidential campaign last year, there was a lot of talk coming from the folks like Hannity and Limbaugh about the radical associations that the President has had. I dismissed a lot of what was said because I thought to myself: First, this is Hannity and Limbaugh we are talking about here. They are staunch conservatives who have been known to stretch the truth a bit. Second, Obama was running a campaign that didn’t sound radical. I was willing to wait and see before I started saying that he was also radical in his agenda or his thoughts. After all, a man can change. The national stage and the office of the President has the ability to humble a man and make him realize a lot of his campaign rhetoric will never be anything more than a pipe dream in today’s Washington DC. I now realize I was wrong to dismiss the radical affiliations of the President.

Prior to the election we were told about his radical affiliations. For example, Obama’s first political mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist. There was plenty said about Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist, who helped start Obama’s political career. And the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor of 20 years, who is about as much a race-baiting predator as I have seen. We were shown the quotes from the President where he discussed being surrounded by and mentored by Marxists. We were expressly forbidden from seeing the papers and opinions he espoused as a college student during those times. The fact is that he has a past filled with radical affiliations. There is no disputing that fact. Thanks to the power of the internet the truth was out there. Yet it was ignored. People said that the past was the past, and agreed to move forward (unless of course you are a CIA interrogator or a member of the Bush administration, which I agree was bad). But now we are seeing the Presidency unfold, and we are finding radical appointees that mirror the associations of the past.

Mark LloydI will finish with Van Jones, who is perhaps the worst of the appointments thus far. Allow me to start with Mark Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd was appointed as the “Diversity Czar” at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mr. Lloyd comes to us from the Center for American Progress, where he was a Senior Fellow. The group was founded in 2003 as an answer to conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. One of their biggest funding sources would be none other than George Soros. The center has published several works decrying the unbalanced diversity of talk radio, such as the 2007 report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” (which was nothing more than cherry picked stats for the record, and which claimed that the problem was that white station owners were adhering to conservative platforms, rather than their wallets). That 2007 piece had several authors. Lloyd was one of them. The very liberal Center for American Progress has several members appointed to influential positions in the Obama administration, leading some to claim that they are the most influential group in DC right now.

Czars in BedMr Lloyd is one of those appointments, and is not ashamed to spout off at the mouth and express his extreme far left views. We had the pleasure of hearing him discuss one of his heroes, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez (who shut down all media outlets that offered opposing views to his own, FTR) at a 2008 conference on “media reform.” He spoke of Chavez’s “incredible revolution, a democratic revolution,” and of the “property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela” who “rebelled and who worked to oust him.” Still, said Lloyd, Chavez “came back with another revolution, and then … began to take very seriously the media in his country.” In fact dear readers, he took them so seriously he shut down every single opposition voice in the country. Bravo, Mr. Lloyd, you picked a real gem of a guy to embrace the actions of.

Lloyd will not bring back the fairness doctrine. He will do an end around. In 2006 while at the liberal Center for American Progress Lloyd wrote a book entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America. In the book he espouses the idea the private broadcasters should pay a licensing fees which equals their total operating costs so that public broadcasting station can spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. Did you get that, he wants to charge a licensing fee on private companies EQUAL to their operating costs. Lloyd wants not only to redistribute private profits, he wants to “regulate” much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focus on “diverse views” (Progressive Views). As part of this regulation, he is going to institute local community boards to monitor the content of radio stations. Wanna guess who will control those boards and who will be pressuring them?

The “Diversity Czar” does not believe in the 1st Amendment. Quite the contrary. He has written several anti-free speech papers and articles. In that same book, he stated, “the whole free speech thing is at any rate a bit of a fraud meant to serve global corporations and obstruct policies of the kind our society needs.” Think about that for a moment. The new diversity czar thinks that the whole free speech thing is a fraud, and that it gets in the way “what society needs.” That is an odd thought, isn’t it. The first amendment is a fraud. It seems he is not interested in the people figuring out what they want, he has already decided that those smart folks in Washington DC will tell us what we need.

Harold KohNext a quick look at someone who isn’t a “Czar”, but who was appointed to a very high profile position. From 1998 to 2001, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Bill Clinton administration. The powerful position of high-ranking legal adviser to the State Department was bestowed upon Harold Koh, former dean of the Law School at Yale University. Mr. Koh is a big proponent of transnationalism, which is a mindset that favors a “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. He has espoused the belief that the United States should defer to International Treaties, even if we have not signed them or do not agree with them, when he stated that the solution to large world problems is that all members of the international community should recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides that of any particular government.” (UNDER REVIEW as Ray found some conflicting data as to whether this was actually said by Koh or someone else)

You read that correctly. Koh believes that the norms in the rest of the world should override the laws of the United States. His view is that the rest of the world should override the laws established in the United States. I wonder if he feels that it would be OK for us to impose the rest of the world’s view of marriage on to the Muslim communities? Because he certainly thinks their views hold valid reasoning that would have us deferring to them. He has said that the US courts, because of the transnationalism view, should defer to Sharia law in cases where necessary. He said, “in an appropriate case, I don’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” Doesn’t sound exactly like the kind of guy we want being the top legal advisor to the State Department, where they are charged with maintaining the sovereignty of the United States. The scariest part, the rumor is that Ko would be on the list of possible appointees to the Supreme Court should another vacancy open up during Obama’s Presidency. I hold no fear that he would get through a public confirmation hearing with views like these, though. But for now, he is the top legal advisor to the US State Department.

John Holdren

John Holdren

Next we have new “Science Czar” John Holdren. In 1977, Holdren co-wrote a textbook with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.” The three authors summed up their guiding principle by saying, “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” In order to achieve such, the three discuss totalitarian methods in order to control the population. Those methods offered as suggestion included forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. Hmmm, that sure doesn’t sound like America. Holdren’s people deny that he advocated for such a thing, and the textbook supports Holdren’s claim. However Holdren does offer in the book that the Constitution supports the idea of forced abortion if necessary.

The text also advocated how the authors felt they could best achieve this utopia of population control and resource management. They formulate a “world government scheme” they call the Planetary Regime, which  would administer the world’s resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty (From Fox News). Interesting, yet another appointment that feels that the sovereignty of the nation should be sacrificed to the international community.

The Fox News article also discussed that now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.” Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted (if not perhaps he can couple it with Bill Gates plan to use water pumps to stop hurricanes). Holdren has long been a global warming fanatic, who in 1986 made the prediction that global warming would kill 1 billion people by the year 2020. He has a fair list of doomsday predictions that never came true. Yet he is now the top science advisor to the President of the United States.

Cass SunsteinI would like to present prosecution evidence item D, Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is one of my personal favorites. He has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested “angry e-mails” should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period (or as I see it a 24 hour period for government to make sure that nothing gets sent that they don’t want sent). How would that work? A system that recognizes “angry” words? How long before Obama becomes an “angry” word that requires a 24 hour cooling period and some “review”? A fairness doctrine for the internet? What kind of bullshit is that? So if I want to write an article that is critical of the administration, I have to first find someone deranged enough to disagree with me? (That was a joke). He has written that the internet is “undemocratic” because internet users can filter out information they don’t want to see.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.” Again we hear an appointee talking about how we need to not let a silly little thing like freedom of speech interfere with “what’s best for us.” Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. The patterns among these folks are really interesting, a lack of respect for freedom of speech, a feeling that a large international government controlling sovereign states is the way to go. If one fruitball says it, he is a fruitball, but when it starts to become a theme among administration appointees, that is troublesome.

Regulating Radio See SawSunstein is also an animal fanatic, and a very large enemy to the 2nd Amendment. In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein called for a ban on hunting in the United States. He also advocated in his book that animals should have the right to bring suit against humans, with other humans taking the action for them. In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “Almost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.” Some fairly radical positions to take I would have to say.

But my favorite is the one that was offered the other night. In his book titled “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech,” Sunstein noted that he is concerned about the present dilemna “in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,” and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.” As a result of free speech being undemocratic, he wants to broaden laws in order to levy fines on those who post articles on the internet (such as yours truly) and hold them accountable for even what their commenters post (I am not going to jail for you jokers). Add into this the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (HR 1966) offered by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors. It proposes a quite vague “up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.” Think that vagueness has the potential for abuse?

Sunstein is no small player in all of the areas of government. He is not limited in the way some of the other czars are. He is the Regulatory Chief. That means that he can influence nearly every aspect of the government, from health care to climate change to communications to bailouts. Not real comforting to find that the person with that much power in this administration simply doesn’t believe in freedom. He believes we aren’t smart enough to do things ourselves.

Van JonesAs my last offering of a Czar tonight, I give you the apple of my eye, the one and only Van Jones. The Green Jobs Czar. A special advisor to the President. An avowed communist. Oh, he has been making the news lately. It started the other day with the fact that when he was asked why Democrats don’t use their overwhelming power in Congress to force things, he replied about Republicans, “They’re assholes. And Barack Obama is not an asshole. Now I can be an asshole. Some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama need to get a little uppity”. WOW, there is that bipartisanship Obama promised us. He apologized for the statement (only because it was on tape and could not be denied). Then today it is revealed that he is a 9/11 “Truther” ( I certainly hope you are as harsh on these folks as you are on the “birthers”, you on the left). Jones joined the “9/11 truther” movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

I love the Corrupt Cops Sign Behind him... Fitting

I love the Corrupt Cops Sign Behind him... Fitting

Jones is an avowed communist. He did name his son after a militant marxist guerilla. And he made the following statement about how he arrived at being a communist: “In jail I met all of these young radical people of color. I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And I was like ‘this is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28, and the verdicts came down on April 29. By August 1 I was a communist.” He was referecing the Rodney King verdicts. You see Jones is also a person who sees every issue through the tinge of a hate for white America.

Van Jones Powershift 09In March of this year, Jones gave a speech in at the Powershift ’09 convention. In that speech he repeatedly said “We’re gonna take out the whole system” and went on to discuss how white America forced and pushed and bullied native Americans to the worst hot and windy lands, and that now we would be justly be paid back with the Native Americans getting all the green benefits on those lands. He ended that tirade screaming “No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No Justice on Stolen Land! We Owe them a debt!” He also in that same speech stated that “We are going to Change the entire system”. This included addressing how we “consume water”, how we “treat our brother and sister species”, how we “deal with toxins”, deal with “the way we treat each other”. He clearly discusses social change as the goal of his movement. And given his dislike for White people, that is scary.

He has talked about the need for reparations. He has talked about the need for social justice. He discussed how our immigrant brothers and sisters are out doing the jobs we don’t want to do while having poison is being spread on them. He exclaimed that we refuse to give them rights and dignity. He is the same man who made the statement in an interview that, “The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering the poisons into the people of color communities.” This is a man, who on September 12, 2001, the day after the 9/11 attacks, issued a statement expressing “solidarity with our Arab and Muslim Americans as well as the victims of American Imperialism around the world.”

STORM LOGOJones was also a member of the group STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics, whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism).  And before you simply throw all this away as mistakes of the past. Before you simply blow this off and say that a man can change. I leave you with the words of a radical who has now appeared to change into a great guy who is good for America. Jones, in 2005, just before becoming such a “good guy”, made the statement, “I am willing to forego the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.” So has he changed the deeply radical beliefs that he has been holding? Or has he simply eliminated the “pose” in order to get to those same “radical ends”? And the new audio about how pursuing minimum goals is the way to go to take steps towards fundamental change enlightens us all to how radical he wants to use the green movement to “transform the whole society.”

Obama Denying Friends CartoonFolks we have to remember that the President said “If you want to know what my policies are you need to look to the personnel I surround myself with”. And what I am seeing here is the surrounding of the President of a group of radical folks. Some are communists. Some think freedom of speech gets in the way. Some think the internet offering so much personalization to ones desired viewing is dangerous. Some feel that we should defer our sovereignty to some sort of one world government. And it seems like they all are looking to fundamentally change the United States of America. I suppose that this is the REAL Hope and Change this country voted for.

The President is not a dumb man. And he is not someone who makes appointments like these lightly. You can be sure that every single one of those people put into cabinet positions and appointed to czar positions were well vetted. The President knew what these people were about. And he brought them in anyway. The President, knowing the objectives these men espouse, would not have put them in a position of power that would enable them to meet those objectives unless he also believed those objectives were good. And he has continued to leave them in place despite all of this information coming out.

This article is not an attack on the left, because this is not about the left or right, Democrats or Republicans. It is about an attack on the fundamental essence of this country. When you couple this with the health care reform, bailouts, directives, and all the other things that we have been discussing here, when do we simply say “OK. We have enough evidence that he is not what we thought we were voting for,”? Those of you on the left. The ones who do still support this President, that do still believe he is what he campaigned as being. How much are you willing to ignore? Is there anything that will change your mind to believing that this man has bad intentions for the country? It didn’t take me long to realize what George Bush was and I denounced him as such. We need to wake up. This man is far more dangerous to the United States of America that we all know and love than George Bush ever was.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. middleclasshooligan says:

    I think most of us no longer have any doubt that Berry isn’t a moderate democrat (I never had that demented fantasy) You can tell by those he has chosen to surround himself with that he is indeed a full blown Marxist. And I’m looking forward to the next election cycle, the press will of course say it was the “angry white male” acting out when the Libtards are removed from power in both the house and senate. It will really be the moderates, the libertarians and middle grounders who have now seen who Berry really is.

  2. Hello sir/ma’am , I don’t know who you are but I’m almost 24 been through the military and I have to say I’m glad that you’ve written this about our so called “leaders”…not only our government representatives but our military leaders ( I can’t say all because there are still some that are good) are the most crooked, lying, self-centered bastards I’ve ever met in my life. I know the generation I live in sadly now is more focused on “what am I getting out of this” rather than “what can we get out of this” and we are no longer really concerned about what happens in the future as long as it doesn’t happen to us…I just pray that there will be a change… Just want to let you know sir/ma’am I really enjoyed this article…thanks.

    • Morning Nick and welcome to the site. Stick around if you can and join in the discussions that are sure to heat up around this article.

      Despite what you think most of your generation is like, you obviously are not like most of them. Maybe it’s that Military experience that leavens your attitude. 😉

      My son, who is now 20, seems to be another one like you. As long as there are young folks like ya’ll, America is in safe hands for the future. Because it has nothing to do with Party, and everything to do with following the principles laid down by our founders. This is what has made America the greatest nation on Earth.

    • HUZZAH! I’m not the youngest one here anymore! And welcome to the site, from me as well.

      As for the article, I actually was a little slower to denounce Bush than one might think. I didn’t really decide that he was bad (actually bad, as opposed to not good) for America until he stampeded the country into a war with Iraq. Many things subsequently convinced me further.

      In Barry’s case, I sense he is a man who likes to be surrounded by radical thoughts. And many of these radical thoughts have (some) merit. Specifically, it is true that the internet allows people get get news in an echo chamber, and this is bad for democracy (thus why I find myself here amongst ya’ll). I do believe that unchecked pollution is driving the planet off a cliff (today/tomorrow/next decade/50 years from now but eventually, off a cliff). I do believe that the greater good must be served at the expense of the few. I do believe that, unchecked, talk radio skews many opinions (though CNN/MSN/Fox are no better). Do I agree with the extent to which these people (per your article, I will do my own research) take their conclusions? No. Do I agree with all of them? No. But neither, I suspect, does the President. He gets to make the final judgments, it is from him ultimately that their power derives – so if they try to push something too radical, I imagine he would still nix it.

      Then again, he could secretly hate America. But I haven’t seen any indication of malintent. He is a very smart guy. Say what you want about him, he is very smart. He loves his country and is trying to the best he can for it. Does that mean he will ultimately end up doing good or harm? I can’t say, but I do know he’s trying to do what is best – for everyone.

      Then again, Bush was probably trying to do what was best too, and we see how that ended up……

      • To me the whole idea of CZARs is a waste. Its just another layer of redundency in the beauracracy. There were other people doing those exact same things before the Czars were appointed. Except that the original people are gov’t holdovers and not cronies.

      • You were never the youngest, Matt.

        Me = 23

        🙂

      • Mathius…this is an excerpt from your post:

        Specifically, it is true that the internet allows people get get news in an echo chamber, and this is bad for democracy (thus why I find myself here amongst ya’ll). I do believe that unchecked pollution is driving the planet off a cliff (today/tomorrow/next decade/50 years from now but eventually, off a cliff). I do believe that the greater good must be served at the expense of the few. I do believe that, unchecked, talk radio skews many opinions (though CNN/MSN/Fox are no better).

        Why is it bad for democracy for like minded individuals to discuss whatever the heck they want to discuss over the internet…

        If you believe that unchecked pollution is driving this planet off a cliff, you should have been around in the 60’s…it is so much more improved now over then…can it get better, yes, and we are trending that direction…speaking for the U.S. specifically…unless you are speaking of other countries…

        All radios I have seen have a device that allows the channel to be changed…if someone finds the content of a particular radio station offensive, then use that device. With sooooooo many other media outlets slanted left, conservative talk radio is like a flea on the butt of an elephant in comparison…

        • Here is why it’s bad for democracy. If I only talk to people who think like me, if I only listen to people who think like me, if I only read articles that support my views, I will have a one-sided view. If I have a one-sided view, I cannot make an informed decision. If I cannot make an informed decision, my influence (which is minimal, but collectively huge) over my representatives will be similarly one-sided. Whether to the left or right, or skewed off at a right angle to reality, this results in poor(er) lawmaking.

          If you only hear your side and I only hear my side, eventually we will not be able to see eye-to-eye any longer.

          And yes, the US has gotten much better about its pollution (though really only through strict government regulations). We are still the world’s biggest polluter. India and China won’t be far behind. What happens when they each have a billion or more cars? What happens when they feel the same entitlement to pollute as SUV drivers?

          And yes, people can change the station. True, but it’s your next line that makes the difference: if someone finds the content of a particular radio station offensive. They won’t find it offensive. Because it is what they already believe. I might find it offensive to be told that all Republicans hate America, but would I if that was all I ever heard?

          • So the government comes in and makes my decisions for me…freedom as the goverment dictates. That is simply not the US I have grown up in, and not the one I want for me nor my family.

          • You’re right that only hearing what you believe is bad for informed opinions. The wrong thing to do about that is to stifle free speech. I think the gist of what you were saying was something like that (yes?). We all need to do our best to be truly informed. Research ALL candidates to public office, do your homework.

            In terms of global warming, I find it odd that many people who are doom-and-gloom sayers also oppose nuclear energy. I’m not sure if Obama officials are, but let me tell you how effective it would be. I did my best, but couldn’t find the quote, but I remember hearing that 40 new nuclear power stations would be the equivalent of taking EVERY car in America off the road! Cap and trade will devastate our economy while China keeps pumping pollutants into the air. I also heard that China will be polluting the same amount as EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the near future. Unilateral “greenness” won’t help much. That being said, it is important to do our best.

          • JB got me right – I didn’t advocate for any government actions with regards to these issue, I only acknowledged that the thoughts have merit. Of course, I do think (some) government action is probably necessary, but the question of what is an entirely different question.

            As for nuclear power, oh you physicists are all the same, I am gung-ho nuclear. Though I would like a better solution for what to do with the spent fuel than burying in Nevada, I think it’s almost certainly the lesser of two evils. But, also to be clear, I didn’t see myself argue for unilateral greenness anywhere, did I? I think it’s important to get other countries (particularly China and India) to go along.

            Which of course, leads us to another of the thoughts in the article: world government. I know a lot of people here cringe at the thought of more government, but maybe, just maybe, it’s a good idea to have a body which can overrule a country when its actions are destructive to the others (rather than, you know, going to war about it).. just a thought…

            • Oh, we physicists indeed! Don’t get me started or I’ll start spouting about nuclear fusion plants using Helium-3 mined from the surface of the moon!

              • Well, while you’re at it, can you please tell me what the hell “flavors” have to do with subatomic particles?

              • “Well, while you’re at it, can you please tell me what the hell “flavors” have to do with subatomic particles?”

                Oh, now we’re talking. I know this is a very sharp aside from the topic, but consider this the physics lesson for today :).

                According to the Standard Model, which is the best guess at the universe at present time, there are several fundamental particles. These include 6 leptons, the electron, muon, tau and 3 neutrinos, and 6 quarks, up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom, along with their anti-particles. The different types of quarks are called flavors. If that seems odd, it is only because it is a convention. If that makes you squirm, you’ll love this. The charge on quarks (not electric charge, note) is called color.

                I could go on (for hours), but I feel guilty enough for hijacking as it is. This topic is my PhD thesis topic, btw.

              • Ph.D. Thesis at age 23, huh? Sounds like an overachiever to me… 😛

                But then, who am I to talk? I wrote my Ph.D. on WIMPs at the age of 11. I’m just waiting for confirmations of my theories and the inevitable Nobel.

              • You remind me of my principals of radiation detection class. I never had so much fun learning about things I couldn’t see.

              • Another physicist in the house?!

                This could be fun …. the best parties are with the science guys, they really stir up mean drinks!

              • I knew this guy, Ford Prefect, who liked to crash physicist parties.. wonder what ever happened to him..

              • Hope he had a towel with him, I hear they are pretty useful.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                42

            • Matt – I am not a scientist, just an interested layman. But, doesn’t reprocessing spent fuel pretty much do away with the storage problem, greatly reducing the volume of what must be stored? Don’t most other countries with nuclear power do this?

              • Kinda, Most countries, France is a good example, use Breeder reactors to actually make more fuel than they consume on the first go around. The problem is this fuel is Plutonium which has a nasty habit of ending up in Nuclear weapons making the breeder reactor a Political nightmare (at least in the US). However after this fuel is use there are still some long lasting materials that are very hazardous.

              • Sorry not most countries, some countries do use breeder reactors. Its been 7 years since I learned about this so Im a little fuzzy.
                Correct me if im wrong

              • Not all of the fuel can be recycled, which is the problem. At some point you have radioactive waste that must be disposed of, including the walls of the reactor. Those free neutrons have a nasty habit of making matter unstable!

              • Black Flag says:

                True, true – but the bad stuff doesn’t last long – only a decade or so – not a big deal.

              • There are many uranium mines here which have played out. With proper infrastructure in place at the very least one of them could be used to hold such and I can’t see its capacity being reached for a century at the very least. We also have deep played out mines throughout the shield. Its only ever taken a serious look at the problem and the willingness to accomplish what’s necessary. A coworker’s daughter worked in Uranium City, she was there testing the radioactivity of asphalt which used mine tailings for its rock content. That whole area is a mess already, conversion of it to a long term storage facility could easily include the above ground cleanup and reclamation which would do the environment some serious good there.

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Dearest Matt,

            What if our Founding Fathers hadn’t “tuned in” to each others radio stations?

            What if Patrick Henry had been “fined” when he “blogged” his famous words that helped to activate our amazing way of life?

            Ma’the’us…where would we be now?

            In my humble opinion, we are headed towards a society where we (normal citizens) are put under the weighty thumb of a hybrid Socialist Monarchy.

            Didn’t our own forefathers fight to escape the bonds of monarchy?

            In my eyes, no matter how you look at it, we’ve become a nation of enslaved people. I CAN ONLY WISH I could call it Indentured Servitude — even their term had an ending upon the repayment of their debt. This administration (plus actions of previous ones) has put the American people so far into debt that our children are born into financial slavery.

            This country is FAR from “progressing” forward…it is regressing.

            RS

            • Dearest RS,

              What you may notice if you re-read my posts is that I, in no way, advocate for their solutions. I merely recognize their concerns as legitimate.

              It is as though I say drunk driving is a problem and people assume I mean that the government should monitor every driver’s BAC around the clock. I make no such leap.

              I can agree with (some of) their concerns without endorsing their solutions or methods.

              As for the progression of the country. It is a pendulum, not a ratchet, it goes too far in one direction, then back the other.

              Warmest Regards,
              Mathius the Pirate

        • What don’t you understand about the word free? As in FREEDOM of the press and FREEDOM of speech. The problem is that you have an ideology of a perfect society, a perfect system. This will never happen this side of heaven. That’s why the founders implemented limited powers upon the federal government. You some how think that by taking away freedom some how people will be more free Huh!!!.

          Think about it.

      • bottom line says:

        Quit rationalizing and take the red pill matt. BHO is a turd. He cares nothing for the well being of this country or it’s founding principles.

        • Now, now.. the man is a patriot who cares deeply about our nation. That he sees thing differently than you does not make him a turd. You may be right and he may be wrong, or you may be wrong and he may be right. Most likely, you are both wrong and both right. Name calling never got anyone anywhere.

          And I already took the red pill.. That’s how I learned Kung Fu.

          • Please provide us with your definition of “patriot”.

            • A bird that repeats what its told without comprehension for crackers or carbon credits.

            • Did you see the Mel Gibson movie? A patriot has long hair, kicks ass, and sometimes wields a tomahawk..

              Per the good folks over at dictionary.com:
              a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

              I argue that he does love America – he has said as much and I have seen nothing to the contrary.*

              He has taken an oath to defend the Constitution – four Presidents have been assassinated of the 44 before him – that’s 1 in 11. Please name another career path which offers similar survival odds. He is plenty devoted.

              *please reference my below conversation with Mr. Flag before arguing that what he’s doing is bad for America and thus proves he secretly hates America.

              • Black Flag says:

                Do you love your country because it is good – or do you love your country regardless if it is good?

              • And it’s my country. I was born here. I was raised here. I’m starting a family here. I’ll probably die here. It’s given me everything I have.* I’m sure the people of Afghanistan love their country and it’s a hell-hole.

                * I don’t want to hear it. Just accept that statement and move on with your life. Move along, there’s nothing to see here..

              • Black Flag says:

                But why do you love your country?

          • Matt:

            There is much more to explore here that goes far beyond Mr. Obama.

            Do you think the founders of this Country would view Mr. Obama and his advisors as Patriots?

            • I think if they met Mr. Obama, their first thought would be “Holy S***, he’s a n****!” After they got over that and picked their powered wigs up off the floor, their next thought would be this: “Is this man, to the fullest of his natural abilities, attempting to serve the good of the people of these 13 50 states? If it be so, then he is a patriot.” After that, they might get spooked by a horseless carriage or a 747. All in all, I think it would be a rather stressful experience for them.

              • If that is what you believe then I think your understanding of the values and principles held by those men, and on which this nation was founded, is greatly lacking.

              • Black Flag says:

                I agree.

                The founders (regardless of skin color) would consider him an usurper and a criminal.

              • Then who can lay legitimate claim to the Presidency in the eyes of the Founders?

              • Black Flag says:

                A free man – but he wouldn’t take it.

              • Patriotism is loving and serving your country. We’re debating whether he’s genuine in his affection below, but let’s assume he is. And he is serving his country pretty clearly in the capacity of President. Does that mean he is serving well? Not necessarily. Does that mean they would agree with what he’s doing or how he’s doing it? No. But they would still call him a patriot because he loves and serves his country.

              • Black Flag says:

                Do you love your country because it is powerful

                or

                Do you love your country because it is good?

              • Irrelevant. Patriotism specifies only that you do love your country. I see nothing in the definition about the motives behind it.

              • Black Flag says:

                Then Patriotism is a tool for evil.

              • bottom line says:

                There has to be some justification for the love of your country, otherwise it is baseless and hallow, there fore…argueably false

              • I disagree, patriotism is what you are willing to suffer for what your country represents to you. To a great many POTUS is trying to alter their America into his. He’s merely a representative and to assume him more than that is accepting HIS America over your own. So how then is it unpatriotic to challenge those taking your America away from you. It isn’t and can never be or that very word is scrubbed from language entirely.

        • Though I don’t agree with many of his policies, Barrack Obama is the president of my country and as so he deserves respect. I would ask you to be more civil, please.

          • Thanks for the support, Jack

          • JB…I do respect the position of President of the United States, and therefore respect the man Barak Obama. I DO NOT, however, agree with his policies. It appears at every turn, he is using the Constitution as Charmin and that personally has me chapped!

            • I must have missed the part of the Constitution where Presidents are allowed to monitor phone calls without warrants…

              Or, again, do you hold Bush to the same standard?

              • I definitely hold Bush to the same standard. There were many things he did I did not, and most likely never will agree with.

              • And it almost never fails, when something negative is said about President Obama, the “Well Bush did…” is brought up. Please defend (if that is what you wish to do) President Obama on his merits rather than bring up the Bush argument…

              • I actually didn’t want to defend Obama, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t being hypocritical. That’s cool with me as long as you’re equitable about your disdain.

              • Understandable in todays atmosphere. I do appreciate your views…helps us all to be more well rounded…

              • If this place rounds me out any more, I’m going to roll away

          • bottom line says:

            BHO was elected as president of the USA and deserves the respect of the american people…

            is to

            Hitler was elected chancelor of germany and deserved respect from the german people.

      • I just turned 26 so that would also make me a young’un.

      • Mathius says:

        “He loves his country and is trying to the best he can for it.”

        I am curious as to how you know this and by what actions and words has he shown this to be true?

        • Words, I think, would be easily to come by. He has stated as much many times. But that doesn’t really mean anything, does it? If the question is what is in his heart, I am afraid that I have no way of knowing that for certain. But let us use akum’s razor. Which is more likely, that he is a well intentioned (if possibly misguided) individual who has devoted his life to civil service, or that he is an evil America-hater who hates our country so much that he has dedicated his life to obtaining the highest office in the land in order to push policies on it which he believes will destroy it?

          Does Bush love America? I would think that he does, but what’s your opinion? How do you corroborate it?

          • Is Acum related to Occam? Does he know what PRN is?

          • Probably, but I spelled it Akum, who was Acum’s cousin twice removed. Occam was more of the crazy uncle whose relationship to the family nobody knew..

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hey…Didn’t they do a Star Trek episode on Occam’s Razor?

              • Nothing comes up on The Google…

                And I know my Trek pretty well. So unless it was something early in the original series, or late in DS9 (what crap!), I don’t think so..

          • Which is more likely, that he is a well intentioned (if possibly misguided) individual who has devoted his life to civil service, or that he is an evil America-hater who hates our country so much that he has dedicated his life to obtaining the highest office in the land in order to push policies on it which he believes will destroy it?

            OR…

            ..that he is a self-centered and misguided individual who has devoted his life to civil service [because it provides access to legal force] and has dedicated his life to obtaining the highest office in the land in order to push policies on it which he believes [but could not be justified by reason – hence the need to use force] are good for the people (but from which he will exclude himself)

            • I believe that would fall under the header of well intentioned but misguided…

              • Black Flag says:

                Misguided means he does not know what he is doing.

                I believe he knows exactly what he is doing.

                He understands exactly what he wants and how to do it.

                He may not understand (or believes such will not be bad) the unintended consequences of his actions.

              • bottom line says:

                I second that BF

              • If he “believes such will not be bad” but it is*, and if he is doing it because it is “good for the people,”** then I think it’s a fair statement to say that he is well-intentioned but misguided***.. What am I missing?

                * Pretty much the definition of misguided, no?

                ** Pretty much the definition of well-intentioned, no?

                ***For the record, I do not stipulate that he is misguided.

              • Black Flag says:

                I do not know that he is misguided.

                IF one is aiming at this target, and hits it, is that misguided? I don’t think so.

                If one hitting the target destroys the guy behind the target – it wasn’t misguided either – just an unintended consequence.

                And if you don’t care that you destroyed that guy behind the target, then what’s the problem?

              • However if you hit the target dead center but were shooting at your opponents target instead of your own by mistake, that would be misguided. I am with Mathius on his argument here, just on the defining misguided bet well intentioned.

              • You’re over complicating this. His intentions are not bad, but his consequences are.

                Per the good folks at dictionary.com:
                –adjective
                misled; mistaken

                OK, boring definition, but my point stands. He believes he’s going GOOD. He is doing bad*. Thus he is mistaken. Thus he is misguided.

                *Yet again, I do not stipulate this point. I feel a strong urge to stress this.

              • I believe something to be absolutely correct it would NEVER be “bad” to me and I would not accept another’s opinion that it indeed was either, unless something caused me to abandon the line of thought which brought me to my actions or actions I was considering altogether. Peripheral damage would also be a moot point having already crossed that line in intelligently formulating my sequence of actions in the first place. Fallout is always accounted for in any endeavor choosing one side over another. Use of the term misguided is itself just that.

          • You have misapplied the RAZOR.

            • Only because you are thinking of Occam’s Razor. I very clearly referred to Akum’s Razor. As discussed above, Occam is the crazy uncle of Akum’s second cousin twice removed, Acum.

              Zaniness aside, please tell me how I misapplied it?

              • Matt:

                The hypothesis is that a simple explanation will more likely yield the more accurate or truthful or best answer than a lengthy or complex explanation.

                You take two potential explanations and project your view that one is somehow simpler by playing the Razor card. Niether is simpler than the other. They are in fact essentially the same in their length and complexity.

                You believe one more plausible than the other. That does not make it a simpler explanation just more likely. That is of course if we accept your assumptions regarding plausability.

              • I claim it is simpler that a man is inept but well meaning, than that he has built his life around a scheme to acquire power to pass laws to sabotage the American way of life.

                Both, I suppose, explain the situation, but one involves massive fraud, complicated long range plans, and an unclear motive, whereas the other says he is what he appears to be.

              • This is being my first post i would have to agree with mat. BO most likely believes he is doing good while actually doing harm. Nearly every one believes they are good not bad.

      • The internet afford everyone the chance at seeing that which other wish you not to. How many stories are buried for containing the truth better left untold for those in power? Far too many to count. How many lies have been turned up the last 8 months alone which didn’t make a blip on the MSM? Take for example the HadCRUT data used to first fuel the global warming hysteria going missing. That didn’t register at all yet the next round of “Dancing With the Stars” and Paula Abdul leaving “American Idol” made for hours of mention on the idiot box. The internet was all over it and pointed to a valid reason as to why it was shredded:

        Global Warming ate my data

        We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

        By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)

        Posted in Environment, 13th August 2009 14:35 GMT

        Free whitepaper – The business case for application security

        The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

        The CRU (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection – except to hand-picked academics – for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datdow), in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU (http://www.john-daly.com/cru/index.htm) cascade around the world, and become part of “the science”.

        Professor Phil Jones (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/), the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

        Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

        In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn’t have to fulfil the requests because “Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites”.

        Now it’s citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.

        As for the raw station data,

        “We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

        Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn’t impressed (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6789#comments) by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673), and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.

        McIntyre says he doesn’t expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.

        It’s blindingly obvious something this big which is set to cost the world so much was missing from the idiot box save for a blurp on Fox News whom I’m certain didn’t understand the importance of it. Luckily we have the internet though and things like this won’t be getting by us.

        Also check out the Russian’s thoughts on the vanishing Arctic Ice and the mechanisms at work there. Pretty certain the “Weather is scary!” czar doesn’t want you to see this. Maybe they need to shut off the internet until all data can be wiped and propaganda appropriate to the state’s position in all matters can be installed.

        http://www.climatelogic.com/trends/north-atlantic/nao-and-barents-sea-climate.html

        You have to wonder if the Russians are laughing their asses off at America’s adoption of Politburo policy or just shaking their heads.

  3. Posting for e-mail updates. Should be some interestng stuff. Just a note, on the local news, healthcare reform was referred to “a healthcare crisis”. That word has lost it’s meaning to me at this point.

    PEACE

    G!

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Good Morning all…

      USWeapon…thank you for the gift of this article this morning…it wasn’t a waste afterall to get up!

      Posting for emailed comments…Agreeing with my friend G-Man…this will be an interesting day!

      Best Regards to all,
      RS

  4. Good morning, USW. Nice article but why did you stop? Oh yeah, ran out of space and time. Posting for comments.

  5. Greatergoodcs says:

    Oy-vey … me thinks the word “radical” is tossed around here way too easily. The slant is more than obvious (what happened to objectivity)?

    I’m not a Barrack Bush III supporter either, but mostly because he isn’t nearly “radical” enough … you guys see him (and his apppointments) as the great socialist boogey man come to take all your freedoms away.

    I suspect you’re just Republicans hiding behind the libertarian banner, but it doesn’t make a difference … if you think Obama is radical, your positions are fixed and won’t see to reason.

    Have a good Labor Day weekend all … but try not to get too spooked by the word “labor” … call it wingnut day weekend if it offends.

    Peace.

    • GG,

      Let’s try to refrain from calling the President Barrack Bush III. This does not get us anywhere, and it is very misleading. For starters, they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. (Yea, yea, I know, this place has it’s own spectrum, but I’m still going to use the one that the rest of the world uses).

      Yes, USW’s post had a rather obvious slant (somewhat more than usual), but his concerns are legitimate. Perhaps their fears are exaggerated, but that does not make them entirely false. Calling the people in this room Republicans in hiding and saying that their positions are fixed is unfair and untrue. I have yet to convince any of them of anything (feel free to chime in if this is not true.. anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?), but that doesn’t mean that I won’t. By the time the 2012 elections come around, half of this room is going put a write-in vote for Kucinich. (Then again, maybe they’ll convince me to vote for Sarah Palin, who knows?).

      As for Labor day, I’m sure everyone here labored hard and deserves the day off. Nonetheless, I will be working a full day anyway. ::Sigh::

      • Greatergoodcs says:

        My man: If you’re a Kucinich man than Obama is Barrack Bush III.

        Or why did BO not only endorse Bush’s bailouts (and actually champion them), he extended them further.

        Or why aren’t we out of Iraq?

        Or where is national health care?

        And what’s up in Afghanistan.

        You’re asking me to be reaonable in here? I have to wonder if you’re not a shill yourself. I’ll continue to call BO Bush III, thanks anyway. Until he does something unlike the imbecile from Texas gifted the presidency with a stolen election (and remember I voted for him), I’ll call BO what I think he should be called.

        But peace anyway, brother … and sigh for me too … alas, I too am at work.

      • Come now, Matt! Though we agree on several things, I have made a point of agreeing with you on many important topics. I do admit that you have little chance of convincing me of several things, but I relish the debate for it helps me to realize how I really feel about things. I’ve only recently become politically active and I find many of my opinions are still forming.

        May the best logic win!

      • ” (Yea, yea, I know, this place has it’s own spectrum, but I’m still going to use the one that the rest of the world uses).”

        But I thought you were the one pushing for “enlightened” thinking by those involved?

        So now we are supposed to accept what is False, because most of the world accepts False as True.

        • I don’t accept the standard definition as false. That you do has no bearing on my statement. Using my (standard) definition, I conclude that Bush and the President are at opposite ends. Using yours, obviously, one would not conclude that.

          I think, perhaps, I would like to propose a third way of looking at things. If I recall correctly, you see the spectrum as a line leading from more government (left) to less government (right). On the left is fascism, communism, etc. On the right is VDLG, anarchy, etc.

          Per my definition, the left are those advocating economic equality (or social safety nets), economic interventionism, secular government, etc. Whereas the right signifies laissez-faire, religious involvement in government, and equality of opportunity (but not necessarily results).

          I have seen charts which show this as a coordinate plain rather than a line, so your definition would be the Y-axis, and mine the X-axis. So Fascism would be in the Upper Right, Communism in the Upper Left. Is this a fair way of looking at it in your opinion?

          • I believe the WIKI chart is meaningless because the definitions of the words have been changed by those wishing to confuse the matter to almost ridiculous extremes.

            In your example you place “religious involvement in government” in the same side with Laissez faire. Yet the concepts, if you mean govt sanctioned religion, are incompatible.

            You will find there are more and more people around the world who are waking up to the fact that the definitions and scales or charts have been misused. The number of folks using my spectrum are increasing.

            The key is this. The line, graph, chart, or definitions must address the subject being discussed.

            For example, your economic equality has no reference point on a scale depicting govt control, until you decide you are going to use govt to enforce your view of what that economic equality is. At that point you tie your concept/value to the “statist” side of the govt scale.

            The spectrum I and others have been trying to depict here addresses the standard terms of fascism, communism, socialism, capitalism and anarchism. These are all essentially socio/economic models which cooincide with types of govt to carry them out, ie statist vs not statist.

            What confuses the scale is imposing other values within these systems, such as your economic equlity. From a purely logical point your goal is unacheivable without the use of govt to try and impose it. That leads to the conclusion that it is tied to STATISM of some kind. But then history has shown that your goal can not be achieved by govt intervention. So perhaps economic equality can only be achieved without state control, putting you now on the right side. But alas, you have defined “equality” as “outcome” thus creating an impossible solution. No one can force equal outcomes, it simple can not be done.

            Interjecting “equitable” is no better. For you see everyone will not agree to what “equitable” means. Thus it is not achievable in reality. There will always be some who want “their” definition applied and of course enforced by the power of govt.

            Democracy means nothing but majority rule. So we can’t use this to explain “equality” because such a thing can not occur with majority rule. There will always be some who do not agree and thus are not being treated equally.

            Unless of course the actions of govt are restricted to only those things that affect us all equally. But that requires that govt not interfere with economic matters, because once it does its power is no longer equally applied. There are winners and losers in that game. Equality means all lose or all win.

            In the end Matt there is only one of two choices. Freedom or slavery. I know slavery sounds harsh but that is at its essence what govt control of our economic lives amounts to. One group is taking the very fruits of labor from another without their permission.

            If you wish to use govt to impose some view of economic equality on society then you have forsaken liberty and freedom. It is that simple.

          • Matt – If we look at real live politicians, rather than abstractions, seems to me Ron Paul is at one end and Kucinich is at the other. To me, Bush was center/left and Obama is further left. More abstract views, such as JAC explained, have much value, but so do real-world analyses.

            • Yet Kucinich and Paul share the same opinions on many key issues.

              How is that possible if they are on opposite ends?

              No more guessing games. It is because Kucinich has not resolved all the contradictions in his political philosophy. Paul has.

    • GG I’m getting really tired of your rhetoric. You claim to be civil, but this sort of rant is anything but. And don’t try to justify yourself with incivility by others. If incivility is wrong, it is wrong in rebuttal as well.

      That being said, I can see how you would feel a bit alone on a blog like this. Take heart, my friend, your opinions matter to most of us, even if we don’t agree. It is important to hear the opinion from all side to truly make an informed opinion. I assure you, most of us, at least, do our best to be logical and reasonable. All to often people get swept up in passion and let their emotions slide. I’ll do my best if you do yours!

      A good day to you!

      • Greatergoodcs says:

        Fair enough JB. Let’s see how it works.

        • Good Morning, GG. I have faith in you my wayward friend. I am like the sands of time…..besides, I have come to know a side of you that others have missed…but I will keep your secret until you really hit a hot button…then I will let you have it.

          How are you this morning? Hope your weekend goes well.

          • Greatergoodcs says:

            Thanks, brother. I’ll do my best to avoid your hot button(s).

            Good weekend ahead, I hope. Three days off is much needed. I “think” I avoided the latest round of stimulus layoffs and hope for the best … for you too, my friend.

            All best.

    • I believe that Obama has surrounded himself with radical (at least on my radicalometer) individuals. I believe he has radical tendencies himself. I don’t fault him for that, he was surrounded by radicals his whole life…a product of his environment.

      If you do not believe that many of his Czars are radical, that is your right to believe as you wish…personally IMO, many of his Czars are way radical…some support sterilization of the masses, others who believe that animals should be able to sue humans…kind of out there for me personally..

      The mere fact that we can have differing views is a product of freedom. We can agree to disagree…

      • Hi Terry….yes, for now, we can offer our viewpoints. Good morning to you.

        • I truly hope that it will last much longer than “for now”, but that remains to be seen. Maybe having both parents being Marines has warped my brain, but it amazes me how anyone cannot see that the POTUS is anything but detrimental to freedom…at least by the actions he has taken so far.

          I may not have said it before, but many thanks to you for your service. You provide a perspective that many do not have, and I consider it extremely valuable.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Ah, but GG, you forget that the wingnuts labor as well 🙂

  6. What is that quote ” You can judge a person by the friends they keep”.
    What scares me the most, is the lack of control or should I say the lack of responability these czars have to anyone but Obama and Biden. That is not how our government is suppose to be.

    I found a page that listed all the czars, what they make, and who they answer to. I will look to see if I can locate it again.

  7. I don’t like Obama and it’s not really a secret. I thought before he was elected that he would be the most seriously destructive President to our Freedoms and Liberties since FDR. He has NOT dissapointed.

    Whether or not he is doing what HE thinks is best. Whether or not he is basically a good man who is just misguided in his views, or maybe even a puppet of the money masters of the world does not matter. What matters is that these Czars and advisors who have his ear are in some cases just incompetent and in a few downright dangerous to the people of the United States and our fundamental rights.

    For those who don’t share this view, that’s fine. You have your opinions and I have mine. But let’s look at just a few problems with these folks. Remember that these are not just people who work with the President to implement his policies, they have ideas and policies that they WANT to be implemented also. And they are advisors. They are telling him what they think he should try to do, and have been put in the position BY Obama to do that.

    Van Jones is a Communist, a racist, and a radical hate monger. Why o why would the President want a fool like this advising him on how to plant a tomato plant, much less “green” projects and jobs creation.

    Cass Sunstein the regulatory czar is wanting to take the 1st Amendment away. The first right in the bill of rights given to us by the founders. If this one is not important, what about the rest of them? How long before these morons take ALL of them from us.

    And let’s not forget Mark Lloyd. This man doesn’t think it’s ok to FORCE conservative Radio to have a diversity of views and to always have the other sides point of view when they have any talk show. If Liberal Radio can’t make it on their own what are we supposed to do? Comeup with a Stimulous Package for them? The people don’t listen to Rush, Boortz, Beck and them to hear what the Liberal Left has to say. Right or Wrong or Indifferent that is their perogative. It should not be up to the FCC to decide what is “fair”. If the Lefist folks want to hear someone on radio spout their propaganda, let them have their own radio… Oh Yeah, that’s right. None of them can stay open because no one wants to listen to them. So how is that the Conservative Radio’s fault?

    And finally Harold Koh. Transnationalism. Really Koh? We should suborn ourselves to a UN who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written right on the heel? This would probably be because he is a big fan of the one world, one government fantasy. We don’t need nor do we want to be governed by a bunch of Foreign morons from another country. We already have a group of domestic morons screwing things up enough, thank you very much anyway though.

    And Holdren. All I can say is: HUH?

    El Presidente’ Why don’t you hear that loud pop as your head jumps from your ass where you keep it? Pelosi, Frank, and Reid, and all are bad enough. We don’t need these unelected and unsupervised idiots running through the White House.

  8. Richmond Spitfire says:

    What is a day at “Stand Up for America” without a funny????

    ————————————-

    An old man lived alone in New Jersey . He wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, as the ground was hard.

    His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:

    Dear Vincent,
    I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won’t be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I’m just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
    Love, Papa

    A few days later he received a letter from his son.

    Dear Pop,
    Don’t dig up that garden. That’s where the bodies are buried.
    Love,
    Vinnie

    At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.

    That same day the old man received another letter from his son:

    Dear Pop,
    Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That’s the best I could do under the circumstances.
    Love you,
    Vinnie

    I wish all of you the best!

    RS

    • I like.

      It’s extra funny because it’s in New Jersey 🙂

    • Nice!

    • Ah! A son’s love is unstoppable!

    • Ahhhh…RS….a voice in this wilderness. How are you this morning? I have a good day yesterday fighting the school system and somewhat winning….but we got their attention. So….here is to you for the funny…( picture D13, cleaning his guns and hoisting a Dr. Pepper to you ). Have a great weekend and don’t do anything that I would not do….but if you do, do it twice and take pictures. I want details……(by the way, for the serious minded, it was an attempt at humor)

      D13

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Dear D13,

        Click (my Coffee to your Dr. Pepper!).

        I can’t wait to hear all about your experiences yesterday!

        I ended up writing a letter to the Superindent of our School Board. I asked for a reply to my questions by today. I’m certainly not holding my breath though. Sometimes I think that our county government is worse than our State and Federal. Let me tell you…if you don’t pay your property taxes on time, then they are on top of you like a fly on $hit before the sphincter muscle has had time to cut it off.

        Anyway…wishing you a wonderful day!

        RS

        • Thank you, RS, for that wonderful imagery.

          And please keep that in mind when people say government can’t do anything efficiently..

          I raise my Red Bull to you and D13!

          • WHOA !!!! Red Bull…now I really know how old you are…

            RS, I did post my results yesterday. I also heard more today that Fort Worth is still going to show it to the high school…if they want it. But the parents now have a say in it.

            However, most of our suburbs are not showing it at all. Not taking up important class time.

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – and others – greetings and good morning. Let me first say that I did not read the entire article – I stopped after the Koh piece because quite frankly, I smelled a rat.

    Allow me to clarify and go a little Jerry Maguire on ya’ll – over the last few weeks I heard several claims of the ultra-radical advisers that POTUS has brought on board. I was consume by fear that the man I voted for me had jackpotted me and filled the basement of the White House with left wing nutjobs. I asked for some evidence – throw me a bone – throw me something that can allow me to make an objective assessment of what you are saying. If the radical-ness is shown to be true then I may need to reconsider my position with the current Admin. So – allow a slight diversion here – when I ask for some evidence or proof – I mean just that. Proof in this case should not be taken to mean more blog-work, more insinuations, more unsubstantiated claims by the news media – it means original sourced material. I want to see You Tube’s, I want to see published work, I want to see – in that person’s words and context what I would think you are using to build your own assessment – otherwise – I will have to say that I think you’re full of shit and have been sheepled by the right wing media and right wing blogosphere. Catch my drift? This is where you take the blogger hat off and have to decompose that final layer and actually prove what you’re saying.

    So what the hell am I saying? Let’s use Koh as an example…..

    Several accusations are made of Koh to demonstrate how radical he is:

    (1) He is a transnationalist – well – first off that term is a loosely coined term and can mean very obvious things (the EU), somewhat good things (recognizing heightened interconnectivity between people) or potentially bad things (any notion that a global government should supercede nation-states). You offered a quote to support your view that Koh takes this concept to the negative. The quote is: “all members of the international community should recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides that of any particular government.” So let’s explore this a little deeper – plug that quote into Google or Dogpile and what do you come up with? What I discovered is that you have inappropriately attributed what appears to be a conclusion made by the website “DiscovertheNetworks” to Koh – I can find no example of Koh making the statement you have attributed to him. Mind you – that website w w w dot DiscoverTheNetworks dot org is a site owned and operated by the “Church of Christ, Scientist” and is posed as a ‘guide to the political left’. Anyway – the DTN statement links to a paper written by John Fonte entitled “Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State: What Is the Best Regime?” (located here: http://pcr.hudson.org/files/publications/2008_Bradley_Symposium_Fonte_Essay.pdf) I searched the entire paper and actually found the quote you used – it is Fonte’s writing and not Koh’s – unless you can show me where Koh made that statement I suggest you retract it. My suggestion and conclusion here is that you go back to the drawing board on this point – you have over-emphasized certain point and allowed yourself to be misled.

    (2) The next ‘set my hair on fire’ quote was: “in an appropriate case, I don’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States” – this one is a little easier as I have heard this before – and has been re-used numerous times by the batshit crazy right wing to prove something that does not exist. Once again – Google is my friend. Plug the quote in and scroll through the right wing blogs and you will see that is nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation made by a jackass lawyer named Steven Stein. Fox news originally aired this report. Stein supposedly sent an email to the New Republic claiming Koh said this. Fox picked this up and reported it – however – these journalistic whizzes forgot to corroborate that the facts as offered by Stein were indeed facts (e.g. finding someone else that was at the same Yale function where Koh supposedly made the statement to at least corroborate this). For more read this: http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/04/02/fox-news-at-it-again-falsely-claims-white-house-supports-sharia-law/ or you can read the story on slate under the heading “And then they came for Koh….” So – until there is something a little better than “I heard him say this” – then I call bullshit.

    Where does that leave me? No worse for the wear I hope. Time permitting I may try and read the remainder and see if there is any real fruit of that labor or if it is merely more poison I am trying to be tricked into eating.

    I am disappointed in the rest of you in that you do not challenge what you are fed – but merely accept more blogoshit as fact – I have provided you at least a start that should help you question things.

    Thanks,

    Ray

    • I’m interested in what you’ll say about Von Jones. I can’t dig up anything without running full on into things that set him up as what’s being stated by the right or articles not addressing anything negated by the actual footage of him in his own words merely that it should be overlooked and that its all about racism. Maybe you’ve covered more ground than I.

  10. Ray Hawkins says:

    All ~ I have posted a lengthy response that tosses this article on its ear – it is awaiting moderation as I violated the “two or more hyperlinks” rule – doh!

    Cheers to all!

    Ray

    • Ray, I await with bated breath. I may even have a comment that will send you outside with weed eater, mower, blow torch, and post hole diggers.

      Hope your weekend will be good.

  11. Good Morning Everyone:

    What I was going to say, I see Ellen already beat me to it, about, you can judge a person by the company they keep.

    Hope all has a great day and weekend.

    Regards to all

    Judy

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hey Judy…

      Then we are all wonderful people here…’cause we are keeping company with wonderful people!

      Hope your day is starting off well…

      Best Regards,
      RS

      • Hi RS

        Couldn’t agree with you more. I don’t think I’ve seen any bad apples here, all good people.

        Day is starting out okay for now. too early to tell. Only 8:00 a.m. right now, have to wait and see what the day brings.

        Have a good one.

        Judy

  12. Great article USW and thank you for doing the research on this. Unlike you, I listened to Limbaugh and Hannity, and many others before the election and did a lot of reading on BO and his associates. I also didn’t buy into the “he’ll have to lead from the center” and looked at his actions in the limited time he was in the Senate to base my opinion…..you know that whole, actions speak louder saying.

    The bad news is that this (hidden) radical president won; the good news is that he is moving very quickly and has brought this group out into the open for everyone to finally wake up. There will still be some (sounds like Ray has some counter points) that will still drink the Kool-Aid. To many, I think it is just too surreal to think people with these ideas are actually leading this country. You know, they can’t really be that bad, they can’t really mean these things. What has Van Jones said about signing that 911 truther petition? “I didn’t realize what I was signing.” What?

    One humorous thing in your article was Holdren’s position on population growth, where in his publication with the Ehrlich’s he states, “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” Yet, when talking about the dangers of global warming, he “made the prediction that global warming would kill 1 billion people by the year 2020.” Population control needed? Bring on GW!

    Valerie Jarrett has long been BO’s close confident and advisor. Michelle Malkin had a piece on her, Jones and BO yesterday. Lots of links within the piece to read.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/03/van-jones-valerie-jarrett-barack-obama-do-it-yourself-vetting/

    Happy Friday everyone! Beautiful weather here in southern WI – might need to get to the links today and play a round.

  13. “OK. We have enough evidence that he is not what we thought we were voting for,”?

    God, I love it when my opponents finally understand the futility of their position – in their own words.

    But….

    So, how’s that “voting” thing workin’ out for ya!?

    Ya’ll like pickin’ from a list ya’ll didn’t make?

    Ya’ll goin’ do it again next time, though, right?

    I wonder “how much evidence” ya’ll need….

  14. As far as czars et al

    USWep – you shouldn’t complain – these are guys working inside the system to change the system just like you want to do!

    But, open thy eyes old friend – as see what it does and what it means – you are watching, close up and personal, what working inside the system does and is like.

    All it does is energize ‘the system’ to even larger horrors.

    “…wonder how much more evidence they need…”

    • Search the Web on Snap.com says:

      Black Flag,

      You are obviously more well-read and more familiar with history than I am . . .

      Nevertheless . . .

      I know that it is frustrating when those who are the most qualified and more statesman-like than politician do not take the challenge (and undertake the sacrifice) to run for public office.

      And I know it is frustrating and down-right heartbreaking when the electorate would rather listen to pundits than to research candidates to see if they have backbone and wisdom instead of poll-driven rhetoric.

      And I realize that it is maddening to see, as some of today’s posts reveal, that those who cling to “left” or “right” will call even quotes and historical fact “slant” and thereby discount the obvious radical nature of the current administration.

      But, if more and more of us use all of that as an excuse to say “See, I told you so” and disengage from the system, how on earth can we expect anything to return to sound and wise and conservative principle.

      What I hear you saying is that it is hopeless; that 2010 and 2012 will be a waste of time . . .

      But I’m not ready to give up . . .

      • Black Flag says:

        Sir,

        I leave you with merely the example of Ron Paul.

        A statesman of decades of representation.

        Setting records for funding of his campaign.

        Ran on truth – blunt and to the point – of the reality of the national crisis economically and militarily.

        …and was laughed off the stage…

        …ignored…

        …insulted as an idiot….

        …couldn’t even get on the ballot….

        And, now, the current events of today play out as he exactly described…. he looks like a freakin’ genius!

        But now since he is no threat to the system …..

        And you truly believe with all the evidence of 200 years, and recent attempts that the federal stage is anything but permanently rigged to prevent any possibility of change – your vote matters?

        The system will collapse – it cannot be sustained. Piling energy into the system will magnify the damage of the collapse – not soften it.

        I am not suggesting ‘giving up’ – applying energy to a futile endeavor is merely another means of ‘giving up’, isn’t it?

        So how about applying energy where such endeavors can be meaningful?

        • bottom line says:

          (claps hands) Thank you sir. Well said.

        • So . . . where do we apply that “energy?”

          • Black Flag says:

            Part Two of the Multi-part series – “How to get There from Here”

            (c) Black Flag 2009

            • I went back and read Part 1 (sorry I missed it first time around, as I’ve said before, I’m a part-time participant here :),

              BF, I respect your opinions as stated in that article, but do not see that as a total jettison of the present “system” as today’s post seems to indicate, but, instead, I see what you presented as a purifying of something that has degenerated into a quagmire of the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

              I support “Part 1” totally . . . and would welcome a national cleansing and redirection as you describe it.

              It is difficult to understand why friends like GGcs and Mathius would not alos support a similar proposition.

              • Black Flag says:

                It is impossible for the People to put candidates of their own choosing on a national ballot. The national ballots are controlled by the Party. The Party (there is only one – thought they seem to be wearing different T-shirts) is controlled by the Elite.

                The only way to save the federal system from total destruction is for the People to put candidates of their own choosing on a national ballot.

                Therefore, the system will self-destruct.

                Therefore, working within, around, against, or for the federal system is futile.

                Thus, refocus where energy is useful.

  15. A well written and researched article. The one common element I see in all these men is the lack of trust in there fellow men. Not a single one seems to believe that the common person can make a well informed decision for themself.

  16. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – and others – greetings and good morning. Let me first say that I did not read the entire article – I stopped after the Koh piece because quite frankly, I smelled a rat.

    Allow me to clarify and go a little Jerry Maguire on ya’ll – over the last few weeks I heard several claims of the ultra-radical advisers that POTUS has brought on board. I was consume by fear that the man I voted for me had jackpotted me and filled the basement of the White House with left wing nutjobs. I asked for some evidence – throw me a bone – throw me something that can allow me to make an objective assessment of what you are saying. If the radical-ness is shown to be true then I may need to reconsider my position with the current Admin. So – allow a slight diversion here – when I ask for some evidence or proof – I mean just that. Proof in this case should not be taken to mean more blog-work, more insinuations, more unsubstantiated claims by the news media – it means original sourced material. I want to see You Tube’s, I want to see published work, I want to see – in that person’s words and context what I would think you are using to build your own assessment – otherwise – I will have to say that I think you’re full of shit and have been sheepled by the right wing media and right wing blogosphere. Catch my drift? This is where you take the blogger hat off and have to decompose that final layer and actually prove what you’re saying.

    So what the hell am I saying? Let’s use Koh as an example…..

    Several accusations are made of Koh to demonstrate how radical he is:

    (1) He is a transnationalist – well – first off that term is a loosely coined term and can mean very obvious things (the EU), somewhat good things (recognizing heightened interconnectivity between people) or potentially bad things (any notion that a global government should supercede nation-states). You offered a quote to support your view that Koh takes this concept to the negative. The quote is: “all members of the international community should recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides that of any particular government.” So let’s explore this a little deeper – plug that quote into Google or Dogpile and what do you come up with? What I discovered is that you have inappropriately attributed what appears to be a conclusion made by the website “DiscovertheNetworks” to Koh – I can find no example of Koh making the statement you have attributed to him. Mind you – that website w w w dot DiscoverTheNetworks dot org is a site owned and operated by the “Church of Christ, Scientist” and is posed as a ‘guide to the political left’. Anyway – the DTN statement links to a paper written by John Fonte entitled “Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State: What Is the Best Regime?” (located here: http://pcr.hudson.org/files/publications/2008_Bradley_Symposium_Fonte_Essay.pdf) I searched the entire paper and actually found the quote you used – it is Fonte’s writing and not Koh’s – unless you can show me where Koh made that statement I suggest you retract it. My suggestion and conclusion here is that you go back to the drawing board on this point – you have over-emphasized certain point and allowed yourself to be misled.

    (2) The next ’set my hair on fire’ quote was: “in an appropriate case, I don’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States” – this one is a little easier as I have heard this before – and has been re-used numerous times by the batshit crazy right wing to prove something that does not exist. Once again – Google is my friend. Plug the quote in and scroll through the right wing blogs and you will see that is nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation made by a jackass lawyer named Steven Stein. Fox news originally aired this report. Stein supposedly sent an email to the New Republic claiming Koh said this. Fox picked this up and reported it – however – these journalistic whizzes forgot to corroborate that the facts as offered by Stein were indeed facts (e.g. finding someone else that was at the same Yale function where Koh supposedly made the statement to at least corroborate this). For more read this: http: //chattahbox dot come /us/2009/04/02/fox-news-at-it-again-falsely-claims-white-house-supports-sharia-law/ or you can read the story on slate under the heading “And then they came for Koh….” So – until there is something a little better than “I heard him say this” – then I call bullshit.

    Where does that leave me? No worse for the wear I hope. Time permitting I may try and read the remainder and see if there is any real fruit of that labor or if it is merely more poison I am trying to be tricked into eating.

    I am disappointed in the rest of you in that you do not challenge what you are fed – but merely accept more blogoshit as fact – I have provided you at least a start that should help you question things.

    Thanks,

    Ray

    My own re-posting

    • Ahhh Ray…go get the gasoline…you will need it to crank the mowers….be back to you, hopefully, this PM.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        D13 – so are you going to challenge what you have been provided (by USW and I)? I hope you do. In the first example USW clearly used a mis-attributed quote to bolster a case that does not exist – thin air my friend. If I am wrong – please show where I erred and I will retract. As for the second case – we have several “news” sources reporting on an email that they never bothered to validate. Just because Fox news reports it does not make it fact – I would have expected USW to apply a little more scrutiny to his work. It appears he did not and made conclusions from rhetorical bullshit. I don’t buy it. If I am wrong – show me the facts and I will correct my position. Just because someone said William Wallace “shoots lightning bolts from his arse” does not make it so.

        • On thecontrary Ray, I think you attempted to read more into what I attributed that quote to than was intended. Will reply when I can.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I await your response….

            When you preface a quoted passage with “when he stated that…” or “he said” I am not sure how else I am supposed to interpret that.

            If you made a mistake then say so and correct your work. But don’t build a point around such weak ‘evidence’.

            • Making mountains out of molehills again Ray. You sure are having a fit about such a small part of that long ass article.

              For the rest of them there is plenty of evidence from their own writings and videos of them saying it. Koh was one of the first picks for Obama and was shot right through. He was the first one Obama picked who had paid his taxes. 🙂

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Esom – as I pointed out I began reading in earnest over my coffee as I do each morning – when I finished the Koh part I thought – “now hang on a minute here – something smells fishy”. I will read the remainder.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        You’re right Esom – and as demonstrated in the sources I provided the NY Post was specifically mentioned as also failing to properly research their sources.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Ray,

          You are great at claiming that an article you disagree with “failed to properly research their sources”, and great at saying the sources of any article you agree with are impeccable.

          Just because you say this does not make it true.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Peter – nice philosophical horseshit you proposing – I’m not the one proclaiming Koh and others to be radicals. There is no requirement for me to find sources that validate something did not happen in this scenario – I merely pointed out that in one instance a quote to substantiate one position was lifted from someone else and in the second case we have nothing more than “hey – guess what I heard” as evidence. What more do I need to throw this article under the bus? If you have issue with something else then please explain yourself.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I merely claim that any sources with a “right” bias are ones you claim as “unsupported” and sources with a “left” bias (such as mediamatters) are claimed to be great sources.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                You are partially correct Peter – but in lieu of video or transcripts from the supposed statements made at Yale it is merely one guy claiming Koh said something – that is pretty damn weak in my book for saying affirming that Koh supports use of Sharia law and then casually affirming that Obama must support the same because he appointed Koh to some position.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Ostensibly USW was going to offer me “proof” – as I have demonstrated he has not offered proof but merely more opinion.

      • I can’t find any “youtube” videos on Harold Koh, except for him calling the US part of the “Axis of Disobedience” along with NK and Iraq and saying that International should trump US Law. But as far as the others, I have seen their writings and videos where thay are spewing all the crap USW espouses in his article. Especially Van Jones and Lloyd. Their big mouths have been run extensively in the past and as early as this March.

        So I hereby cover your Bulldookey Flag with my Bulldookey Flag. Try again please. Maybe we should look at Mr. Koh’s writings. He has published several books.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Esom – can you kindly post the link to the video you are referencing? I searched on You Tube and get zilch for results.

          If there is specific content from his books please reference as such.

          I scraped the shit from my flag and threw it back on yours.

          • I haven’t seen the video lately so I don’t know where you would find it. It wasn’t a big secret at the time, so it was all over the TV. Even MSNBC and CNN showed it because they approved.

            And I said why don’t we read from some of his books? I didn’t say I read one. And besides, I am not trying to discredit USW on his article, you are.

            If USW had come out with 5,000 references of proof, you would still throw your bullshit flag. I don’t think anyone here besides you needs as much proof. If he’s a Transnationalist, and he is, that’s good enough for me. Fox was just one of MANY sources that quoted that Sharia Law thing. With so many sources, no wonder USW repeated it. Only Slate, as far as I have seen, disputes it. Maybe he did say it. Hell, who cares?

            But the point is that Harold Koh is probably the smallest radical of all the Jackasses around Obama. He is making a habit of giving radical idiots power. He DID say if you wanted to know him, to just look at the people he surrounds himself with. Now you don’t like it because his critics are doing just that? It’s not anyones fault but yours if you voted for him. No sense taking your anger at yourself out on the rest of us. 😉

            Everyone makes mistakes. Hell, I got married. Talk about making a mistake!!

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Esom, Esom, Esom – what am I going to do with you?

              – Its pretty tough for things to vanish from You Tube – but I guess its possible. For now I’ll have to assume it does not exist.

              – FTR – maybe you should re-read the purpose of this article – at least one purpose was to validate to yours truly (and others) why it is right and proper to claim ‘radical’ with respect to his advisers. As I offered yesterday – sure – let’s do this – if he has a bunch of radicals around him and the body of evidence is there then you may have guy closer to being a convert (me). What is offered here is something less than proof – it is opinion – and that is a huge difference – and you know that.

              – 5000 references? No sir – you are wrong and showing a shallowness in your own intellect. As often as you and others decry that those who voted for Obama are just a bunch of shallow dipshits you are merely showing yourself to be the same by saying “Maybe he did say it. Hell, who cares?” WTF is that? It sounds to me like a guy who could give two shits about having an honest thought on the subject. And don’t give me the Georgia Country Boy hogwash and horseshit either – we all put our pants on one leg at a time so that crap doesn’t fly with me. Its high time you buck up and try and stand on a firmer leg and at least open your head that it takes some sweat equity to get it right from time to time.

              – I have no issue with people shining the light on POTUS and who he surrounds himself with. No issue at all. I have lingering suspicions on many things and as much as I make an honest effort to stay informed I know I will still miss things. That is why I asked – what is this volume about his advisers all being radicals. I was told – “hey Ray – here is your answer” – um – sorry – an answer it was not. I have no issue looking in that mirror and saying I was wrong on something – but you better damn well back up what you are saying. If you’re never going to never challenge what you hear on Fox and whatever else the hell you watch or listen to – you are just as guilty Esom as those on the far left you so eagerly bash as being Obamatrons, Sheeple and whatever other epithet you dream up.

              • Look Ray. you are making a great big deal out of one person in the Article. Just as you usually take one small thing in most of them to call bullshit on the whole thing.

                Why should USW or anyone else provide you more proof? If you don’t believe Koh is a Transnationalist fine. That’s what I mean by “who cares”.

                It was one person where his evidence MAY be or even as you say Probably is wrong. I am just continually amazed by your disgruntled attitude towards USW. What happened? Did he steal a girlfriend from you or something?

                As far as my Georgia Country Boy Aw Shucks hogwash goes. You’re just jealous and mad ’cause you had to move to PA and become a yankee. You can always move back. 🙂

              • Make that “honarary” yankee.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Did you have to call me a Yankee? Crap – you know USW is a Sawx fan right? (Ahem – I did have Yankees season tix for a few years – but that’s only because I like to watch American League ball as much as National League).

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Esom – if I moved back to Georgia (I still root for the Dawgs) I’d move North to the Calhoun/Rome/Adairsville area – hell – maybe I’d even move to Blood Mountain. I was born in ND btw – not sure what that makes me other than “boring”.

                I’m not prepared to say Koh is or is not a transnationalist -likely he is – my point is that I cringe when I say USW pulling the same tricks he despises – using half truths and trickery to support an opinion rather than fact. It is “fact” among other things that so many here subscribe to – but seemingly only when the end result matches their political bend – otherwise “we’re just bloggin'”

                And FTR – I don’t have a bone to pick with USW. He’s a smart, hard-working guy who gives a shit about our country – I just ask that we get it right. And no – he never stole a girlfriend from me – he kicked my ass in wrestling a few times (he may not remember that) – not that I hold grudges or anything – I’m just sayin’.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                BTW – when I lived down that way it was Riverdale – Clayton County – a real ‘hole’ from what I saw last.

          • Wow. One of the reasons I came here months ago was that I was tired of the use of weak language by so many on commenters on the news sites to support their opinions . . .

        • There’s Harold Koh video all over the place. I don’t have all morning to view it. What are you guys talking about?

    • With regard to Koh, he does seem to lean toward the one world government…in his testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, subcommittee on the Constitution on restoring the rule of law “the Administration should reengage diplomatically with the Contracting Parties to the ICC to seek resolution of outstanding U.S. concerns and pave the way for eventual U.S. ratification of the Rome Treaty.” That particular treaty was the beginning of the EU…to me it sounds as though he wants the US to be part of that group.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Or maybe we need to think through that isolationism is not always the best foreign policy to have?

        • Governing ourselves without considering outside law is not isolationism, it is called independance, and I am all for that.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Nor can we ‘do as I say not as I do’…..

            • You are correct, we should not do that, but that is what we get when we leave the politicians (all of them) in charge…not that we have a choice.

  17. Seed,

    RE: Reprocessing.

    Very nice overview – just some tweeks to your comments.

    The nuclear fuel cycle produces plutonium – not the reprocessing.

    Reprocessing separates the still-good fuel (98% of the stuff) from the ugly stuff – the ‘dirty daughters’. Dirty daughters include plutonium. Dirty daughters are hot, nasties – very radioactive – but very short half-lives (high radiation, short half-life; low radiation; long half-life). Taking them out of uranium, the dirty daughters decay to nearly nothing in a decade.

    To be clear – uranium is nuke bomb material too – plutonium simply requires less per bomb – BUT there isn’t a whole heck of a lot of it coming out of the fuel cycle so it takes a lot of time.

    Prez. Carter was fearful of plutonium bombs(why, I don’t know) so he ordered no reprocessing. So the uranium (of which 98% is still good fuel) and the dirty daughters are kept together and stored.

    Now you have the worse of both worlds – Uranium; low radiation – long half life (millions of years) with Dirty Daughters; high radiation – short half life (decade) – is now…

    high radiation – long half life (million of years)!! 😦

    Further, reprocessing plants are not something that is built in a garage. It is very easy to secure and manage these facilities – they are complex and big and probably the US would only need no more than 3 to do the task – instead of now trying to find a secure the worlds deepest and longest by time garbage dump.

    And with the new methods of reactors that are fully self-regulating using liquid sodium (and other) materials – nuke energy is really easy.

    However uranium nuke energy is not the answer – there simply is not enough uranium energy to seriously power the world – not enough of the ore in the world – it is a very rare element, high on the periodic table (making it very rare) and decays (making it even more rare).

    Thorium reactors are probably more reasonable – but none have been built beyond a lab test due to the nuke-crazies stopping the program.

    • Man I forgot alot. Thanks for filling in the details. Ill have to go back and refresh myself some more.

  18. I spoke with the wife, Emilius, yesterday. She is a kindergarten teacher. Her school will be taping the speech then showing it if they do not find it objectionable. She has reviewed some of the materials suggested for kindergarten and will look at all of them before the speech. She has found nothing objectionable in any way, though she does feel that it’s unnecessary. (Note, Emilius leans Republican, but I love her anyway).

    I just thought I’d throw that out there for everyone’s consideration.

    • v. Holland says:

      My understanding is that they changed the materials after people started objecting-So she isn’t looking at their original intent.

    • Black Flag says:

      Love crosses ideology. But she is still a Statist, so you have far more in common then you may known.

      🙂

      • Not much in common politically anymore.. I reject large government, remember?

        • Black Flag says:

          Ah, Young Wesley, you haven’t rejected government yet, though….true?

          Westley: Hear this now: I will always come for you.
          Buttercup: But how can you be sure?
          Westley: This is true love – you think this happens every day?

          ….

          Westley: I told you I would always come for you. Why didn’t you wait for me?
          Buttercup: Well… you were dead.
          Westley: Death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while.
          Buttercup: I will never doubt again.
          Westley: There will never be a need.
          ….

          Westley: We are men of action, lies do not become us.

          ….

          Westley: Why can’t I move? Why am I up against this wall?
          Fezzik: You’ve been mostly-dead all day.

    • I haven’t heard that, but I make no claims at all here. I am only relaying what she said she saw. Can you provide more information on what might have been changed?

      • v. Holland says:

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/03/white-house-withdraws-students-help-obama/

        Someone else on here posted the above and there’s another post that showed the original work sheet-So far I haven’t been able to find it, maybe the original poster will put it back up, if not I will look again later today when I get some free time.

        • I keep seeing this “help the President” quote bandied about, but I have not yet seen it in context. It could read “How will you help the President achieve his goal of universal literacy?”, or it could read “How will you help the President erase the scourge of conservatism from this great nation?” One of these, obviously, is no big deal, the other some might object to.

          Do you, or anyone else, have the original text of this question from an authoritative source in its entirety? Fox analysis cannot be trusted any more than WaPo.

          • I know, it actually read “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” But was there sentence before that?

            “The President wants to pass universal health care so you can be healthy, but the Republicans want the poor to suffer and die. Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”

            “The President wants every student to have a bright future in America. Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”

            Context is everything..

            • Oh Matty, Matty, Matty.

              If you go to yesterdays article and scroll down, you will see, copied straight from http://www.ed.gov, the files of what they were sending tp the schools to have the teachers get their students to do.

              No one HAS to make anything up. It’s right there on the web site. Or at least it was yesterday. I haven’t checked today.

              I don’t know if it’s bad or not. My boy, just like I thought, said the Prez wasn’t giving him more classwork to do. IF, I say IF, his school even does it, he will just stay at home that day. No biggy.

            • v. Holland says:

              I’m certainly not going to argue that context isn’t important but I would say INTENT is everything-context can be used to hide the actual intent-intent, IMO, to use his influence to get our children to THINK they are supposed to do what the president tells them to.

            • It’s the darndest thing.. I went to yesterday’s article (you’re talking about USW’s last post, correct?), and searched for the phrase “help the president”. I found 4 matches, not one of which gave the full text or context.

              • Check my posts Matt. I copied both the k-6th and the 7th-12 work straight into USW’s blog posts.

              • Found your post.. searched for the word “letter,” and came up with this:

                • Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.

                Perhaps this is the new text? Can you please copy paste the line I am supposed to be concerned about?

              • Mathias, go here http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009

                excerpts from …
                PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: (csm note: heading followed by bullet points)

                Extension of the Speech: Teachers can extend learning by having students

                Create posters of their goals. Posters could be formatted in quadrants or puzzle pieces or trails marked with the labels: personal, academic, community, country. Each area could be labeled with three steps for achieving goals in those areas. It might make sense to focus on personal and academic so community and country goals come more readily.

                here ***!***
                Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

                Write goals on colored index cards or precut designs to post around the classroom.

                Interview and share about their goals with one another to create a supportive community.

                Participate in School wide incentive programs or contests for students who achieve their goals.

                Write about their goals in a variety of genres, i.e. poems, songs, personal essays.

                Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

                Graph student progress toward goals.

              • v. Holland says:

                I see nothing here that asks-Do you agree with the President-Do you think you should help the President do these things. all I see is Do and How can you help.

              • Which puts forth the idea that you are fine with what he’s doing. If I put it to you as “What are you going to do to help the president with the war on terror.” I’m already assuming your agreement. I’m not asking if you are “for” or “against” but assuming “for” on your behalf.

  19. Here are some funnies my son just sent me.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Those great Jewish comedians!!

    You may remember the old Jewish Catskill comics of Vaudeville days:
    Shecky Greene, Red Buttons, Totie Fields, Joey Bishop, Milton Berle, Jan
    Murray, Danny Kaye, Henny Youngman, Buddy Hackett, Sid Caesar, Groucho Marx,
    Jackie
    Mason, Victor Borge, Woody Allen, Joan Rivers, Lenny Bruce, George Burns,
    Allan Sherman, Jerry Lewis, Peter Sellers, Carl Reiner, Shelley Berman, Gene
    Wilder, George Jessel, Alan King, Mel Brooks, Phil Silvers, JacK Carter,
    Rodney Dangerfield,
    Don Rickles, Jack Benny and so many others.

    Not one single swear word in their comedy, back then.
    ————————————————
    * I just got back from a pleasure trip. I took my mother-in-law to the
    airport.
    ————————————————
    * I’ve been in love with the same woman for 49 years! If my wife ever
    finds out, she’ll kill me!
    ————————————————
    * What are three words a woman never wants to hear when she’s making love?
    “Honey, I’m home!”
    ————————————————
    * Someone stole all my credit cards but I won’t be reporting it. The thief
    spends less than my wife did.
    ————————————————
    * We always hold hands. If I let go, she shops.
    ————————————————
    * My wife and I went back to the hotel where we spent our wedding night;
    only this time I stayed in the bathroom and cried.
    ————————————————
    * My wife and I went to a hotel where we got a waterbed. My wife called it
    the Dead Sea ..
    ————————————————
    * She was at the beauty shop for two hours. That was only for the
    estimate. She got a mudpack and looked great for two days. Then the mud fell
    off.
    ————————————————
    * I was just in London ; there is a 6-hour time difference. I’m still
    confused. When I go to dinner, I feel sexy. When I go to bed, I feel hungry.
    ————————————————
    * The Doctor gave a man six months to live. The man couldn’t pay his bill
    so the doctor gave him another six months.
    ————————————————
    * The Doctor called Mrs. Cohen saying, “Mrs. Cohen, your check came back.
    ” Mrs. Cohen answered, “So did my arthritis!”
    ————————————————
    * Doctor: “You’ll live to be 60!” Patient: “I am 60!” Doctor: “See! What
    did I tell you?”
    ————————————————
    * A doctor held a stethoscope up to a man’s chest. The man asks, “Doc, how
    do I stand? ” The doctor says, “That’s what puzzles me!”
    ————————————————
    * Patient: “I have a ringing in my ears.” Doctor: “Don’t answer!”
    ————————————————
    * A drunk was in front of a judge. The judge says, “You’ve been brought
    here for drinking.” The drunk says “Okay, let’s get started.”
    ————————————————
    * Why do Jewish divorces cost so much? They’re worth it.
    ————————————————
    *Why do Jewish men die before their wives? They want to.
    ————————————————
    1. The Harvard School of Medicine did a study of why Jewish women like
    Chinese food so much. The study revealed that this is due to the fact that Won
    Ton spelled backward is Not Now.
    ————————————————
    2. There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins. In
    Jewish tradition, the fetus is not considered viable until it graduates from
    medical school.
    ————————————————
    3. Q: Why don’t Jewish mothers drink? A: Alcohol interferes with their
    suffering.
    ————————————————
    4. Q: Have you seen the newest Jewish-American-Princess horror movie? A:
    It’s called, ‘Debbie Does Dishes’.
    ————————————————
    5. Q: Why do Jewish mothers make great parole officers?
    A: They never let anyone finish a sentence!
    ————————————————
    6. Q: What’s a Jewish American Princess’s favorite position?
    A: Facing Bloomingdale’s.
    ————————————————
    7. A man called his mother in Florida, “Mom, how are you?”
    ” Not too good,” said the mother. “I’ve been very weak.”
    The son said, “Why are you so weak?” She said, “Because
    I haven’t eaten in 38 days.” The son said, “That’s terrible. Why haven’t
    you eaten in 38 days?” The mother answered, “Because I didn’t want my mouth to
    be filled with food if you should call.”
    ————————————————
    8. A Jewish boy comes home from school and tells his mother he has a part
    in the play. She asks, “What part is it?” The boy says, “I play the part of
    the Jewish husband. “The mother scowls and says, “Go back and tell the teacher
    you want a speaking part.”
    ————————————————
    9. Q: Where does a Jewish husband hide money from his wife? A: Under the
    vacuum cleaner.
    ————————————————
    10. Q: How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb?
    A:(Sigh) “Don’t bother. I’ll sit in the dark. I don’t want to be a nuisance to
    anybody.”
    ————————————————
    11. Short summary of every Jewish holiday: They tried to kill us, we won,
    let’s eat.
    ————————————————
    12. Did you hear about the bum who walked up to a Jewish mother on the
    street and said, “Lady, I haven’t eaten in three days.” “Force yourself,” she
    replied.
    ————————————————
    13. Q: What’s the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jewish mother? A:
    Eventually, the Rottweiler lets go.
    ————————————————
    14. Q: Why are Jewish Men circumcised? A: Because Jewish women don’t like
    anything that isn’t 20% off.

    • Judy, thank you, the Jew in me loves this stuff

      My favorites:

      *Why do Jewish men die before their wives? They want to.

      2. There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins. In
      Jewish tradition, the fetus is not considered viable until it graduates from
      medical school.

      There was actually an interesting conversation once with Jon Stewart (possibly apocryphal, I don’t know).. a German minister of something or other asked him why there isn’t anyone as funny in German, Stewart’s (alleged) response: Because you killed them all.

      Also interesting.. if you google “Jewish humor,” you’ll get jokes like these, if you google “Jew humor,” you’ll get some very racist results.

      • Mathius,

        I hope I didn’t offend you or anybody else here with these jokes. Like I said, they were sent to me by my son, who in turn got them from somebody. The last thing I would ever do, is intentionally hurt anybody’s feeling, or offend them in any way.

        Please, have a wonderful day and weekend my new friend.

        Judy

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This has nothing to do with the discussion of the day, but I was returning from lunch and decided to listen to a bit of Walter E. Williams guest-hosting on Rush’s show.

    We all know that Rush is mostly full of crap, but I admit to listening to him for about 15-20 minutes per week total maybe. I find it highly amusing that he can have a 15-minute diatribe on freedom and liberty one day, and then a 15-minute diatribe on something that is totally right-wing-statist on another day, but I digress.

    The whole reason I brought this up, is that today Walter Williams said (I will try to get this as close to the actual quote as possible), “When God gave Moses the 10 Commandments, it did not say, “Thou shalt not steal, except by a majority vote of Congress”” A bit later he said, “And what about being the recipient of stolen property? God probably wouldn’t be too happy about that either.” He was discussing taxation and welfare of course.

    Sounds to me like he has been reading some of the posts of some of the people on this site 🙂

    • I listened to him today as well.

      He provided a good laymens explanation of inflation and why future generations are not going to actually pay back the debt.

      They will simply suffer from a much more restricted and less prosperous economy.

      • Black Flag says:

        That is the best scenario, JAC – the other scenarios are far worse….

        • Except that as he explained, the contraction in economic output is equal to the deficit.

          Now lets see, – 2.0 Trillion = about 16% reduction in output to balance the books.

          And yes, that is the best scenario.

  21. bottom line says:

    Good job vote-tards. You fell for it again. Without the assurances that scrutiny provides, you voted this smooth talkin’ media driven out of no where false messiah turd into office, and this is what we have…a bunch of unconstitutionally idealic freedom hating radical racist globalist eugenicist whackjob nazi communist socialist “ASSHOLES” that are and will continue wrecking this country. You reap what you sew. So get your socialist sickles ready folks. It’s time to come to terms with the reprecussions of your actions.

    Great article USW. Thanks for putting the spotlight on these nuts. We’re in for one hell of a ride.

    We need to vote in mass against incumbents and parties come 2010 and 2012. It’s time to take our country back.

    RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE – “TAKE THE POWER BACK”

    Bring that shit in! Uggh!

    Yeah, the movement’s in motion with mass militant poetry
    Now check this out…uggh!

    In the right light, study becomes insight
    But the system that dissed us
    Teaches us to read and write

    So called facts are fraud
    They want us to allege and pledge
    And bow down to their God
    Lost the culture, the culture lost
    Spun our minds and through time
    Ignorance has taken over
    Yo, we gotta take the power back!
    Bam! Here’s the plan
    Motherfuck Uncle Sam
    Step back, I know who I am
    Raise up your ear, I’ll drop the style and clear
    It’s the beats and the lyrics they fear
    The rage is relentless
    We need a movement with a quickness
    You are the witness of change
    And to counteract
    We gotta take the power back

    Yeah, we gotta take the power back
    Come on, come on!
    We gotta take the power back

    The present curriculum
    I put my fist in ’em
    Eurocentric every last one of ’em
    See right through the red, white and blue disguise
    With lecture I puncture the structure of lies
    Installed in our minds and attempting
    To hold us back
    We’ve got to take it back
    Holes in our spirit causin’ tears and fears
    One-sided stories for years and years and years
    I’m inferior? Whose inferior?
    Yeah, we need to check the interior
    Of the system that cares about only one culture
    And that is why
    We gotta take the power back

    Yeah, we gotta take the power back
    Come on, come on!
    We gotta take the power back

    Hey yo check, we’re gonna have to break it, break it,
    break it down
    Awww shit!

    Uggh!

    And like this…uggh!

    Come on, yeah! Bring it back the other way!

    The teacher stands in front of the class
    But the lesson plan he can’t recall
    The student’s eyes don’t perceive the lies
    Bouncing off every fucking wall
    His composure is well kept
    I guess he fears playing the fool
    The complacent students sit and listen to some of that
    Bullshit that he learned in school

    Europe ain’t my rope to swing on
    Can’t learn a thing from it
    Yet we hang from it
    Gotta get it, gotta get it together then
    Like the motherfuckin’ weathermen
    To expose and close the doors on those who try
    To strangle and mangle the truth
    ‘Cause the circle of hatred continues unless we react
    We gotta take the power back

    Yeah, we gotta take the power back
    Come on, come on!
    We gotta take the power back

    No more lies
    No more lies
    No more lies
    No more lies
    No more lies
    No more lies
    No more lies
    No more lies

    Uggh!

    Yeah!

    Take it back y’all
    Take it back, a-take it back
    A-take it back y’all, come on!
    Take it back y’all
    Take it back, a-take it back
    A-take it back y’all, come on!

    Uggh!

    Yeah!

    • Black Flag says:

      We need to vote in mass against incumbents and parties come 2010 and 2012. It’s time to take our country back

      You will merely vote in the same thing – politicians who believe they are smarter than the People – and you will suffer the same aghast at their policies.

      • bottom line says:

        I agree with you in terms of what’s expected of human nature. Representative government is about being an instrument of the will of the people. If we can hire enough reps. that exude this school of thought…we may be able to prolong our inevitable demise long enough to enjoy life a little more. Hey, you’re plenty capable. Why don’t you run for office somewhere? I’d vote for ya.

    • Greatergoodcs says:

      I’ll ask this without sarcasm, but when you say “It’s time to take our country back” are you speaking for the native Americans who were here before your ancestors (unless you’re native American)?

      Honestly, just curious.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        We have covered that subject before, but since you are fairly new to the site, we can forgive you for having missed it 🙂

        • Greatergoodcs says:

          Don’t leave me hangin’, bro …

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            It was not my intent to leave you hanging, but I also don’t intend to regurgitate a whole bunch of posts from weeks/months ago where we debated this.

            Perhaps USW can direct you to some of the discussions about this which have been archived. I will attempt to look some of them up as well and refer you to the archived discussions, but I may not have time to find all of the pertinent conversations on the subject… stay tuned 🙂

        • bottom line says:

          consider this a late entry.

      • bottom line says:

        Call me a mutt. I’m a mix of mostly northern euro anglo and cherokee. And race is relevant how?

      • Actually if you do the leg work there are within those remaining of the First Nation’s population a mere handful carrying the genetic tags of being ancestors to those tribes who were the earliest proven dwellers whom themselves were wiped out by others claiming themselves to be the first on that land too. Those left tread lightly when argument to it being their land rests on having displaced or destroyed one before them and being merely the last non Anglo to lay claim. Archeology in Canada has been a primary concern, well funded and indeed well executed.

    • Line,

      I just got back from a town hall meeting with Blanch Lincoln & Marion Berry.
      Points to Ray, the right wing was more dis-orderly and rude. While not very PC myself, I like that USW promotes polite discussion. I have bent his rules on occasion, but in my defense, its usually funny. Hard for them to get mad at you when they are laughing.

      There’s another side to everything
      Connected like the ring around your finger
      And I know this like I know myself,
      Not very well, yet I’m no stranger
      But it won’t be long, I see both sides now
      When nothing’s gained, then something’s lost
      Pay half the price at twice the cost
      We’re crystallized, we stand alone
      Conviction holds us like a stone
      I know it won’t be long, ’cause I see both sides now
      We got to learn how to listen, before we learn to talk
      We got to learn how to crawl, befor we learn to walk
      If you want a little peace, sometimes you got to fight
      We got to walk through the darkness
      Before we stand in the light
      But I know it won’t be long, I see both sides now
      We’re always somewhere in between
      We never taste, the sweet extreme
      We’re crystallized, we stand alone
      Conviction holds us like a stone
      I know it won’t be long, I see both sides now
      We got to learn how to listen, before we learn to talk
      You got to learn to crawl, before you learn to walk
      If you want a little peace, sometimes you got to fight
      You’ve got to walk through the darkness
      Before you stand in the light
      I know it won’t be long
      I see both sides now
      Both sides now

      Sammy Hagar

      • bottom line says:

        ?

        • false messiah turd, ASSHOLES, that shit, Motherf#*k Uncle,
          Awww shit!, f*#king wall, motherf*#kin’

          USW does not like the Fbomb used, nor name calling, just FYI
          and you have shown yourself to be more intelligent that this type language demonstrates.

          Its OK to call Matt a WALNUT, since he uses the term himself.

          • bottom line says:

            I was toning it down by calling him a “false messiah turd”. “ASSHOLES” was a reference to what Van jones said. I guess you didn’t catch that one. And as for the lyrics…I don’t feel that it’s right to alter them. Maybe next time I’ll just not post lyrics at all. Out of simple respect and consideration I’ll try to refrain from using too many curse words. I’m feeling a little cocky today, forgive me Cass. I tend to be a bit blunt sometimes. And If USW is offended with a little cursing, then I am sure he would say so.
            ” What kind of bullshit is that?” – US WEAPON – paragraph 13 of “Obama And His Radical Czars”

            Further, I would like to make the arguement that profanity isn’t, as some may believe, indicative of Intelligence Quotient. I kinda like it because it can be used as mid sentance exclamation.

            • Nothing for me to forgive. USW works a day job, most of his replies are later PM
              and early AM. I was simple passing on what he has posted in the past, on his wishes for polite conversation. It has been a heavy weight on me on a couple occasions as well. My personal favorite
              to someone telling me what I must do is to “piss up a rope”. And that’s the first time I’ve said it here. I have thought it many, many times.

            • Bottom Line,

              I have no problem with cursing. I often feel it is unfortunately a thing that hides the true intellect of the person doing it. Which I am guilty of myself. But I am OK with cursing….. to an extent. Words to a song are words to a song…. no worries there. But I usually try to refrain from the really harsh stuff here.

              What I absolutely don’t tolerate is someone attacking someone else on the blog in a hateful way, whether that entails language or not. I really like to have respectful conversation between everyone. That being said I once described it this way. You can call Dick Cheney an asshole at any point. Unless he comes and posts on this site, in which case I expect him to be shown the same respect that everyone else here receives.

              Overall no worries. I don’t get upset that easy. Just try to keep the peace.

  22. Black Flag says:

    NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90
    An American jetfighter blasted two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan on Friday, killing up to 90 people, including insurgents and dozens of civilians who had rushed to the scene to collect fuel, Afghan officials said

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

    “We’re goin’ win this war (yes it is a war, Ray) even if we have to kill them all!”

    • Don’t you just love the smell of napalm in the morning?

    • Zamarai Bashary is the Interior Ministry spokesman in Kabul.

      “In order to verify the casualties of civilians we have launched an investigation into this case to make sure how many civilians are killed and to make sure that what these civilians were doing at 2:30 in the morning [when the attack occurred] in that place that is not a residential place. So these are questions that we have to investigate and find answers for this,” he said.

  23. Black Flag says:

    Hong Kong recalls gold reserves, touts high-security vault
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hong-kong-recalls-gold-reserves-from-london-2009-09-03

    In a challenge to London, Asian states invited to store bullion closer to home

    Hong Kong is pulling all its physical gold holdings from depositories in London, transferring them to a high-security depository newly built at the city’s airport, in a move that won praise from local traders Thursday.

    —-
    **BOOM**

    Always before, countries have held their gold in London, Switzerland, or the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

    This way, countries can settle accounts in gold rapidly.

    The gold is moved physically from vault space to vault space.

    I do not recall any large nation repatriating gold.

    The fact that Hong Kong is doing this is significant.

    Hong Kong is an arm of the Chinese mainland.

    This indicates that China’s government is determined not to have its gold threatened in any way by a Western government.

    This is an act of monetary sovereignty.

    It sends a message to the West: “We are no longer dependent on you. You are dependent on us.”

    Symbolically, this is big.

    Huge.

    Gigantic.

    If the Chinese are doing this, do you believe you should be doing this?

    **BOOM**

    • bottom line says:

      Q: “If the Chinese are doing this, do you believe you should be doing this?”

      A: No, we should all be trading our dollars and bullion for land, Guns, ammo, can goods, water and filtration systems, fuel, horses, livestock, dogs, seeds, hand powered wood working and farn tools, fishing gear, ect,etc… At some point, currency as we know it will be useless. Gold sure is pretty, but it doesn’t taste real good and is hell on a digestive system. I’ll give you some of my gold for a compound bow, some socks, deodorant, soap, and 15 cans of spam.

      • Black Flag says:

        Bottom Line

        If the USA falls to a point where the currency is worthless, and we need to depend on horses – it will mean hyper-inflation has hit and destroyed western civilization.

        It will be equivalent to living through a nuclear war without the missiles.

        Millions of people will die.

        You will probably die.

        • gee, bf, and I thought I was in a bad mood today, you’ve got your grumpy on too.

        • bottom line says:

          In a such a scenario we’d probably ALL die. And come to think of it, SPAM can be hell on the digestive system too. hehe

    • I’ve been saying “watch the Chinese” for how long now? I certainly do.

  24. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi all,

    Regarding Harold Koh:

    I am simply asking a question here, so don’t leap on me! (Plus, I want to add that I am not a subject matter expert when it comes to United Nations and/or world-wide policies in general).

    If Harold Koh does advocate that “all members of the international community should recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides that of any particular government”, then does it not stand to reason that he would advocate and support the United Nations as an authority that can override the US Government?

    Taking this further, then would that mean based upon United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1441, that Mr. Koh supports the war in Iraq?

    Thanks,
    RS

    • Spitfire,

      You are a sneaky vixen! LOL
      “would that mean based upon United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1441, that Mr. Koh supports the war in Iraq?”

      I am sure Iran & Syria, being their neighbor, it should be a local matter,
      so the US could be sued by the Iranian people. There would be some way he would turn it around where America is an evil empire.

  25. Black Flag says:

    Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53534

    ….has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

    Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I guess this begs the question, “Is a dead body property, and if so, who owns it?”

      • Black Flag says:

        It is property – it is real, diminishable and scarce.

        Owner – the survivors of his family.

        • Exactly! When harvesting storage improves, harvesting for the benefit of family members in need will be the direction if America still has private enterprise that is. Better than mere leaving merely money alone would be enough to cover the storage and surgery to benefit your family members. The gift of your health to your loved ones.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          BF,

          I agree with that answer 🙂

    • Oh my. But I suppose if these harvested organs are used for the greater good, it’s OK?

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi,

      But…what about religions (i.e. Muslim) that require ALL body parts be included in the burial…

      Of course, these folks can opt out…but what if one just got off the plane and didn’t understand that…didn’t have the time to check the no box on a form that they had no access to.

      ????

      RS

    • BAH! You’re dead? Your organs aren’t doing you any good. Even if you wanted them to be buried, once dead, you have no rights. You aren’t a person, you are a thing. An object. Inside of this object are valuable objects. Someone has every right to take them and use them.

      But here’s the rub, if I die, all of my possessions go to Emilius, my wife. By body is my possession, thus it would become hers to do with as she will. I am ok with the state harvesting organs from any body which is not someone else’s property, or with the permission of the current owner. So if there is no next of kin, just as the government can come into possession of your home when you die, so too, can they claim your body and its organs.

      And the other rub, because your organs have to be harvested quickly, how then, are they to establish if anyone owns them? I guess they could be put on ice and returned if no one claims them in the next 48 hours or some such, but the utility of organs vastly decreases the longer the body has been dead (rejection rates rise, need to be replaced sooner).

      I’m not proposing an answer to that question. I checked my little box, when I’m dead, maybe you’ll get my kidneys (I wouldn’t suggest using my liver – I doubt it’ll be of much use by the time I’m done with it)

      • For the religious among us, I would suggest that the “soul” hath vacated the body by this point. As such, the body has lost it’s “sanctity” and is nothing more than a piece of meat.

        • v. Holland says:

          I would agree that the soul has departed but the question is does the government have the right to make these decisions- seems one should op in not have to opt out. Although opting out does seem wrong somehow, but peoples beliefs are very important-will have to think about this one. To harvest organs doesn’t the body have to be technically still alive?

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            Agreed V Holland!

            It should be an “opt in”, not an “opt out”. My opinion on this is based upon the many flavors of religion.

            Best Regards,
            RS

            • v. Holland says:

              People are always talking about separation of church and state-this could be looked at as denying one freedom of religion.

        • Rule #1: You can’t take it with you.

          So once dead, it’s someone else, not yours. Whether that’s the gov or your wife doesn’t matter, just remember, it’s not yours. However, I suppose you could “give” it to your minister and he would follow your wishes.. not much I can see wrong with that.

      • They say possession is 9/10’s of the law, so if they can remove your organs before you stop them, its legal?

        • But, before they get to your organs, don’t they have to run test on them to make sure they are in good enough condition before they can be used for transplanting? I can’t imagine, they just go and take all the parts out before checking them, say for any diseases or the like.

          And I think people should specify if they want to donate their organs or not, in writing.

        • We’ve got two physicists in here.. any doctors want to help out?

          What I am saying is that your wishes are irrelevant. I happen to believe that when you’re dead, you cease to exist as an entity. If you believe you have an immortal soul, well, that’s flown the coup and is now elsewhere, but it doesn’t get to own property. Whoever now owns the sack of meat that was “you” gets to make the decisions on what to do with it.

          • Don’t mess with my Chi!!

            seven Chakras

            http://www.primasounds.com/ch11.html

          • Black Flag says:

            What I am saying is that your wishes are irrelevant.

            Actually, they are very relevant.

            The question is whether anyone takes the into consideration. You are no longer there to argue your point.

          • They just can’t come in and take your organs without your family’s permission, providing you still have family.

            My son is in his 3rd year of pre-med, and last semester, his class worked on 4 cadavers, who at the time before death, donated their bodies to the medical lab at his university.

            I always thought that hospitals asked surviving members of the family if they would like to donate their loved ones organs, not just grab and run. Am i wrong here?

            • Black Flag says:

              No, Judy.

              It is merely the czar of Obama who is suggesting to reverse that…. that government does not need your permission; you need to specifically say “No”.

              It a dangerous reversal of onus

              • Good Lord, now they want control of your dead body too. Not enough, they want control while you’re alive, but they want it afterwards too.

              • bottom line says:

                almost surreal isn’t it Judy?

              • You got that right.

              • They get to take DNA samples from newborns, without parental permission, GWB signed that into law. It is put into a govt depository for “study”.

                So now they want the same sort of access to organs after death….no permission needed.

                Perhaps this makes Black Flag’s “all govt is evil, no matter WHO is in the White House” point.

                I reckon the Health Care Bill is intended to take control of that time between birth and death…

          • I disagree. If you are free to assign ownership of your possessions in advance of your death, you may assign your body to whomever you believe will carry out your wishes. If you give you house to your heir, he/she gets to do with it as they will – if you specify that they must live in it, they are morally bound to do so. If you have no heir, the society gets it (government or whatnot) – they don’t just leave it there eternally.

            Your body is no different. If you have an heir, you specify your wishes and give them your body – they are morally bound to follow your wishes. If they disregard your wishes, the moral violation is on them, but it is their “property” to do with as they will. If you do not have an heir, society gets it – which means harvest time.

            • Black Flag says:

              Sounds right to me.

            • Now for the tricky part. On the assumption that I have failed write out a will and am unable to do so prior to my death, the law specifies an order of priority (spouse, then parents, then adult children, then adult siblings, etc). Morally, without express knowledge of your wishes, who is entitled to your possessions inclusive of your body and the organs within?

              • Black Flag says:

                The Law (natural Law) of Man has figured that out pretty well – ’cause it is pretty much standard across most cultures and across history.

                Spouse, children, parents, siblings, sibling children nephew/neice/

              • Assuming you are correct in your assertion (though I have little confidence that it would be universally agreed upon – for example, an estranged parent should have priority over a close sibling?), what if none can be found? If, after a concerted effort, no spouses, children, parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, grandparents, grandchildren, or second cousins can be found? Does it then fall to close friend? Who decides what that means? If the person is friendless?

                All that is rhetorical, the question is this: at what point does the right to my possessions, again, including his body, fall to the public domain?

              • Black Flag says:

                When all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.

              • So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the cave.

                Once

                all reasonable avenues

                to find an heir have failed, your body enters the public domain. Once your body enters the public domain,

                the dirt and the worms don’t want it, so it is yours…

                “Yours”, in this case, being the society. Regardless of your wishes, they may harvest away – perfectly morally.

                To prevent this, you must assign your possession (your body) to someone (this defaults to an heir, but if none exists, Uncle Sam gets it).

              • Thus the onus is justly on you.

                .

                .

                I shall now retire for the weekend to my corner of the cave. To all, good night, and good luck.

              • Black Flag says:

                AND that wasn’t the issue, Matt

                It is the presumption of donation –regardless of family wishes

              • Black Flag says:

                “Regardless of your wishes”

                Noooooo……

                If you have made your wishes know, it must be morally followed.

              • Black Flag says:

                Most dangerous words from government to the citizens….

                “presumed consent”

                They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

              • No, Mr. Flag,

                ….has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

                Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done

                The claim is only that they may harvest without your consent, not your family’s consent. We have established that you have no say, only the owner of your body. Thus, absent an heir to say otherwise, they may harvest.

                Lay down your sword and musket, sir, you are defeated. I have set my own traps within this cave and you are well and truly ensnared.

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Dearest LOI…

          Ususally, it is the thief that is saying “Posession is 9/10ths of the law” in order to justify his or her thievery…

          Best Regards,
          RS (aka Sneaky Vixen) 😉

      • I gotta tell you, Matt. I was on the fence on this topic before reading your arguments. It feels wrong for the government to just snatch your organs after you have died without your express permission, but (all reasonable avenues of property transference being exhausted) unless you’ve explicitly stated otherwise (i.e. religious observations, etc.), it is of no use to you anymore. Personally, I’m up for grabs once the big day comes.

        So, chalk one up for a convincing argument!

    • Black Flag says:

      The argument is not whether organs are useful or not –

      ….the danger is the reversal of onus…. as soon as the government assumes you only have the rights you claim, you give up all your rights by default

      • Do dead people get to own property? If a man buries gold in the woods and dies without recovering it, then I find the gold, am I wrong to take it since it is his? If his lack of planning has not seen to it that there is a specific beneficiary who can claim just rights to it, why then should I defer to his wishes that it be used a certain way – especially if they aren’t specified?

        • Black Flag says:

          That is a question, certainly worthy of a conversation – but that is not the point –

          The reversal of onus is the point. It is dangerous.

        • Black Flag says:

          No, the dead transfer their property to the living.

          Re: gold in the woods – ‘wrong’ as in morally wrong or ‘wrong’ as in “if you get caught you go to jail wrong?”

          • Either or? Assuming it’s public lands, the government would probably claim it and send you to jail for “stealing” it.

            But, so that we can get to the issue in a vacuum, let’s assume it’s in Antarctica and nobody owns the land. So, you’re not going to go to jail. The man died with no heirs. He has been dead for 100 years. There’s a pile of gold. Moral or amoral to take it?

            • Black Flag says:

              Are you asking me or society?

              • Either or. You argue moral absolutes. So I am asking a very simple, absolute question. Is it moral to take gold which belonged to a dead person but which has no living claimant.

              • Black Flag says:

                Moral absolutes? Sure do exist!

                If you are asking me, I would say “No” (but question whether you are sure their are no claimants?)

              • You are a slippery one..

                I forgot to mention that the dead man left a note lamenting his lack of an heir. This note, and the pen it was written with are in his hands. It is signed and the name matches the ID he happens to have on him (yes, I know it’s 100 years old, go with it).

                Your contention is that it’s immoral to take the gold?

              • Black Flag says:

                No, the dirt and the worms don’t want it, so it is yours…
                except are you sure you are on your property, or on someone else’s land?

              • We already specified that the land we are on is Antarctica. No one owns it. No government claims it. Or, if you like, we are on the surface of the moon.

                OK, so now, the truth emerges. If there is no claimant, the body falls to the public domain. In this case, that would mean the hospital which currently has your body.

                So, absent a decision maker who owns your body, your body falls to the public domain. As such, you have no say in this matter as you have no say in what happens to the gold – because you do not own anything, you are dead. As such the hospital may Harvest, Baby, Harvest.

              • Black Flag says:

                Yeah, probably that would be ok….except…are you sure no one has claimed the moon?

              • If you own the moon, do you then own my body in this case? Possession is 9/10ths of the law?

              • Black Flag says:

                🙂

                No, Matt – your case is quiet convincing.

                I’m sure the jury of society would agree with you.

              • v. Holland says:

                Has anyone seen the movie “Coma”
                I’m starting to visualize all these bodies being stored while the government finds out weather or not they have next of kin.

  26. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Let’s try to keep this simple. It seems to me that a perfectly good definition of “radical” is “having political and social views or advocating political and social policies which are viewed as “Outside of the mainstream””. It seems like a lot of Obama’s Czars would fit that definition.

    And yes GGcs, I fit that definition of “radical” as well I suppose 🙂

    • I would say quite a few people in this room meet that definition. (I’m looking at you, BF).

    • GreaterGoodscs says:

      Pete, I agree.

      That makes me uber radical.

      Oy-vey.

      Anybody see the Redbank, NJ town hall meeting? Redbank is a pretty well-to-do community (Springsteen lived there for a while),so I think the journalist was looking for conservatives when he showed up there. He did make one mention of Obama supporters who turned their back at the mention of tort reform. I’m not sure what the point of those meetings are anymore. I’m starting to think the Dems are using them to purposely back off the public option.

  27. What If Obama Just Wanted to Inspire Kids?

    To hear the roar of feigned outrage about the president’s back-to-school speech, you’d think he’d just come out in favor of puppy sandwiches!

    How polarized is the political debate this beautiful holiday weekend?

    So polarized that some Barack Obama critics are even bashing his back-to-school address.
    On Tuesday, the president is planning a special message for the children of America, emphasizing the “importance of education” and “persisting and succeeding in school.”

    Yikes!

    To hear the roar of feigned outrage, you’d think the president just came out in favor of puppy sandwiches! As far the Obama’s-not-my-president crowd is concerned, this work-hard-and-do-well message is more pernicious indoctrination of the young.

    Florida Republican chairman Jim Greer, for one, is “absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology” and his “liberal propaganda.”

    Well, mark this moment.

    To some people, nothing Obama says or does can ever again have a benign intent. He could deliver permanent world peace — and someone would be yelping they hadn’t seen a single white dove!

    One profession of outrage just blends into the next. Indeed, the president’s harshest critics are still complaining about that “I Pledge” video.

    That’s where Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, the guy from the Red Hot Chili Peppers and other young celebs vow to stay in stay in school, study hard, donate to local food banks, cause less pollution and — the real zinger — support the president.

    Support the president? Shocking!

    So what exactly is going on here?

    Why does Obama’s mere presence in office causes some of his opponents such distress? In their eyes, can he ever do anything right? Or is the recent uproar just a matter of political timing, seeking to exploit a moment of perceived weakness during the bitter health care debate?

    Those aren’t bad guesses. But this much is abundantly clear: We can’t have a bunch of celebrities, making crazy promises like this:

    “To love more.”

    “To help children battling serious illnesses.”

    “To be a great mother.”

    “To be a great father.”

    “To consider myself an American, not an African-American.”

    “To never give anyone the finger when I am driving again.”

    “To help find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease.”

    “To make sure senior citizens have access to health care.”

    What are they, these crazy young people? Inspired by their president?

    • BTW, I got this off of Fox, just so you know. I didn’t write it.

    • v. Holland says:

      isn’t it eye opening to see that in his disgust at some peoples dislike of this video, that he choose to change the words a :SERVANT to Our President”-to “support the President”-sorta shows that word usage is important and the person who wrote this knows that the use of the REAL words would weaken his protest. Of course he failed to mention that the intent was stressed at the end of the video- to be a servant to our president-the pledges were just fluff to try a make the real message debatable and more palatable.

    • GASP! Fox being supportive of Obama?! Ragnorak must surely be upon us!

    • bottom line says:

      I’m not sure what they are. There’s nothing wrong with living life trying to leave the world better than you found it. There’s nothing wrong with doing your part to be part of the soulution rather than the problem. But I draw the line when they say “I pledge to be a servant to the president.” and “of service to B.O.” This is a contrdiction to the principles of representative government. It’s idol worship of a mortal man. They can worship him if they like. It’s their life, and they have the liberty to pursue their idea of happiness…but I don’t “serve” or worship our president, or anyone else for that matter.

      • bottom line says:

        …with the exception of our country of course. I did serve our country once.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Bottom Line and all,

        In addition to what you stated, another thing that bothers me about that video — instead of invalid role models (actors/trashy musicians), why didn’t they use “real” role models?

        Too much emphasis in our country is placed on pseudo-role models who are the worst people to be parading in front of our children for emulation purposes.

        They could have used doctors, nurses, soldiers, firemen/women, police officers, astronauts, Joe the Plumber (just had to), Bill Gates — I think you get my picture…REAL people who really do something to look up to.

        Best Regards,
        RS

    • “To consider myself an American, not an African-American”

      Who pledged this. Demi Moore, Astin Kutcher, or the guy from the Red Hot Chili Peppers???

      Alright. I hereby pledge the same thing. 😀

      • I have always considered myself an American, not white, not male.
        If Obama can awaken the minds of children that are now closed, its a great thing. My children and their friends are already on that path.
        Those children who have indifferent parents, maybe this will help.

        I pledge to try to keep an open mind.

      • It was Michael Strahan (sp?), DE/DT New York Giants.

      • GreaterGoodscs says:

        Hey, Esom … peace … Have a great weekend.

        I apologize.

  28. * Article
    * comments (2)

    Join the discussion
    /static/all/img
    5e24091515483210VgnVCM100000a0c1a8c0RCRD
    /opinion/2009/09/04/john-lott-obama-education-speech

    John Lott

    – FOXNews.com

    – September 04, 2009
    White House Puts Parents In an Awkward Position

    Moms and dads who don’t think that it is appropriate for the president to address students shouldn’t be put in the situation where they will be forced to remove their students from school during the first day of school.

    * print
    * Email
    * share
    * Check recommend (0)

    Decrease Font A A A Increase Font

    Six, seven, and eight-year-old kids shouldn’t be put in a position where they have to say that a particular president is inspiring and such a wonderful person. Next Tuesday, the opening day for many schools across the country, President Obama will give a speech to elementary and secondary students across the country. There is a reason why no president has commanded the time of America’s school children in the past to make them listen to the president as part of their school day.

    Could you imagine the outrage if the president requested time to address adults during their work day even if it were simply to encourage them to work hard and be productive for the good of the nation? But why would they be upset? The very act of listening to a politician is a political act. It is no more appropriate than requiring that Americans to listen to a political ad. Some adults simply don’t want to waste their time listening to a politician or they might simply dislike that person. Others might not be political and not care enough to watch such an address the politician. But this is less objectionable for adults than kids – kids are much more impressionable.

    Among the questions the Department of Education is asking teachers to discuss with students from pre-kindergarten to sixth grade is: “Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials… Why is what they say important?” “Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?” “What is the president asking me to do?” Older students from 7th to 12th grade are asked to discuss such questions as: “How will he inspire us?” “Is President Obama inspiring you to do anything?”

    On Thursday, the Department of Education acknowledged that its lesson guide had gone too far in asking teachers to instruct students on what they can do to “help” the president obtain certain goals. But that is not the only reason the president’s speech is objectionable.

    Public schools have no business telling young children that they should listen to politicians, let alone which politicians. Having teachers ask students “how will he inspire us” looks like the Department of Education wants teachers to put the president’s speech in a positive light.

    Teachers are also given guidance to have students read books about President Obama. The instructions for 7th to 12th grade teachers includes: “Teachers may post in large print around the classroom notable quotes excerpted from President Obama’s speeches on education.” But President Obama’s Department of Education has no business spending a dime of taxpayer money suggesting that students read something by or about Mr. Obama.

    The president just says that he wants to talk to the students about individual responsibility. True, it is something that the president has mentioned many times in other speeches. But it hardly seems like he really believes this. In many speeches this claims sure looks more like a smokescreen for promoting his government programs, programs where bureaucrats make decisions for you.

    If one doubts that education can be used for indoctrination, just go watch the debate that school boards face when they decide what textbooks to adopt. Around the world, there is a lot of evidence that governments frequently use almost every opportunity that they have to instill the desired views in children.

    Parents who don’t think that it is appropriate for the president to address students shouldn’t be put in the situation where they will be forced to remove their students from school during the first day of school.

    John Lott is an economist and the author of “Freedomnomics.” His past pieces for FOX News can be found here and here

  29. Why there is a need for gun control. He did not hit his intended target. LOL

    Pennsylvania Man Accidentally Fires Cannonball Into Neighbor’s House

    Friday, September 04, 2009

    UNIONTOWN, Pa. — A Pennsylvania history buff who recreates firearms from old wars accidentally fired a 2-pound cannonball through the wall of his neighbor’s home.

    Fifty-four-year-old William Maser fired a cannonball Wednesday evening outside his home in Georges Township that ricocheted and hit a house 400 yards away.

    The cannonball, about two inches in diameter, smashed through a window and a wall before landing in a closet. Authorities say nobody was hurt.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546540,00.html?test=latestnews

  30. Black Flag says:

    There is no time like September 8, 2009, to begin homeschooling your children.

    Make September 8 a Family Day!

    http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5307

    Linda Schrock Taylor is a reading specialist and former public school teacher. She teaches English composition at a state university.

  31. Black Flag says:

    Chris

    SEC on Madoff: “Oops, Our Bad”
    By The Associated Press
    By Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The watchdog of the Securities and Exchange Commission has found the agency consistently mishandled its five investigations of Bernard Madoff’s business, despite ample complaints over 16 years about the multibillion-dollar fraud.

    …..

    Those stupid enough to trust the careless and care less thugs of government got their just consequences – they lost their money.

    • WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      We already have government regulation? Ooops.

      WE NEED SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME!!!!!!!!!

      Or to do like business and fire people for incompetence. Sorry, I’m sure that’s what Chris was going to say.

  32. USW,

    At the town hall this morning, one of the questions was about Van Jones and all the Czars. Lincoln’s response was mostly evasive, that Jones had used some poor words and apologized, and that czars had been in use since way before Regan. And that, for example, Rep. Berry had been Clinton’s Agri Czar.

    She and Berry were pretty clear, that they did not represent Obama, Pelosi or Reed, and that they have opposed them on health care and cap and trade.

  33. Black Flag says:
  34. Black Flag says:

    A statement Friday from Karl Scronce, National Association of Wheat Growers president and a wheat producer from Klamath Falls, Ore.:

    “The NAWG Board of Directors met this morning via conference call and voted 26 to 2 to approve a new resolution regarding greenhouse gas regulation. The Board also voted 24 to zero to remove existing resolutions relating to greenhouse gas regulation and an agriculture cap-and-trade program.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Black Flag,

      Maybe I’m just tired or maybe I just don’t get it…Can you explain the meaning behind this?

      Many Thanks,
      RS

  35. Black Flag says:

    Are Sunspots Disappearing?
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm

    If sunspots do go away, it wouldn’t be the first time. In the 17th century, the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists. The sunspot drought began in 1645 and lasted until 1715; during that time, some of the best astronomers in history (e.g., Cassini) monitored the sun and failed to count more than a few dozen sunspots per year, compared to the usual thousands.

    [And is associated with the Mini-Ice Age – which instigated global wide famine]

  36. Black Flag says:

    A picture for our socialist friends.

    1992 – to 2002 net migration away from socialism in the East towards less-socialist Capitalist west

    “Economics from Space Series”

  37. Black Flag says:

    Japan has elected a leftist greenie who is committing economic harikari with the Japanese economy – planning to cut the economy by -2% per year for the next 20 years.

    The Japanese call their new PM “ET” because he looks like the movie character, not because his wife went to Venus….. 😆 ….yes, she claims she did.

    Goodbye, Japan – it was nice knowin’ ya!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5812DV20090902

  38. > NOT RAISING HOGS
    >
    > TO: Honorable Secretary of Agriculture Washington, D.C.
    > Dear Sir,
    > I have been evacuated from New Orleans because the flood took my old
    > trailer and
    > beat up my car. I thought I might go into business to supplement my
    > welfare
    > check. My friend over at Wells, Iowa received a check for $1,000 from the
    > Government for not raising hogs.
    >
    > Right now I’m getting extra help from the government and Red Cross while
    > I’m
    > displaced but when that stops I want to go into the “not-raising-hogs”
    > business. What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind
    > of
    > farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to
    > raise? I
    > want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all
    > governmental
    > policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a
    > good
    > breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or
    > Durocs.
    > As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be keeping an accurate
    > inventory of how many hogs I haven’t raised.
    >
    > My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the business. He
    > has
    > been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on
    > them was
    > $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not
    > raising
    > hogs.
    >
    > If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising
    > 100
    > hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to
    > about
    > 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I
    > can
    > afford an airplane.
    >
    > Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000
    > bushels of
    > corn. I understand that you also pay some farmers for not raising corn and
    > wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to
    > feed
    > the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?
    >
    > Also, I am considering the “not milking cows” business, so send me any
    > information you have on that too. In view of these circumstances, you
    > understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for
    > unemployment
    > and food stamps.
    >
    > Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.
    >
    > Patriotically Yours,
    > Mr. Smith
    >
    > P.S. Would you please notify me when you plan to distribute more free
    > cheese?

    • On a farm out in the country lived a man, a woman, and their three

      sons.

      Early one morning, the woman awoke, and while looking out of the

      window onto the pasture, she saw that the family’s only cow was lying

      dead in the field. The situation looked hopeless to her. How could

      she possibly continue to feed her family now?

      In a depressed state of mind, she hanged herself.

      When the husband awoke to find his wife dead, as well as the cow,

      he, too, began to see the hopelessness of the situation, and he shot

      himself in the head.

      Next, the oldest son woke up to discover his parents dead (and the

      cow!), and he decided to go down to the river and drown himself.

      When he got to the river, he discovered a mermaid sitting on the bank.

      She said, “I have seen all, and know the reason for your despair.

      But if you will have sex with me five times in a row, I will restore

      your parents and the cow to you.”

      The eldest son agreed, but after four times, he was simply unable to

      satisfy her again.

      So the mermaid drowned him in the river.

      Next, the second oldest son woke up.

      After discovering what had happened, he, too, decided to throw

      himself into the river.

      The mermaid said to him, “If you will have sex with me ten times in

      a row, I will make everything right.”

      And while the son tried his best (seven times!), it was not enough

      to satisfy the mermaid, so she drowned him in the river also.

      The youngest son, who was 17, woke up and saw his parents dead, the

      dead cow in the field, and his brothers gone.

      He decided that life was a hopeless prospect, and he went down to

      the river to throw himself in.

      And there he also met the mermaid. “I have seen all that has

      happened, and I can make everything right if you will only have sex

      with me fifteen times in a row.

      The teenager replied, “Is that all? Why not twenty times in a row?”

      The mermaid was somewhat taken aback by this request.

      Then he said, “Heck, why not twenty-five times in a row?”

      And even as she was reluctantly agreeing to his request, he said,

      “Why not thirty times in a row?” Finally, she said, “Enough! If you

      can actually have sex with me thirty times in a row, then I will

      bring everybody back to perfect health.”

      The boy eyed her suspiciously and asked, “Wait! How do I know that

      thirty times in a row won’t kill you like it did the cow?”

      • Dear Diary,

        Last year I replaced all the windows in my house with those expensive double pane energy efficient kind. But this week I got a call from the contractor who installed them. He was complaining that the work had been completed a whole year ago and I hadn’t paid for them.

        Hellloooo?

        Now just because I’m blonde doesn’t mean that I am automatically stupid.
        So, I told him just what his fast talking sales guy had told me last year… namely, that in just ONE YEAR these windows would pay for themselves!

        Hellloooo? It’s been a year! (I told him)

        There was only silence at the other end of the line, so I finally just hung up. He didn’t call back. Guess I won that stupid argument.

        Hope this leaves everyone smiling, a good weekend to all.

      • Disgusting, yet funny.

      • bottom line says:

        HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

    • Alert in Michigan says:

      Thanks for the laugh; this one is great!

  39. Rep. Charlie Rangel Plays Race Card, Says Obamacare the Victim

    Friday, September 4, 2009 11:48 AM

    By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size

    Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., went on the record this week saying that in his opinion “bias” and “prejudice” are fueling opposition to health care reform, according to a report by CBS News.

    The volatile remarks came as the beleaguered lawmaker spoke at a health-care forum in Washington Heights, a community in his district.

    Rangel charged that when critics complain that Obama is “trying to interfere” with their lives by advocating health-care reform, “then you know there’s just a misunderstanding, a bias, a prejudice, an emotional feeling.”

    Rangel, who is presenting fighting ethical charges in the House that he failed to report significant income, went on to say: “Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is President of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘how did this happen?'”

    The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee added, “We’re going to have to move forward notwithstanding that.”

    According to a report in the New York Post, at that same forum, Rangel compared the fight for health-care reform to the fight for civil rights.

    “Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can’t we get what God has given us? That is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not count the votes. Just do the right thing,” he said.

    Reaction to the Rangel blasts was not long in coming, according to the Post report.

    State Conservative Party leader Mike Long called Rangel’s remarks “outrageous and outlandish,” going as far as to suggest that the lawmaker was attempting to blow a smoke screen to dim his personal troubles with ethics investigators.

    “Rangel is playing the race card. It’s clear that the congressman is trying to galvanize the minority community that this is ‘us against them.’ It’s going to backfire. A majority of people will see through this,” Long said.

    Rangel was quick to engage in damage control, insisting: “What I’m saying is, if you watch the town-hall meetings, people were angry and did not care what the answer was to some of their questions. They were angry with their member of Congress, period.”

    However, the backlash of reaction to Rangel’s words and alleged misdeeds has continued.

    According to the CBS report, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently commented: “Charlie has been very helpful to this city in terms of doing things that we’ve asked him to do, bringing home the bacon if you will and I hope that he’s done nothing wrong.”

    But others have been less patient.

    Councilman and mayoral candidate Tony Avella blasted this week: “It will also mar his effectiveness in representing Harlem in Congress. He should not stand for re-election.”

    The Washington Post also entered the fray this week editorializing: “Much is expected of elected officials. Much more is expected and demanded of those entrusted with chairmanships and the power that comes with them, especially when it involves the nation’s purse strings. From all that we’ve seen thus far, Mr. Rangel has violated that trust continually and seemingly without care.”

    The often colorful Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a critic of ObamaCare, chided Rangel, saying: “Charlie Rangel knows that race has nothing to do with the health-care debate. He should not be implying that race has anything to do with it.”

  40. Black Flag says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AGKKLO0&show_article=1

    The unemployment rate jumped almost half a point to 9.7 percent in August, the highest since 1983 [26 years ago!], reflecting a poor job market that will make it hard for the economy to begin a sustained recovery.

    ———

    Government is sucking dry the capital markets with its spending. Small business – the largest drivers of employment – are dying on the vine without access to capital.

    We haven’t nearly seen the high point of unemployment ……

  41. Black Flag says:

    Spot bullion in London hit an intraday high of $992.55 a troy ounce

  42. Getting off topic here.

    Anybody have any major plans for this weekend? Just curious.

    We don’t just a nice quiet relaxing weekend at home, YEAH!

    • v. Holland says:

      Don’t have any major plans -we’re taking my daughter to dinner tonight-gonna play in a slots tournament Saturday-going to a local fair Sunday-nothing major but much busier than usual-which means I need to hit the shower-see ya later and enjoy your weekend.

    • Black Flag says:

      Surprise b’day party for Mom-in-law.

      Won’t be around tonight.

      • Well you guys enjoy your weekend.

        BF, will you be around this weekend, here on the site?

        Maybe if you are, do you think you can tell me another one of your stories? It’s been awhile, and I would really love to read one. That’s if you want to.

        Judy

  43. Black Flag says:

    NY close $993 – now comes Hong Kong and Japanese Markets…..

  44. Black Flag says:

    ….has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken. Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done

    The claim is only that they may harvest without your consent, not your family’s consent. We have established that you have no say, only the owner of your body. Thus, absent an heir to say otherwise, they may harvest. Lay down your sword and musket, sir, you are defeated. I have set my own traps within this cave and you are well and truly ensnared.

    Sir, you are fighting the wrong battle.

    I care less about organs – that is determined by society, non-violently, the norms of the dead.

    The danger is not in organs – the danger is in presumption.

    Free men can never let the forces of violence and terror presume anythingVIOLENCE must always be explicit and designated, never presumed.

  45. bottom line says:

  46. Off Topic here, but I see the stars aligning for another convenient crisis…..the entire article can be found at Bloomberg.

    Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.

    Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

    “At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus.”

  47. Off Topic again….but it looks like the Birthers just might be getting a day in court after all. Of course, most ObamaBots will be watching his ObamaYouth address….. 😉

    http://countusout.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/obamas-choice-of-september-8th-to-address-children-has-a-vital-hidden-agenda/

    • Hi Cyndi

      Just watched the video. I don’t plan on taking the shot, neither does the rest of my family for that matter. My own mom who 87 said she doesn’t want to take it either, especially since they are not sure if it’s going to do what they said it’s suppose to do.

      Look how many deaths there were with just the regular flu. We had about, I think a few here in Reno, but it wasn’t that high I don’t believe. I read where mostly it effects children more than adults anyway.

      A friend of mine, a big hulking, strapping, damn good looking Paiute had it a few weeks ago. He said he thought he was going to die, never was sick like that before in his life. He said he was sick for 2 weeks, but he eventually got better, and he said he didn’t get the shot either. He works with the public on a daily basis, so he could have gotten from anybody who might have had the symptoms. He sells cigarettes at the Indian Colony here in Reno.

      I really believe they are making sound worse than it could be, I don’t know. But I do know, I won’t take the shot. There seems to be more side effects with the shot, than actually getting the flu. I think I have to agree with Ron Paul on that. After all, he is a doctor. But, then this is my own thoughts on it too.

      Hope you have a good weekend.

      Judy

      • Hi Judy,

        I’m still downloading the video. We’re on SLOW dial-up on this little island in the Pacific. If the connection doesn’t drop out, I might have it in about half an hour! In the meantime, I’m making myself a new dress! We’re having a rainy day, so heading to the beach is out. As for the flu shot, I won’t get it, so long as I’m not held down and injected. I think the whole Swine Flu business is just a tactic for more control. I’m more afraid of Obama and his czars than I am the flu…..

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        It’s interesting to watch the 70’s video. I remember the ramp up at the time. That and the “Whip Inflation Now” program probably cost Jerry Ford the election. For anyone around at the time the Ford Admin’s response to swine flu was “weak and anemic” at first and the MSM was all over that. When the swine flu turned out to be a non issue, the Administration took a hit for being “alarmist”.

        All those who don’t see media bias could, if they were awake, take a lesson from that. But they won’t.

    • Thanks, Cyndi for that link on the Birthers. I looked for additional information and was not very encouraged. Nothing on Fox, or the Washington Post, or the Washington Times that I could find. I did find a few, here are a couple of interesting links:

      http://ezinearticles.com/?What-About-Federal-Judge-David-O.-Carter-and-the-Obama-Eligibility-Issue?&id=2844981

      http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

      The second one shows an alleged copy of a Kenyan Certificate of Birth….look about 3/4 down on that page.

      No matter what is said about the subject, it would have been easy to avoid all this by just producing a certified birth certificate, from Hawaii. Simple as that.

      Bottom line, either arrogance or fraud is causing Obama to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid producing a document that is very cheap and easy to acquire.

      • Hi Dee

        How are you doing? Hope things are getting better for you since your mom’s passing. Thought about you quite a bit, and was wondering how you’ve been doing and all.

        Missed seeing you on here lately, but it’s understandable.

        Big Hugs To You.

        Judy

        • Thank you, Judy!

          I’m doing OK, and I am here almost daily. I don’t always have the energy to take part in the conversations, but I try to keep up on the topics, which is nearly a full time job, if I were to do it right. 🙂

          Hope you are doing well, too.

          • Hi Back at ya.

            Glad to hear you’re doing okay. Remember, each day will get better and better for you.

            I try and get on here daily, depending what the topic of the day is. Sometimes though, I just don’t feel up to participating, but if I see something that catches my eye, then I’ll chime in with a few comments. Then again, depending on what’s going on at work at the time too.

            Looks like it’s going to be slow going this weekend, guess a lot of folks are out of town. We stay home, and let everybody else leave town. More room at the stores, restaurants, roads. Went grocery shopping this morning, and it looked like a ghost town, hardly anybody on the roads, and at the store. More to choose from without everybody else being in the store.

            I’m doing pretty good actually. Quiet day around the house. Hubby’s out for a while, my boys are at my oldest son’s girlfriend’s son’s football game, so it’s just me and my mom home today. Taking advantage of the quiet. Don’t get that too often. Even though our son’s don’t live here anymore, we see them more than when they did live here, go figure. And trust me, when they are here, you know it. Like two magpies that don’t stop talking, and they both sometimes talk about two different things. Ever try listening to two different conversations going on at the same time. WHEW!.

      • Hi Dee,

        He should have released ALL the documents starting with his first year of college and ending with his time in the Illinois state senate. Everything is a mystery. You’re right in that if he’d released the documents when he first declared his intent to run, this would be a non issue. As for the hearing, I hope it is a fair one without any shenanigans on either side. I’m somewhat intrigued that the judge is a former Clinton appointee. If the judge rules in favor of the Birthers, will ObamaBots accept the ruling? Part of the Obama is a NBC crowd use Hillary as proof of their argument. They say if there really is a Kenyan BC, then she would have it exposed. Well now, is that what we have here? Regardless, even if the Kenyan BC is judged to be valid, it won’t matter. Obama and his fellow Marxists won’t be going anywhere. I don’t see where they’ll let a silly little thing like the law or the will of the people affect them.

        • Hi again Cyndi,

          I think that Obama and Company thought the subject would blow over once he was safely in the White House.

          In his arrogant mind, he envisioned himself so loved by the people, that no one would care about those little details anymore, really how important could they be?

          Guess he is finding out, I wouldn’t want to be him IF the SHTF.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Ahhhh – the sweet smell of insanity. I love it – I love any juicy story involving the sheer madness of Dr. Ornery Taint, Esq. – about as much (and to paraphrase Adam Corolla) as I would love to wear crotchless speedos to a pool party at Elton John’s house – its going to painful and and its going to be messy…..

        Look Dee – one can find a judge anywhere that will allow even the most absurd of cases to move forward – that is the least bit that is obvious. But to see the lunacy of all this – think for a moment about gun control. I suppose you probably are vehemently against gun control? Assuming you are – there is a reason most who oppose any form of gun control do so – it is believe in that once you open the can you are done – an inch becomes a mile. So while it may make in some way, some sense to ban automatic weapons – gun control opponents despise this for they feel (maybe rightfully so) that once the seal is broken the flood gates will go through.

        Now apply the same to this birther nonsense – it is a conspiracy theory by definition. By even recognizing this or officially responding to this gives it credence where none is deserved. It may be the easiest damn thing in the world for POTUS to supply the document – but by doing so he will give credence to this insanity – and it will NEVER STOP. What will be next? Will he then need to prove he is not an extraterrestrial lizard by supplying a blood sample? Will he need to prove he is not a Socialist Robot by having live brainscans?

        That is why Dee – it is sheer madness – more than ample proof has been supplied by other sources. If anything, Ms. Taint should be dis-barred.

        • Dee,

          Somethings to consider: Ray’s sarcastic posting has done nothing to convince anyone that Obama is a natural born citizen. Ridicule maybe be an Alinsky tactic but its effective only so long as the target lets it deter him or her.

          Lets forget about the Birth Certificate for a moment. What about all the documents and writings of Obama? Why are those also missing from the public view? Certainly an all wonderus gift from God such as Obama would have quite the legacy of written wisdom to impart to the masses. Why have we not see this, other than his two books that are believed to be ghost written by other writers? Why does Obama flounder when not reading from the teleprompter? Don’t take my word for it. Look around on the internet and see what you come up with as to Obama’s written legacy.

          • Cyndi,

            I agree, there is much amiss with all the secrecy. With other candidates for public office, we hear about it if they farted sideways in college.

            When something is avoided, hidden, sealed….there is a reason.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Dee – do we really? Can you show me? Show me what other candidates provided that President Obama has not. Can you? Or is this more ‘scare tactic’? Your search for secrecy is diverting you from what is right in front of your face.

              • Ray,

                I believe McCain provided a birth certificate after there was contention as to whether his Panamanian birth disqualified him to run. It was only after that subject came up that people began to notice that Obama had not provided an actual document.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I don’t think so Cyndi – Obama’s own campaign staff first put his live birth doc out because there was some accusation over his name – it was after that when the far right (Worldnet Daily maybe?) picked it up and said it was a fake.

              • Ray,

                I was just responding, when it popped in my email so….what Cyndi said.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Dee – it doesn’t matter – he already provided a legit document that certified where he was born – it is not an issue and irrelevant that it wasn’t the first pristine document signed by his Doctor.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Cyndi – as I replied to Judy – POTUS has simply done the same thing those before him have. There is no reason he should feel compelled to release anything not already in the public domain.

          • Cyndi,

            Where did you hear anything about his books being ghost written by someone else. I read them and didn’t get that impression at all nor have I ever heard such a claim. In fact one could argue that there are things in those books that would hurt him in the eyes of many if people actually read it. He has been groomed in the party for quite a while, including when those books were written, so I would doubt those things would have made the final copy if someone else was writing them.

        • Ray,

          For $10 a certified birth certificate can be purchased from Hawaii public records. $10!!!!

          It makes sense to spend hundreds of thousands NOT to come up with it?

          You said,

          “It may be the easiest damn thing in the world for POTUS to supply the document – but by doing so he will give credence to this insanity – and it will NEVER STOP. What will be next? Will he then need to prove he is not an extraterrestrial lizard by supplying a blood sample? Will he need to prove he is not a Socialist Robot by having live brainscans?”

          Now that leap is insanity. And ridiculous.

          Had the damn thing been produced up front, it would be a NON ISSUE today. The entire subject would not be on the table, would not exist.

          Obama was applying for a job with the citizens of this country by running for president. There are requirements that must be met just as there are in the private sector. A private employer would tell him to take a flying leap if he refused to produce required documents.

          • Hi there

            I have to agree with you. Why is everything so secretive. Every other person who ran or runs for president, provides documents, do they not. What is he really hiding that he doesn’t want anybody to see or get out?

            He doesn’t want anybody to know the truth apparently, but yet he wants to run this country, and take take over everything, including our lives, private or otherwise. I don’t trust him or this congress at what they are doing. This is going to be the longest next 3 years we’ve ever had, I kid you not.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Judy – do a one for one comparison – let’s say you pick the last 5-10 POTUS – what did they provide at this similar stage of their Presidency that President Obama has not? They are welcome to and do use Executive Privilege to seal prior work and papers that are not already in the public domain. I would consider it dangerous to vote for a person based on an essay written in English Lit 101 – I would much prefer to link my vote to more currency of their body of work, action, leadership, etc. I can reflect on my own work from college and comfortably ascertain that it has zilch to do with who I am today (that was 16 years ago for me) or what I believe.

              I would also suggest that were all such records to be provided they would likely (a) be taken out of context, (b) probably not be read by most people anyway, (c) would leave some suspicion that he is still ‘holding out on something’ – maybe there was a fingerpainting he did in 1st grade that went on Mommy’s fringe and with its heavy use of the color red showed him to be a Socialist even then.

              See where this goes? He isn’t hiding anything Judy – its right in front of you, right now, today.

              • Well Ray, if you want to believe that, then go ahead. If it’s right in front of me and everybody else, then why is it so questionable?

                Why does that keep coming up if it’s so in the open? Like when a teenager who might have gotten into trouble, and when they become adults, there records are sealed, and nobody is allowed to see them, that’s how I feel about Obama.

                You might like him and voted for him, and like the way he’s running things, and feel that he doesn’t have to prove anything. But, there are those, and I’m included in on that, that wants to see his records to prove he is who he says he is. It’s not that I don’t like him personally, I just don’t like the way he’s running this country, and I don’t like his policies, never did.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Judy – your own politics are failing you – this is nothing but the silly attack strategy that has been emblematic of the conservative movement for almost 40 years. This birther and college papers story is utter nonsense. My point was that if you need a reason not to like him it is right in front of your face right now. What he wrote 20 or 30 years ago is a distraction and irrelevant. The only people bringing this up are people on the far right that cannot objectively look at this performance and articulate a position based on this. His actions in office should be plenty – for example – I, who voted for him, an livid at where he has allowed the Healthcare issue to go – LIVID. He has shown a lack of leadership, lack of management and lack of command of the issue. The average voter doesn’t give two shits about whether we have access to his college work – you don’t need that to make his report card for now.

              • Your point about having enough to dislike Obama is valid. Just look at some of his czars. Nevermind the alleged incompetence. Personally, I don’t think Obama is incompetent. He’s doing exactly what he set out do.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Cyndi – his handling of Healthcare has cause me to question his competence.

              • I’m not disappointed in Obama’s handling of anything. He’s done exactly what I thought he do. But then, I never expected him to improve anything for the vast majority of Americans.

              • RAy,

                The media will go to great lengths to ‘find’ documents when it suits them…..

                http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only

                As for Obama’s English Lit 101, I could care less. Let’s see everything since 1995.

              • Ray,

                I would consider it dangerous to vote for a person based on an essay written in English Lit 101

                Me too, and I bet that if it was a regular English 101 paper no one would care what it said. However if it is a dissertation or thesis work that espouses communism or marxism beliefs, which I believe is a fair possibility given who he was hanging out with and who he claims his mentors were at the time, that would be a whole other ballgame wouldn’t it?

                I would much prefer to link my vote to more currency of their body of work, action, leadership, etc.

                Me too. That was part of my problem with Obama during the campaign. There isn’t a “body of work” to judge him on. His votes on key issues were “present”, he had no major legislation, nothing to go on but his word. And when all you give me is your word, that isn’t going to cut it for me. So when you say trust me, while simultaneously sealing all of the only history about you that exists in the world, my “uh oh” meter goes off. You wouldn’t accept me at my word on a crappy article on a blog, why simply accept a man at his word for the Presidency of the United States.

                I can reflect on my own work from college and comfortably ascertain that it has zilch to do with who I am today (that was 16 years ago for me) or what I believe.

                That may be true. I would fall into the same boat. I would never want to be judged on the crap I wrote even 10 or 15 years ago. But if I was running for President, I would have to let others see it and attempt to explain myself. If I can’t do that, I don’t have what it takes to be President. As I said, his college thesis may have nothing to do with anything. But what if it was a well laid out plan to win the Presidency, appoint radical members, and change the fundamental structure of the US government. And upon reading such a thesis, we would see right through all his BS. That sure would be interesting wouldn’t it? People write some pretty radical stuff when under the “mentorship” of marxists. I could accept whatever it was under that understanding. Unless of course, he simply doesn’t want people to really understand much about him. Secrecy is not a privilege of the President of the United States. Sure would have made things a lot easier for Bush or Kerry if they had sealed their military records.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                USW – I will only ask you then why is this guy being held to a different standard than those who came before him? It all smells real bad to me.

                Read my reply to Judy – the body of evidence is building quickly as to how to judge him.

                The ‘what if’ argument is weak – really weak. What if he used to go out in the snow and pee the shapes of a hammer and sickle in the snow? Maybe we should have know about that as well eh?

                Suffice to say that there is wide variation of ‘who we hung out with in college’ and how that is interpreted. I would have been more concerned about a Rev. Wright association than any loosely threaded Ayers b.s. (actually I still have a bone about this Wright thing but that is a different story).

                You really think he has some wide body of work that espoused Communism and Socialism and laid a plan for him to ascend to office in 2008? Really? I mean – REALLY? C’mon – the law of averages says that at some point someone would have stood up and spilled the beans. I don’t buy it – you’re barking up the wrong tree.

              • I freely admit that the what if argument is weak. And I 100% agree that the body of evidence to judge him on since he got in office is building quickly regardless of which side of the issues you fall. I don’t actually care a bit about his college papers. I was merely offering a “what if” that I would care about if I read it. That is not, in any stretch, what I believe the paper is about. I would imagine that the paper could well espouse marxist tenants given his company at the time. But I really don’t care one way or the other. What I care about is who he has around him now and what decisions he makes as President. I think it is fair to say that I don’t do much digging into his past other than reading his books.

                I really wasn’t doing anything other than trying to help you understand the thought process some people can have around the sealed stuff.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            How do I understand birthers so well? I think of a liberal – and I take away reason and accountability.

            Dee – take a deep breath and step back for a moment. There is no controversy surrounding this – it is only in your mind. Where is this tally being kept that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars ‘hiding’ something? Hell – if this is all true as you suggest – then we are taking a conspiracy far and above what we could ever imagine – a conspiracy if global proportions that started even before he was born. More than ample evidence has been provided validating the man’s birth. For folks like you to keep beating this drum I have to wonder what the hell it is with you? Why are you doing this? What is your motivation?

            In order for this to be true – it would require a massive conspiracy – that is what makes it a conspiracy theory. There were ample conspiracy theories regarding JFK – as each was disproved some other crazy ass scheme was cooked up. An entire cottage industry has been making money off this for years – playing to this tabloidish Hollywoodish paranoia that causes people to suspend cognitive thinking and run with this nonsense. Even if he shows it now – why would you believe it? Since everyone has been in cahoots so far – why would you think him yanking it out and shoving it in your face would cause you to think it is valid?

            So Dee – how do I understand birthers like you so well?

            To borrow from Jack – “I think of a liberal – and I take away reason, and accountability”.

            Cheers and goodnight. You may want to make sure your phone isn’t bugged and there isn’t a keystroke logger on your computer (or a boogeyman under your bed).

            🙂

            • Ray,

              I don’t even think of myself as a birther, just a U.S. citizen that has a desire to see the document and put this to rest, one way or the other. That’s all.

              I don’t think of this in massive conspiracy terms, just one man potentially lying terms.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                But why would you believe it to be accurate if they pulled one out? It could be fake as well?

              • A very public, legal and FAIR TO BOTH SIDES hearing with several non biased experts would go a long way in ending the matter. Proving that Obama was born in Hawaii means that he met a requirement. There is still the matter of his czars and their radical plans for America. If the majority of Americans are on board for what they have in mind for us, then fine. I guess the rest of us have to accept it. My concern is that the deck is being stacked in favor of the radicals. I don’t think most Americans want that. Personally, I’ll just find another country to call home, so no skin off my behind, but not everyone can do that. What about what they want? Are they just SOL becauase now its someone else’s turn?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                The lawsuit is unnecessary and a waste of time and money – he has already been proven to be a citizen – plain and simply – case closed. His advisers will be judged on his performance and not necessarily their own.

              • I don’t know about that Ray. Proving the Birthers the crackpots they’re made out to be would be money well spent. Instead of labeling all Obama opponents ‘racists’, they could all be labeled ‘crackpots’. Labeling non whites racists is harder to pull off, but any skin color can be a crackpot!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “How do I understand birthers so well? I think of a liberal – and I take away reason and accountability.”

              Ray,

              You cannot take away things that liberals do not already possess, hence the above sentence makes no sense 🙂

        • To be fair Ray…. there are very few requirements to be President listed in the Constitution. Asking that someone provide proof that they meet these very simple requirements is not out of line. Your space alien and lizard stuff doesn’t really apply here.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            It absolutely applies from the perspective I offered USW. It was a point with respect to ‘give an inch take a mile’. If one gun is banned we’ve opened the door to all guns being banned (sure – seems crazy or unlikely but anything possible right?). If one conspiracy is put to bed then what of the next, and the next?

            I know there are requirements. They were met. Case closed. He would have to have provided evidence of citizenship an on SF-86 anyway.

            • Proof of citizenship is different than “natural born citizen”.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                He would have been denied clearance if there were any questions regarding his locale of birth. The SF-86 would require the investigators to validate the document in Hawaii. Providing a falsified document for an SF-86 is a felony. Case closed.

  48. Ray,

    Why are you so frustrated by those of us who question Obama? I should think you’d be thrilled about a court hearing on the matter. When your man is officially cleared you’ll have all the bragging rights in the world. If I were you, I’d be joyus because now the non believers will have nothing to argue and my man can now get on with the business of changing America. Oh happy day!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Cyndi – by all means question the man. But quit hamstringing the Court system with frivolous lawsuits – it looks petty, cheap, and leads people down accusatory paths where we need not go again. I am questioning the man also – on his policies, and leadership and choices as POTUS – not on some hair-brained accusation that lives on in a hair-brained lawsuit brought by a hair-brained lawyer-doctor-insane-asylum-escapee.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        Please provide evidence that the person bringing the case is a “lawyer-doctor-insane-asylum escapee”

        If you can not provide evidence that he is exactly what you claimed in that post, you are no better than the “birthers”.

  49. Its ONE lawsuit, Ray. Now if you’re referring to what was done to Sarah Palin, then you should just say so. I agree that what was done to Sarah Palin was petty, cheap, and lead people down accusatory paths. I didn’t know that Orly Tavitz is legally insane and has escaped from a State institution! How did the mainstream media miss that one? Is she going to be arrested and returned to the mental hospital when she shows up for court?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Palin? What does this have to do with Palin? I was simply saying that beating the drum on this makes it too easy for far left wingnuts to call you a racist. That’s all.

      • I used Sarah Palin as a good example of what you’re talking about. As for those wingnuts, they call any white person a racist, even a white looking Hispanic such as myself. Its the easist thing in the world to do. It requires nothing but the abiltiy to say the word ‘racist’. I’m beginning to think of it as a compliment.

  50. Ray Hawkins says:

    Am still reading a few things – but I think the nail was hit on Van Jones – I am befuddled as to what redeeming qualities were seen in him – he is an opportunist riding coattails.

    • Ray,

      He has resigned.

      I hope we can agree about THAT being good news.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Dee – you have my agreement – Van Jones is not part of a solution for our Country.

        • Ray, Van Jones was a very close inner circle member of V Jarrett and B Hussein. He is still going to be very close political advisor minus the legal upfront czar pay. So when you say van jones isnt part of a solution for our country are you subconsciously saying that obama who knows this guy better than he knows rev wright and holds every racist and communist fiber of his being to the core,that obama is not part of a solution for our country?

          If not how do you in your mind seperate obama from all these radical activist communist like saul alinsky and frank?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Ty – I am not in your President Obama’s head – I do not know the precise reason for each and every adviser selection.

            Not sure who B Hussein is? Please explain

            Not sure who V. Jarrett is either? Please explain

            Is Van Jones going to be an up close and personal adviser? I doubt it – there are still just 24 hours in a day. Jones marginalized himself and now is gone. Period.

            So you think you can psycho-analyze me eh? Oh brother.

            Let me get this straight – due solely to my statement that Van Jones isn’t part of the solution for our country then I subconsciously believe that:

            (a) Your President Barack Obama knows Van Jones better than Reverend Jeremiah Wright and that since

            (b) Your President Barack Obama is racist and communist in every fiber of his being to the core (you probably meant Communist but who the hell knows with you) that therefore

            (not sure if racist/communist you meant your President Obama or Van Jones – your writing almost amounts to jibberish so I am having trouble following you and offering a suitable response)

            (c) He is not part of the solution either

            Did I get that right? C’mon Ty – don’t try to act logical when you haven’t bothered to decompose your own weak argument. That is liking saying I have a friend Bob. Bob likes beets. I subconsciously like beets. Utter madness Ty.

            How does separation occur? Hmmmm – well you assume that all his advisers are radical Commies, Nazis or some other stupid epithet – I have almost no point to debate you from because I disagree with your premise. Does that makes sense? Its like arguing with a pig farmer that bacon is bad for your health. Are there/were there some bad apples? I suppose. That doesn’t paint everyone the same though – a concept you’ll never wrap your head around. That’s okay – let me know if your premise changes and we’ll talk.

            • I still think that all b hussein obamas close advisors, mentors and most of his czars are commies.Van jones was his perfect choice, so perfect that all the radical communist groups that he started up and or became a member of, and all the race baiting and or cop killing rallies that jones participated in and been arrested for on numerous times, only made it that much harder for obama not to turn him away but instead made him his green czar.Jones is a bolder and less reserved obama. Google jones and read about all his community activism and his racial comments and you have obama. Why is it that van jones isnt right for our country but obama is just fine?
              because jones marginalized himself so he is gone, is bulldokey.. it was political expedience,do you think obama all of a sudden doesnt need van jones by his side.
              Rules for radicals might be followed to a tee by obama and his commie cronies, if they were called on it they would deny it but that wouldnt satisfy anyone with a clue, but maybe it would you since you think now that obamas close advisor is marginalized politically that obama will not still confide in him and vice versa.

              anyways please answer the question , why is jones not good for this country but the man who picked him and all his ilk is?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Ty – to answer your question specifically:

                Van Jones did not appear to be any more qualified to be an adviser to your President Obama than you or I. IMHO – an adviser to the President should be an easily recognized subject matter expert in the topical matter – an adviser of green jobs should have deep expertise in this relatively new field – to me – that is not Van Jones. He reminds of someone that harangued me to connect on LinkedIn for months – we finally connected as I was interested in hos role/group/company affiliated with “Green IT Audit” – I thought ‘what the hell is this’? Turns out it was just another yahoo jumping on a bandwagon looking to sell smoke and mirrors to people. No credibility, no expertise, just someone trying to put themselves in the right place at the right time. That is Van Jones. That he has some shady past dealings, writings, speeches, etc. only solidified that is a guy who just likes to be in the middle of things and figures out how to suck a paycheck out of it. I think the so-called radical-ness was not as significant to me – if he was a SME and providing solid advisement to POTUS then I’ll give him a very limited benefit of the doubt. Jones was not a SME and choked himself on his own short leash.

                It is horribly short sighted to assert that Barack Obama is therefore not good for our Country because of Van Jones. Recall – you now live in a 24/7 news cycle and a fervent & hostile political environment – our history is surely chock full of Presidents that bring in questionable advisers – hell – then even end up as VEEP’s from time to time. Maybe you have some brilliant insight I lack that demonstrates how & why all the rest of his “ilk” are ‘commies’ – I’m rarely the smartest guy in the room. But what I would challenge you to do is to ensure you got it right Ty. I could be horribly wrong, but you’re a teenager right? So – if you recall – if you have followed things close – you’ll know or recognize that I take a pass on issues or debate where I have not yet fully explored the issue or person and want to reserve judgment. I had that position on Van Jones a week ago – I felt something weird about the guy so I wanted to see more. Folks shared some clips and some info and I went and did a little homework – my conclusion I have offered herein. I suggest you do the same from time to time – it may help you better substantiate your position rather than come across as an uninformed emotionally reactive teenager – but more so a well thought out, well read kid who wants to get it right and not accept his own version of kool-aid offered to him.

              • What does my age have to do with anything. I have enough wisdom, that if my old best friend is hanging around a crack house and he is buddies with all the coke heads and druggies. he doesnt skateboard anymore just drugs. his parents are older and supposedly wiseer, but they dont put 2 +2 together and realize you are in a sense, the company you keep. When he played bball and skateboarded he was a cool jock. now not so much.

                His parents are still enamored by his personality and charm.

                I am not saying obama is a crack addict like jones said of Bush, but just using this example of my friend to illustrate that obama in my mind is hanging with the wrong crowd because he is of that crowd. frank marshall davis saul alinsky rasheed khalidi van jones rev wright valerie jarrett john holmgren mark lloyd raoul odinga loius farrakhan william ayres khalid al mansur holdren sotomoyer arne duncan harold koh to name a few.

                Why does my old friend hang with crack addicts every day 7 days a week.
                why does obama hang with radical communist marxist racist America hating types?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                You need to think more rationally through your arguments. Many of these names you mention are associations connected by threads at best – same reason I called bs when Obama referred to H.L. Gates as a friend.

                When you sharpen your mind a bit more Ty then you’ll realize that there is no fire behind the smoke you’re blowing.

                Now back to watching the Atlanta race………..

              • you sound like my friends parents.
                Also I didnt mention h Gates, i dont even know who that is.. i did mention Frank marshall davis and rev wright and many ACORN types, so when you can stop blowing smoke, maybe you can see it coming out of the end of that crack pipe, that my friends parents cant see and maybe you will wise up and realise who obama really is ..
                peace to you

              • TY,

                I’ve been reading many of your posts and never knew, nor would have guessed you are in your teens. I definately get that impression from several regular posters here but not you. I think you’re right on the money about Obama and his advisors. I hope you don’t let the naysayers stop you from doing your own thinking. Though I’m not in my teens, many dislike my beliefs when it comes to Obama and his cronies. I actually had an ObamaBot tell me the other day, that she had to admit I was right about Obama. So hang in there. There will always be some who will never admit their mistake. Don’t let them get you down.

              • Thanks , your awesome

  51. I’m really more concerned with whether he has amended his certificate of birth rather than whether or not he has one.I am quite certain he has one Ray.
    Religion, race, parents information.Where he was born etc.

    Ray if you understand how a Certificate of Live Birth can be obtained from the state of Hawaii then perhaps you would understand why a person could question Obamas’ choice to keep it hidden from the public.

    This data was taken from the state of Hawaiis’ Department of Health website.

    Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?

    As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:

    A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and

    has become legally adopted, or

    has undergone a sex change operation, or

    a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or

    previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.

    {“””A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.”””}

    How to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth:

    For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and has become legally adopted

    An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree or an abstract of the decree, and after payment of any fees.

    For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and has undergone a sex change operation:

    An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the individual and determined that the individual has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the individual’s birth certificate is no longer correct, subject to further investigation and submission of additional information if deemed necessary, and payment of fees.

    For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made:

    An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the person, and payment of any fees.

    For a person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law:

    An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, and payment of any fees.

    For a person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii:

    An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of the adoption decree or the certificate of adoption, and payment of fees.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      TexasChem – completely irrelevant. He has been proven as meeting the legal quals and is as a U.S. citizen many times over. To answer the ‘claims’ legitimizes crazy. Case closed.

      • Ahh.. but is he a Natural Born citizen Ray?No one disputes the fact that he is a citizen my friend.

        Being a Natural Born citizen is the question at hand not whether he is a citizen.

        The requirement of being Natural Born is not only a requirement to be President but to affirm allegiance to this country.

        He has not proven to be a Natural Born citizen of these United States of America.He has not proven his allegiance by not holding his heart when the pledge has been said nor the national anthem played.As a matter of fact I have seen photographs of him not.

        He surrounds himself with RAdIcAl advisors that are self proclaimed Communists, Marxist, Alinski-ite batshit crazy window lickers.

        His foreign policy is the weakest this country has had since the Carter era and we are in grave danger as a country from attack by terrorists and terrorist governed countries more than at any time in our nations history.His administration is endorsing policy (DoHS) to investigate American citizens?He has turned away from our closest allies and sucked up to dictators.Can you blame anyone for having doubt as to what his intentions are for America?

        Think about it Ray.I know you to be an intelligent person.I do not believe you rode the short bus to school when you were a child.I do believe you should no longer drink the kool-aid though!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          TexasChem – what do you think I meant by “met all quals”?

          He has proven he is natural born – please refer to my other statements herein. To provided National Security Clearance he would be required to disclose the precise location of birth as per the SF-86 form. This information is cross checked against supporting documentation and any available original sources (meaning – in this case either the original document or the place of birth – this is typically done by the Bureau on behalf of OPM – which by your insinuation would require all those folks to be in on the scheme as well).

          Hand over heart?

          I’m sure you kind find me a zillion pictures with his hand not over heart and I’ll find you a zillion plus one with hand over heart. He has allegiance to our Country but is also aloof from time to time.

          – I’m not sure what a window licker is? Is that the same as a person who is deathly afraid that the black helicopters full of Obamabots are coming to take him away? (Hee hee ho haw – to the funny farm where life is beautiful!)

          “We’re in grave danger”? You know something the rest of us do not TexasChem? Maybe I should be more concerned about secessionist Texans?

          We’ve turned away from our allies? We suck up to dictators? Huh? I’ll just conclude my response – obviously you have a deep seated hatred for someone and are willing to associate damn near anything to him. Bummer.

  52. Its all a farce, we dont even have a say in who rules this country. A community organizer for ACORN and its 271 branches who was in the senate for 150 days goes up against an ancient & wishy moderate who was completely broke and in last place ready to drop out because he was only a sentaor not a govenor and he gets the seat. They built up McCain so it would be a senator vs a senator because senators never win vs a govenor. JFk was the last senator to become prez and he was from famous practically royal family. So they said if Rudy couldnt win in Arkansas and if Romney couldnt win in W.V. and Hucabee couldnt win in New york they were toast and the press methodically rang their death knoll after playing their weak states against them and using that to turn the people off on supporting the Govenors. Then after McCain won,they turned on McCain and brought him down daily,while they hid obamas most liberal voting ranking ever, even more liberal than the renowned socialist sanders from Vt. they ignored all his communist ties they didnt press him to show his birth cert. or show his college grades or college papers, they hid his close ties with odinga and khalidi and ayres wright and farrakhan, they ignored his inexperience and lack of leadership skills,they actually continually covered up for him like the LA times not releasing the Jew bashing session him and his PLO buuddies led by Khalidi who was the famous terrorist Arafats right hand man, they ignored vetting him in every way possible and instead praised him daily, they gave him free air time up the wazoo and put him on front covers of every local rag across the entire country and he was on magazine covers about every week for the entire campaign. I could go on about how i feel, but it wont matter or make a difference. I am sad for our country and now realize that we are no more than indentured servents next time when we have the next shoe drop on our financial dilemna.
    I am sad mostly about how the mind numb liberal partisans march lock and step with their party even though it is eroding all their freedoms. When will the switch turn on and they see the light, cant they see evil when it stares them in the face. I am sad when all they use as a defense is well he is intelligent and good intentioned. Marx, hitler, stalin, lenin and Mao were all intelligent , so i guess to liberals its okay to be indentured then later slaughtered as long its in the name and vein of an intelligent leader. And last of all before i get off my soap box, good intentioned, where is there any proof whatsoever that obama following lock step with saul alinskys rules for radical is good intentioned? why is socialism then it evolves into communist so good intentioned when its failed everywhere.

    peace all and hopefully i will be in a better mood another day

  53. Ray Hawkins says:

    Ty – moving this down for readability…..

    You said:
    “you sound like my friends parents.
    Also I didnt mention h Gates, i dont even know who that is.. i did mention Frank marshall davis and rev wright and many ACORN types, so when you can stop blowing smoke, maybe you can see it coming out of the end of that crack pipe, that my friends parents cant see and maybe you will wise up and realise who obama really is ..
    peace to you”

    The links you suggest between Davis and Obama are thin at best Ty – you’ll need to do better than that.

    Reverend Wright – I have suggested numerous times that during the campaign there should have been more scrutiny regarding this relationship. Its too late now. I will add that I do not agree with everything espoused by the ministry of my Church (I am Lutheran). I do not agree with everything put forth or said but that does not stop me from going to Church every Sunday. If I took the approach of shunning everyone that I do not agree with 100% of the time I’d be a very lonely person. Using your own type of example against you – when I lived in Georgia I lived in close proximity to numerous people who were Klansmen. We played ball together, we swam at the pool together, we sometimes did sleepover together. That does not make me a Klansman. You are repeating accusations of associations that have never ever been proven (yes – I have read the books and the articles Ty – have you?).

    Acorn Types – what does that mean Ty? Is that Paul Volcker? Maybe George Mitchell is a closet commie eh? You’ll have to do better than that Ty – else you’ll continuously be dismissed. Make sense?

  54. Obama grew up around Frank and he was a huge mentor of his.

    You are correct, you shouldnt have to shun everything you dont believe in and dont feel is worth taking a stand for 100% of the time or any time at all for that matter, its your perogative and as we can see the presidents as well.
    You can pick your causes as you have freedom of choice.

    Playing with kids of klansman doesnt make you a klansman is true. your reasoning loses me there, because we are talking about more than just associating with kids of these klansman and playing with them once in a while.
    What if someone plays with these kids and is mentored by their klansnman parents and community organize for these klansman and put these klansman all around him in his county by placing them on boards and faculties and holding meetings and fundraisers to get klansman in as mayors and sherriffs. Now would you still be innocent and should be giving the benefit of the doubt about your involvement in the klan?

  55. Oh i didnt answer your question. ACORN types?
    there the SEIU union thugs that beat the snot out of Kenny and their also the group of thugs that protest the prtesters and one crossed the street and bit the finger off of an old man trying to peacefully discuss health care options for him and his wife during healthcare town meetings.

    there obamas organized campaigners and hasslers, there members of any one of the 271 branches of ACORn that are the foundation of obamas future brown shirt domestic military force. you can see them carrying AK47 near the president, like that african american guy did a couple weeks ago, i think he was proven to be a plant as well as the other african american guy holding up a swatstika and larouche poster. Even the little girl who asked obama a question at his staged healthcare forum in N.H., her mom was the forums organizer and she was a big dem activist on healthcare. ACORn union types organized the N.H. forum where the audience was heard saying he winked at me, he winked at me oooohh. Everyone there was bussed in by these groups and they all were googly eyed and asked questions like .. oh great obama how can we make the uneducated republicans see the genious of your plan. or how can you in all you r infinite wisdom and understanding overcome the evil republicans opposing you from passing this bill and saving the planet. no questions like you have 60 dem votes vs 40 repl votes why do you keep blaming your failings on the republicans as even 4 or 5 of the olympia snow type rinos are trying to help you? do you think maybe the people dont want this , and that it is all about you? How are you going to squeeze 50 million more patients into a system without any new doctors to handle them, does this mean there are going to be Canadian type waits, or since were ten times the size of Canada do we need a formula to figure how much longer Americans will have to wait than Canadiens? none of these type questions. nothing on abortion or euthanasia, just cuddly planted fluff.

    You know what i mean,the black panthers at philadelphia polling places the open ballot supporters and fairness doctrine supporters.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Seriously Ty – you’re all over the map – is there something you want specific debate on – or is this more Conservative Tourrete’s that I am getting from you? Wind you up and you spout every nonsensical conservative scare tactic from the last 12 months? As I stated before – this nuttiness is what gives the far left ample ammunition to go looking for the root cause of your hate and anger – they start wondering – and start filling in the blanks. Face it Ty – one thing your President Obama is emblematic of is the fact that we are pooling more and more as a people – the dinner tables of ideas has gotten bigger – some of them you will not like – but make sure you understand why. Ty – one day (soon maybe) you will sit done for a family dinner and may very well be breaking family bread with a Muslim or a Black or a Jew or someone who supports abortion.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ray,

        Why is it that when you respond to someone, you do not respond, you simply belittle them and their ideas? You have a very nice way of calling Ty an idiot, but you till called him an idiot, just in a very flowery way.

        Nice.

        Now try responding to him instead.

        When someone makes a statement, you can choose to respond with “your statement is such idiotic nonsense that I choose not to respond” but at least come right out and say it rather than trying to make it sound good and trying to make yourself look good when accusing someone else of being an idiot when you don’t even back up the accusation with any facts.

  56. There is nothing else specific that i want to discuss other than the ACORN doesnt fall far from the tree as you many can see our ACORN comm. organizer in chief has his seedlings sprouting up all around him. To you they are good seedlings and to me they are dangerous American hating radicals trying to tear down our constitution and system.
    I respect that you see it differently so we will have to agree to disagree.

    thanks for your time and effort and i will think about a few things you mention.

    About the breaking bread comment form left field……Huh, im not the racist , its obama and most of his and michelles close friends,pastors and czars who are the racist. I sit down and break bread with everyone except the muslims, i will have to admit, there arent many around here and i dont go looking for them.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I wasn’t implying anything Ty – other than you will run into folks from all walks of life as you get older – don’t be so quick to judge and do make an effort to get ‘it’ right. By proclaiming “its obama” blah blah blah as racist you are simply feeding an empty headed monster.

  57. From Hot Air…

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/07/is-obama-forming-a-shadow-government/

    Is Obama Forming a “Shadow Government?”posted at 4:29 pm on September 7, 2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh
    [ Obama ] printer-friendly Today, President Barack H. Obama appointed yet another “czar”, making the announcement at an AFL-CIO Laborious Day picnic in Cincinnati today; Ron Bloom will make the 33rd Obamic Czar, counting Van Jones, who just resigned but will surely be replaced with a less explosive (but every bit as Marxist) appointee, and after Obama taps someone else to fill Bloom’s old position as Car Czar.
    Thanks to Glenn Beck, who has done a bravura job of journalism, here are the Czars; entries in blue are those Czar positions created expressly by Barack Obama:
    Richard Holbrooke — Afghanistan Czar
    Jeffrey Crowley — AIDS Czar
    Ed Montgomery — Auto Recovery Czar
    Alan Bersin — Border Czar
    David J. Hayes — California Water Czar
    Ron Bloom — Car Czar (moved to Manufacturing Czar today)
    Dennis Ross — Central Region Czar
    Todd Stern — Climate Czar
    Lynn Rosenthal — Domestic Violence Czar
    Gil Kerlikowske — Drug Czar
    Paul Volcker — Economic Czar
    Carol Browner — Energy and Environment Czar
    Joshua DuBois — Faith Based Czar
    Jeffrey Zients — Government Performance Czar
    Cameron Davis — Great Lakes Czar
    Van Jones — Green Jobs Czar (resigned)
    Daniel Fried — Guantanamo Closure Czar
    Nancy-Ann DeParle — Health Czar
    Vivek Kundra — Information Czar
    Dennis Blair — Intelligence Czar
    Ron Bloom — Manufacturing Czar
    George Mitchell — Mideast Peace Czar
    Kenneth R. Feinberg — Pay Czar
    Cass R. Sunstein — Regulatory Czar
    John Holdren — Science Czar
    Earl Devaney — Stimulus Accountability Czar
    J. Scott Gration — Sudan Czar
    Herb Allison — TARP Czar
    Aneesh Chopra — Technology Czar
    John Brennan — Terrorism Czar
    Adolfo Carrion Jr. — Urban Affairs Czar
    Ashton Carter — Weapons Czar
    Gary Samore — WMD Policy Czar
    In each case, the One has replaced functions normally carried out by cabinets or other agencies, headed by secretaries and directors who are subject to Senate confirmation (thus accountable to the United States Congress), with unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable apparatchiks who ultimately answer to only one person: Barack Obama.
    The departments raided of their authority in favor of Czars include the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Labor, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) — that’s the entire cabinet except for the Departments of Education, Transportation, and Veterans’ Affairs).
    Specific sub-cabinet level agencies subject to the Senate’s “advise and consent” rules, now looted of their powers by the Obamic Czardines, include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), National Security Council (NSC).
    A less charitable observer might conclude that President Obama is systematically creating a shadow government of special commissars, which will allow Obama to bypass congressional oversight and the checks and balances of “independent” (in a sense) agencies to rule the United States directly by decree.
    Every “czar” steals some of the authority that would normally reside in the permanent bureaucracy and instead secretes it behind the impregnable wall of an Executive Order: unquestionable, uninvestigatable, unreviewable, unviewable, and of course, un-overturnable by any other branch of government. In fact, I don’t believe Congress can even subpoena a czar to testify before Congress what he’s doing and why, since the president can declare the questioning off limits under “executive privilege.”
    Obama has some precedent on his side: Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt also tried to overthrow our system of constitutional checks and balances, in order to rule by diktat, with some success. Wilson (if I recall correctly) wanted virtually all power invested in the Congress (mostly the House, the “people’s legislature”), whereas FDR demanded direct presidential control “for the duration” (of the Depression and World War II — which between them endured for all twelve years of Roosevelt’s tenure — which gave him a perverse incentive not to solve either “crisis”).
    Shifting more and more governmental power into the hands of a single man on a white horse, who will personally speak for and on behalf of “the people,” is a classical sign of incipient fascism… which, coupled with Obama’s nationalization of the banks, of executive pay (even within companies that didn’t take a lick of “stimulus” money), energy production and distribution, news reporting and other journalism, labor relations, medical care — and soon food consumption and the body mass of each American — makes a chilling portent of what is to come. As one of Obama’s predecessors wrote, “Everything inside the state — nothing outside the state — nothing against the state.”
    I wish somebody would tell me how many elements of fascism must come bubbling to the surface of the new administration (not even a year old… seems like a hundred) before we’re allowed to suggest that Barack Obama, the head of the fish, must himself be a liberal fascist.
    Must we wait until he re-enacts Wilson’s sedition act and starts throwing in prison anyone who criticizes the government, the president, or any of the president’s policies?

  58. Ray STATED:”TexasChem – what do you think I meant by “met all quals”?

    He has proven he is natural born – please refer to my other statements herein. To provided National Security Clearance he would be required to disclose the precise location of birth as per the SF-86 form.”

    Please; Ray, post this form or provide details to me on how I can research how he was vetted.Please.If I am not mistaken he was never even vetted to be a state senator.Correct me if I am wrong.

    I would like to add that it doesn’t help your cause nor add any proof to your belief that he was vetted by your attempts to belittle others in your posts.Show facts and prove it.You can’t because he wasn’t.

    This excerpt I am posting was written by Joseph Farah and is concise and to the point.

    Last fall, American voters were given a choice of two major candidates for the presidency – John McCain and Barack Obama.

    Both of them faced questions about their constitutional eligibility to serve.

    McCain was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama to two parents who were U.S. citizens, his father serving in the Navy. To make his case for eligibility, he submitted all required paperwork to U.S. Senate investigators.

    Obama’s story was different. He claimed to have been born in Honolulu and provided to select news organizations and an outfit called FactCheck.org, associated with a former Obama employer, the Annenberg Foundation, a copy of what he claimed was a Hawaiian “certification of live birth,” an unsigned document that provided no information about the hospital in which he was born and the doctor who supervised the birth.

    The U.S. Senate found, in a unanimous vote, that McCain was eligible because his parents were both U.S. citizens.

    But no investigation was conducted by the U.S. Senate or any other official government agency into the eligibility of Obama. Instead, Obama was found to be eligible only by FactCheck.org and the select news organizations provided with the documentation by the Obama campaign.

    In other words, it was a total breakdown of the electoral system. Nobody asked Obama to prove he was eligible. He was indeed certified as eligible by one prominent government official – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, not acting in her official role, but rather acting in her private role as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

    There was simply no mechanism in place to establish Obama’s eligibility. He wasn’t asked for proof by any of the states in which elections were held. He wasn’t asked for proof by the Federal Elections Commission. He wasn’t asked for proof by the Electoral College. He wasn’t asked for proof by Congress. He wasn’t asked for proof by the Supreme Court or any other court.

    McCain was certified by the U.S. Senate.

    Obama was certified by FactCheck.org and Nancy Pelosi.

    This is why there are still questions about Obama’s fitness and constitutional qualifications for office today. And they are not going away.

    Since the system obviously broke down, the American people have been asking Obama to prove his eligibility to them – the ultimate arbiters, along with the Constitution, of who is fit to serve in the highest office in the land.

    Obama has been stonewalling them.

    He refuses to release the one innocuous document that could begin to unravel this mystery – his birth certificate.

    And, yet, clear-thinking, Constitution-observing Americans who continue to ask for the release of that document as a beginning of clarification of his “natural born citizen” status are ridiculed, mocked, caricatured, publicly humiliated, jeered, treated with contempt, disdain and disparagement by some of the very people who failed to do their jobs in the first place – those in government and the press.

    Barack Obama has a birth certificate. He refuses to show it to the people. Why?

    The document he has shown is one subject to fraud. The state of Hawaii refuses to confirm it was even official issuance. It does not provide the kind of details we expect a birth certificate to offer such as the birth hospital and independent eyewitnesses. It is not a suitable document with which to obtain a U.S. passport, let alone establish constitutional eligibility for the presidency.

    All these things have been said before, but they are worth repeating.

    It’s time for the media and official stonewalling to stop. All Americans have a vested interest in establishing, without doubt, the constitutional qualifications of the president. If you love Barack Obama, you should want to do this. If you can’t stand Barack Obama, you should want to do this.

    It begins with the birth certificate. No, it doesn’t end there. There are many other questions that need to be answered. There are many other documents Barack Obama should release. But if we cannot pressure him to release the birth certificate, what chance is there to pressure him to release other important papers solely under his control?

  59. LOTS OF COMMENTS, I DID READ SOMEWHERE THAT BILL AYERS HAD GHOSTWRITTEN OBAMAS BOOKS, HOW TRUE NOT SURE. ALSO AS THIS IS 9-9 JONES RESIGNED, AND DR ORLY HAS A COURT DATE 10-5 FOR THE CASE AGAINST OBAMA. THE JUDGE IS AN EX-MARINE AS I AM AND FROM EXPERIENCE, WE WERE TAUGHT IN BOOT CAMP TO FOLLOW RULES EXPLICITY, AND IF HE DOES, THERE WILL BE AN OPEN TRIAL, BUT THE DOJ HAS ALREADY BEEN TRYING TO GET THE JUDGE TO DISMISS THE CASE, SO WHAT TYPE OF PRESSURE WILL BE PUT ON THIS JUDGE, GOD BLESS HIM. I AM TRYING NOT TO BE BIASED AGAINST OBAMA, BUT I REMEMBER THE TV AD WITH THE SEVERAL YOUNG BLACK GIRLS, SAYING FIRST TIME VOTING AND WE ARE VOTING FOR OBAMA AS HE IS BLACK LIKE WE ARE. THIS REMINDS ME OF WHAT MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID; A PERSON SHOULD BE JUDGED BY CHARACTER, NOT BY SKIN COLOR. BUT I DO RESENT HE SPEECHES WHERE HE ADMIRES MUSLIMS AND SAYS SWEETEST SOUND IN HIS OPINION ARE THE 5 CALLS TO PRAYER FROM A HIGH MOSQUE, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THAT IS VERY BIASED, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION, FOUNDED BY OUR FOREFATHER ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES AND SEEING PICTURE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON PRAYING IN SNOW, MAKES ME ANGRY THAT WE, ALL VOTERS, HAVE LET THIS GET SO FAR. BUT MY SON SAYS THE GLOBLIST, BILDERBERGERS, KISSINGER, ROOSEVELT, ROCKEFELLER HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR OVER SO MANY YEARS TO PUT AMERICA IN WITH THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, THAT HE, MY SON IS SURPRISED IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY. WHEN I JOINED U.S. MARINE CORPS. IN 1944, I THOUGHT FDR WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT, MY FAMILY ALL DEMOCRATS, I A DEMOCRAT FOR 48 YEARS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I NOTICED PELOSI, REID, DODD, WAXMAN ETC. AND CHANGED TO INDEPENDENT LEANING TOWARD REPUBLICAN. MY FATHER USED TO SAY DEMOCRATS FOR POOR PEOPLE, REPUBLICANS FOR WEALTHY, HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED. GOD BLESS ALL WHO POSTS. THANK YOU

  60. I THINK THE REASON HE REFUSED TO SHOW IS HE IS NOT REALLY SURE JUST WHO HIS MOTHER AND FATHER ARE, THE INTERNET HAS SO MANY IDEAS, MALCOLM-X AND OBAMA LOOK SO MUCH ALIKE, OBAMA SR. IS SO BLACK, BUT I READ WHERE A GIRL FRIEND OF ANN DUNHAM TOOK A PICTURE OF HER IN A BIKINI WHEN SHE WAS SUPPOSE TO BE IN THIRE TRIMESTER, AND NOT POSSIBLE, THE IDEA IS GOING THE ROUNDS, HE WAS FOSTERED TO ANN DUNHAM, BUT NOBODY KNOWS, THE MENTION OF THE CZARS NOT BEING VETTED IS INTERESTING, BUT WHY WORRY, OBAMA WAS NOT VETTER EITHER, BUT AGAIN READ HE RECEIVED THE FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIP FROM COLUMBIA THAT IS ONLY FOR STUDENTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. SO, GUESS?

Trackbacks

  1. […] Obama and His Radical Czars « Stand Up For America […]

%d bloggers like this: