Have Republicans Fallen Out of the Mainstream?

A happy new week to all! Tonight I am going to offer the first of what will be my “fall back plan” during the holidays. As many of you are aware, I run a sales operation. As such, I am in the busiest 5 weeks of the entire year. A little over 30% of the entire year in sales is accomplished between Thanksgiving and Christmas. What that means for me is, as the boss (and the best at what goes on there 😉 ), I end up with a lot of long days and nights where I need extra sleep. As a result, I am unable to research and write as normal. However, I think there are so many important things going on, I want to ensure that we are still maintaining our edge and having important discussions. So my plan is, on the nights when I am unable to write as usual, I will offer perspectives on what is written by others, allowing some discussions to happen on the subjects in a different way.

Tonight, for example, I offer an article from Fox News that discusses the wish of some Republicans to draft Dick Cheney as a Presidential candidate in 2012. I will quickly hit on that idea, but focus more on a question that the article doesn’t ask: Are the core Republicans, those who feel that Cheney represents them, relevant any longer? So first, the article from Fox:

Draft Cheney? Conservatives Have Competing Visions Over Former VP’s Role

Dick Cheney is clearly enjoying private life, settling into his role as the foremost defender of the Bush administration and one of President Obama’s fiercest sideline critics.

But some people are asking: Is that all you got?

As unlikely as it sounds — and even though Cheney himself describes it as absurd — a movement is afoot to “draft” Cheney into running for president in 2012. Some conservatives want the former vice president to do more than just beat Obama in the press. They want him to beat the president in the polls, too.

Public discontent and anger toward Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration are widely blamed for the success of Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008. Many Republicans in Congress have taken pains to distance themselves from the Bush years; one of the most withering attacks against John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign was that he represented a third Bush term.

But Christopher Barron, who last week filed papers to launch his “Draft Cheney 2012” group and Web site, says Republicans need Cheney — that he’s the only one with the experience and conservative credentials necessary to lead the party at a critical juncture in its quest for identity and dominance.

He knows Cheney is opposed to the idea. But that doesn’t matter.

“We know that Dick Cheney doesn’t want to run for president,” Barron said. “This is about convincing the former vice president that we need him to run.”

Barron, a political consultant and former political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization is already attracting contributions and hundreds of followers who want to see Cheney do more with his life.

“This is one of those seminal moments in the history of our party. … What is this party going to stand for?” Barron said. “And I think there is only one man who is capable of bringing the entire Republican coalition together and speaking with clarity about the values that have made our party great. And that is Vice President Cheney.”

So much for moving to the center.

But even among conservative Republicans, Cheney is far from the top choice to lead a Republican resurgence in Washington.

In a poll conducted by The Washington Post last month, only one in about 800 people who lean Republican picked Cheney as the person who best reflects GOP principles.

Last February, when the Conservative Political Action Conference conducted its straw poll asking attendees whom they’d pick in 2012, Cheney’s name wasn’t even on the list. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee topped that roster.

And Cheney, who already decided once not to run when President Bush’s term expired, says he has zero interest in returning to politics. Cheney also has had four heart attacks and would be 71 in 2012.

“Why would I want to do that?” he said in a recent interview with Politico.com. “It’s been a hell of a tour. I’ve loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.”

The man whose extensive career took him from chief of staff under President Gerald Ford to member of Congress to defense secretary to vice president has what appears to be a more satisfying vocation: defending George W. Bush’s administration against any and all attacks from the Obama administration. He’s gone from the shadows of the Bush administration to the glaring spotlight of the interview and lecture circuit.

When Obama started the process of closing Guantanamo Bay and limiting CIA interrogation methods, Cheney blasted him.

When Attorney General Eric Holder decided to begin a probe into Bush-era CIA interrogations, Cheney blasted him.

When White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the new national security team had to start from scratch with Afghanistan because the Bush administration left it “adrift,” Cheney blasted him — and accused Obama of “dithering.”

When Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 conspirators would be tried in a civilian court on American soil, Cheney blasted him.

He’s also dabbled in playing kingmaker, or queenmaker, endorsing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the race for Texas governor over incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Scott Stanzel, former deputy press secretary to Bush, said Cheney will probably never be convinced to run for president.

“I don’t believe that Dick Cheney has any desire to run for office again and I take him at his word,” Stanzel said, adding that he’s “very influential” in the role he’s already in.

“There are a lot of people out there who feel strongly about his service, but that’s not to say they are advocating for him to run for president,” he said. “I do not think his desire is to define the Republican Party. … He is almost solely focused on defending the policies of the Bush administration.”

Cheney is certainly able to get a rise out of Democrats almost every time he rebuts.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Vice President Joe Biden have both slammed back at Cheney. After Cheney claimed the president was projecting “weakness” in a recent interview by “agonizing” over his war plan, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that Cheney’s got little room to talk.

“They started something,” Hoyer said of the Bush administration. “Frankly, they turned tail. I get pretty angry when I hear the vice president talk about something they didn’t finish.”

And the idea of Cheney running has generated a slew of punchy, Chuck Norris joke-esque slogans on the Internet, including: “I know what the hell I’m doing” and “I already control everything — let’s just make it official” and “The only time I’ll bow before a foreign leader is in preparation for an uppercut.”

After Cheney’s daughter, Liz, casually, and perhaps jokingly threw out the idea of “Cheney 2012” on “Fox News Sunday” last month, comedian Jay Leno chimed in on the idea:

“In fact, that’s apparently in the Mayan calendar too, you know. Cheney becomes president, and then the whole world ends. That’s exactly what happens,” he said. Bu-dum-ching.

So late-night comedy would surely have no problem with a Cheney bid taking off. That’s material.

But Barron said the attention Cheney receives just goes to show how influential he is and could be as a candidate.

“Every time Dick Cheney speaks, it grabs the attention of the entire party and the entire country,” he said.

While the Post poll showed him with scant public backing, another November poll conducted by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair showed 10 percent of people view Cheney as the country’s most influential conservative voice — the same percentage that Palin drew. Radio host Rush Limbaugh was the top pick, with 26 percent.

Barron is planning an all-fronts campaign to push his candidate. He plans to have a presence at the Conservative Political Action Conference meeting next year. His group is on Facebook and Twitter and is selling an array of merchandise from “Draft Dick Cheney 2012” mouse pads to coffee mugs to bumper stickers to shirts. Barron said he’ll move next to travel to events sponsored by the conservative Tea Party activists to try to attract more followers.

It’s unclear whether he’ll find an audience. While the Tea Party crowd got involved in the upstate New York Congressional District 23 race to support third-party candidate Doug Hoffman — who narrowly lost — the activists are more focused on pushing conservative economic policy than the hawkish foreign policy that Cheney represents.

“He’s just not a name that comes up one way or the other,” said Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican Tea Party activist in Atlanta. “He’s just not quite on our radar and what we’re focusing on right now.”

I presented the article in it’s entirety here, but if you would like to visit the original it is here:  FOXNews.com – Draft Cheney? Conservatives Have Competing Visions Over Former VP’s Role

OK, when I first saw this headline, I actually chuckled a little bit to myself. After all, I recall that when Hillary ran for President, the Republicans had a firm grasp on the concept that she actually had a lot of “negative” ratings, meaning that regardless of who she ran against, over 50% of the country said they would not vote for her. I agreed with the Republicans on that point. I did not feel that she could overcome those negatives and win a general election. The Democratic party knew it to, which is why they made sure the charismatic nobody ended up getting the nomination.

Surely this same Republican party is not silly enough to think that Dick Cheney has a higher “negative” percentage than Hillary Clinton. I would think that Cheney has a lower amount of people that would support him against anyone else than Hillary had. In fact, the only person I think Cheney could win a general election against would be Nancy Pelosi. My bet is that she has the highest number of negative ratings of anyone in politics, worse than Bush or Cheney. But I digress.

I do believe that this is a non-starter. Cheney is a pretty smart guy, and he is as aware of this as we are. Not to mention that I don’t think he want to put himself back in a position where he has to care about people’s reaction to what he says. He likes that he is free to blast away now. And I don’t think he would even begin to entertain the idea of entering himself in a Presidential race.

And to be honest, I like Cheney right where he is. Don’t get me wrong, I think he would tear Barack Obama apart in a Presidential debate. I think Cheney is a tell it like it is guy (or tell it like he wants you to believe it is). He is straightforward, smart, and as the article alludes to, he has been in the political game for a very long time. But I prefer to have him out there just ripping the President a new one whenever needed. I like the fact that he is out there calling the Democrats on the complete lines of bullshit that they are shoveling to the American people. Let him stay right there doing that, where he can do some good.

But the real question I want to discuss comes in the form of the discussion that article begins to have about how Cheney is one of the very few people of stature that really represent the true Republican base. Specifically, the article states, “he’s the only one with the experience and conservative credentials necessary to lead the party at a critical juncture in its quest for identity and dominance.” It further states that a poll over who is the most influential Republican leader had him and Palin at 10% and Rush Limbaugh at 26%. There is a scary thought.

Does it really matter who is the most influential leader in the Republican party any longer? I know that some of the party’s past key points still resonate with many Americans. There are lots of anti-abortion folks out there. But I think fewer of them are in that stance for purely religious reasons than was the case in the past. I think many folks are in that stance because they follow their logic as opposed to because their priest told them that abortion is wrong. And I also believe that a lot of the “smaller government” folks who used to rely on the Republican party are also abandoning the anti-abortion stance because they embrace a concept of individual liberty that doesn’t allow them to dictate to others. And they are abandoning the party altogether because they have found that the party doesn’t really believe in smaller government.

I know that there are some communities where this is not true, but it also seems to me that religion in general is losing its influence in America. Certainly, the majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians, roughly 70% if I remember correctly. But I feel like far fewer people are regular every Sunday church goers than when I was a kid. In fact, it feels like a vast majority of those age 20-40 have no real tie to the church anymore. And I think that this is reflected in the waning power of the christian right in the political spectrum. There are still tens of millions going to church, but not nearly in the numbers of even two decades ago.

This is backed up by the numbers that I could find from several sites, most of them being religion sites that are concerned about declining numbers. In general the number of people identifying themselves as Christian has dropped from 86% in 1990 to roughly 70% in 2006, more than a percentage point drop a year. Membership in churches has dropped steadily for decades, and at the current rates of change, they estimate that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christian will fall below 50% by the year 2035.

The religious right controlled the Republican party for a very long time. And with religion slipping so rapidly in America, I begin to wonder what the majority of Americans are going to move to. And that brings me to that statement that someone like Cheney, Palin, or Limbaugh represent the true base of the Republican party. That may be true, but if it is true, is the Republican party a fair representative of the American people any longer? Forget the argument that neither party in power truly represents the people… we all know I feel that way. But as a realistic approach, the Democrats in general seem to represent a large portion of the American population. I am not sure that I can say the same if Palin or Limbaugh are who they hold up as the ideal.

And that brings up another point, and that is the stance we see becoming a louder call from the two parties. The outright proclamation that they are going to use all their power to run out of town anyone running in their party who does not represent the “true core” of the party. Democrats want to eliminate the “blue dogs” because they don’t hold the hard far left line. Republicans want to eliminate the moderate Republicans because they have the audacity to be “liberal” on some social issues. Many years ago, the first time I began to question whether I should be a Republican was when I was told I wasn’t a “real” Republican by a major party leader because of my stances on abortion and gay marriage.

So what does everyone think? Is the Republican party as we know it dead? Are the core conservative values that the Republican party intends to hold all candidates to ones that the majority of Americans share any longer. If the Republican party sticks to the idea that people like Palin, Cheney, and Limbaugh are the true representatives of their core values, will they ever see themselves again rising to the level of influence of the Reagan years? I think the Republicans will win back control in 2010, but it will be because American is rejecting the Democrats as opposed to embracing the Republicans. Will it be a temporary surge, or am I way off base on judging the mindset of America?

Trends among U.S. Christians

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning All!

    Posting for email comments. On the short, I think a large number of Americans are fed up with both political parties. Niether can represent anymore!

    G!

    • Ditto. Finally caught up. Didn’t expect that missing two weeks would put me behind by three months.

  2. Well this is interesting.

    I would vote for Cheney, but only because he’d probably shoot me in the face if I didn’t. Palin would probably shoot me from a helicopters, so she has my vote too. Limbaugh, not to much.

    That said, it’s easy to espouse “core” values when you don’t have to actually govern anything. It’s easy for Cheney, Palin, Limbaugh and others to say “I would have done that differently” when they don’t have to actually do anything.

    It disturbs me that, collectively, 46% (10+10+26) think these three represent True Republicans. It does not bode well.

    And a happy Monday to all. Just remember, it’s almost Friday!

    • v. Holland says:

      I’m curious do you think President Obama represents true democrats?

      • I’ll tell you, I’m not entirely sure what a True Democrat is.

        I think it’s a misnomer. I think that there Democrat is a big tent that encompasses a lot of viewpoints. Likewise Republican is one too. We start running into problems when certain parts of the tent define themselves as the “true” individuals and relegate everyone else to a “fake” title (RINO, anyone?). The hubris is staggering and is indicative of a looming problem and purity purges.

        • Matt:

          Serious question here.

          Why is “purity” of principles a problem?

          Should not a political party stand for something and then discourage all who do not hold that something of equal importance?

          • People are different, JAC. I do not believe as you do. You do not believe as I do. We can ally ourselves when we have common cause – this is the essence of a political party. If the Republicans alienate all the RINOs, then the Republican party only weakens itself. I would have no problem with this, except that the Democrats will fill the void. And either party having unchecked power is not a good thing.

            Further, if the “pure” ideology in question were defined solely by logic, I could understand the urge, but it is not. The Republicans, like their left-leaning counterparts, have their idiosyncrasies and pet causes. Thus it is the individuals who decide what’s pure, and they are not necessarily on the right side. They kick out everyone who disagrees with them and find themselves in an echo chamber. How is anyone well served by that?

          • Who are you, who am I, who is anyone, to decide that they alone know the truth? That they alone hold the correct beliefs and that everyone else is a political heretic?

            If my small group of Mathius-ites hijack the Democratic party and somehow boot the Blue Dogs, what is the logical extension of action? What happens next?

            • v. Holland says:

              Quick question-aren’t the blue dog democrats the reps in your party who are trying to actually stay more in the middle?

            • Matt:

              You DID NOT answer the questions.

              It does not matter whether I am right. It matters not whether I use logic or rely on mysticism. If I start a party and I set down the principles for that party I will not accept members who disagree with some of those principles. And you have not explained why I should, or why I am wrong to stand on my priniciples.

              They can start their own party.

              You are in a trap and don’t seem to notice. Your argument is in fact the problem. Create two parties large enough and pliable enough to garner almost a majority and you are able to maintain control of the people. It does not garner compromise it creates arrogance. And worse, it fosters immoral behavior. Everyone must sacrifice some of their principles to “get along”.

              For compromise to occur there needs to be both distinct differences and a few shared goals. That is best accomplished by different groups, not within a group trying to be all things to all people.

              And what happens next is the Blue Dogs start their own party, as do the Rino’s. Hell, maybe they are the same and start a single party.

              Political parties are long lasting. They should stand on a solid foundation that is a prerequisite for membership. Compromise occurs on issues where needed to deal with other groups (parties), not on the membership within the group.

              • I see your point, but you’re not seeing mine. From a purely theoretical standpoint, I agree, but as a practical matter, you can’t get anything done without a large membership.

                So if one side dismantles into factions, the other side is going to go nuts. Everyone loses.

                The Republicans can split into the ideologically pure Tea Partiers and moderates, but the Democrats won’t. They’ll stay together (or at least as together as they are at the moment). They’ll ride roughshod over the moderates and then what?

              • Matt:

                I think I totally see your point.

                However, this is a false assumption:

                “From a purely theoretical standpoint, I agree, but as a practical matter, you can’t get anything done without a large membership.”

                It’s called negotiation and compromise on issues with shared interest in resolving.

                But on the other hand, what is wrong with getting NOTHING done?

                If enough people of differing views can not agree then there should be NO AGREEMENT.

                You are once again trying to resolve this conflict by looking at the end, an assumption that we must all get along.

                Instead, start with a strong moral, principled foundation. Your principle can not be one of “get along” because that is no principle at all. It is certainly not founded in reason or logic.

            • Hey Mathias,
              Quick question for you, being the modern liberal type guy around here. Would you be in support of a more “federalist”-type government? I’ve never asked an intelligent liberal this question before and I am curious about your thoughts on this, If you don’t mind.
              –Sorry about the minor hijack, but you response to JAC caused me to think about it.

              Stay Safe,
              Displaced Okie

              • You know, it’s complicated. On some matters, a strong central government is essential (ie national defense). On others, it makes a lot of sense to distribute the responsibilities of Government. Texas is not, obviously, the same as California – and the applicable laws and enforcement should reflect that. So yes, I can appreciate the appeal.

                On the other hand, I think that a strong central government can sometimes act as a father figure and make the kids place nice or obey the rules. We would be desegregating South Carolina right about now if it weren’t for Federal power. Michigan would be polluting its neighbors. California would drain the Colorado river dry.

                So, on balance, I am in favor, with some major caveats.

              • Thanks for the reply.

                But Don’t you think that those issues between the states could be solved by states taking other states to court?
                I always thought that was the way the system was set up.

                As far as things like slavery and desegraga-tion, I think one could make case for those being federal issues, becuase of the original intent of the founders was justice and equal protection for all under the law. Now they might not of agreed who “all” was then, but they left us ways to correct that.

                Stay Safe,
                Displaced Okie

              • Matt

                In your quest for humor you have unknowingly revealed the reality of the STATIST mindset.

                “….I think that a strong central government can sometimes act as a father figure and make the kids place nice or obey the rules.”

              • Ironically, no humor was intended in that statement.

                And now, if you’ll excuse me, I find myself suddenly snowed under at work. Play nice in my absence.

              • Will do…but I hope we can conitinue this later as there is a very important point at stake.

  3. I see the issue of trust being the one that America is mad about. I think that both parties are guilty of saying what their base wants to hear then doing something completely different when in office. The behind closed doors etc is what I think has people fed up with both parties.

    Plus I think that there are more people in the middle than both parties would like to see or care to admit to themselves.

    For example: My brother calls himself a solid conservative. He wants spending under control, he is pro life, he wants the immgration issue firmly dealt with. But he also thinks gay marriage should be legal, he thinks Dont Ask, Dont Tell is a terrible law, believing anyone serving our country should not be kicked out due to being gay.
    So he doesnt fall under either one of those parties.

    I do think that Democrats will lose in 2010, but not because people like the other side any better. But I think people dont like one party being in complete control across the board.

    Just my thoughts

    • Ellen,

      Good observations, makes me wonder a bit. Was Bush a hard right Republican, or was that just how the media portrayed him? They were able to pass Obama as a moderate, with experience, but Palin as an extremist with no real experience (and shouldn’t the comparison have been McCain/Obama)?

      I think you are correct, that most people would meet in the middle on most issues, but the parties and the media will not allow. Obama met Sunday with Democratic Senators, excluding Republicans and the media. No CSPAN coverage. And the media has decided its not newsworthy, despite it being another Obama promise broken, again.

      The only chance we have to change things will be thru Tea Parties, Project 9/12, GOOOH, and using the internet to bypass the media.

    • Good observations Ellen. I also agree with a power shift back to the republicans, just so the little guys can slow this monster down. IF we can get two parties involved in health care and cap and tax and many other items like these, we as the little guy in effect have slowed them down, but when one party goes behind closed doors and rams legislation through in a matter of months with unrealistic deadlines, it scares even staunch liberals into voting against their party at least for the interm and the time for this is in 2010. of course the power will only be shared for awhile and the dems will rule again shortly after.

      I hear from a lot of dems who see this no transperency form of goverment where one party rams stuff even their constituents are against down their thoats and they didnt sign up for this and are seething. A 1000 page health care bill was shot down by the people as being to big and complicated and expensive, so they go behind closed doors and come out with a 2000 page bill with twice as many taxes embedded and much more punitive laws. Even staunch liberals can see this and will hold their nose and vote for repubs in 2010.

  4. Bottom Line says:

    Mr. Weapon,

    Thank you for providing us with SUFA. Thank you for taking the time in spite of your busy capitalistic consumer driven retail oriented holiday schedule.

    @#$% Cheney.

    $#%@ his friends, his political party, everyone that has supported his career, everything he did while VP, everything I am forgetting to mention, and the horse he rode in on too.

    Cheney, The Republicratic Party, The Demopublican Party, 5?5, etc..

    …can all go crawl in a big hole somewhere and commit suicide for all I care.

    Aside from that which falls under Mathius’s first law, they are the greater portion of the problem. So much of what they have done for the last hundred years or so is what caused this mess. The world is better off without them. And since the world wants to buy into their rhetorical horse sh*it and continue to accept the status quo,…we’re all utterly skrood.

    This realization is what prompts my boredom with any arguably centripetal conversation about parties.

    Yawn—

    Unless we the people(among MANY other things)figure an expeditious way to render the parties irrelevant, we’re up a creek.

    Have the Republicrats fallen out of the mainstream?

    I certainly hope so. I hope they both do.

    Thanx, Have a nice day,

    BL

    • Kristian Stout says:

      Well BL tell us how you really feel honey! LOL

      • Bottom Line says:

        Yeah I know.

        I woke up a little rambunctous and half cocked.

        A picture of Cheney wearing a cowboy hat, more pointless circular partisan rhetoric from the media, and the infinate stupidity of those that are so out of touch that they actually advocate putting Cheney back into office…

        …was enough to trigger a rant.

        • You can add that to your list. I think it’s #6: F*** Cheney.

          +53 points = -108 total.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Yeah Matt,

            That’s #6. lol.

            1. womens tennis
            2. people are stupid
            3. fight club
            4. matrix
            5. inedible gold
            6. %#$@ Cheney

            -108 isn’t that bad considering I was once at like negative 100 trillion. lol

        • Kristian Stout says:

          Your response just tickled me. I had my boss looking at me sideways trying to figure out what I was laughing so hard at.

          • Bottom Line says:

            I’m stupid.

            I just realized you were talking to me. I’ve been a bit distracted today.

            I’m glad I could bring a laugh and a smile to your day.

    • BL

      Don’t make them irrelevant.

      Make the parties more relevant, by making them represent the people who share the same principled values.

      More parties, greater representation.

      Less crap passes congress.

      Only the really big stuff would ever get done. The stuff that has a higer value to many of the groups as opposed to just many in one group.

      The value of Liberty does not allow us to elimnate political parties, but it would allow us to break up the monopolies of the two that exist. Guaranteed equal access to all parties would be consistant with Liberty and Justice for All.

      There’s always more than one way to skin a beast.

      Best O the Best to Ya.
      JAC

      • Bottom Line says:

        I agree with the idea of more parties. It would be nice to see a half a dozen or more.

        If there were a way to redeem the two parties, I would say sure, keep ’em. But At this point, I don’t see it happening. I don’t trust them. They’ve had plenty of chances already. I’m done with ’em for good. Not that I was ever for either of them really. The parties’ interests are no longer the same as what the peoples’ they are supposed to represent. Their purpose is moot as they no longer perform in a representative fashion.

        I say ditch ’em both and replace them with 6 or 8 other parties. Even no parties is better than corrupt parties. Whatever, just NOT what we have now. So long as it’s representative of the will of the people and the constitution, I don’t care what ya call it. Call it the checkerboard purple plad poka-dotted retarded transfestite drunken polar bear monkey slappin’ rock eaters society, for all I care.

  5. posting for comments

  6. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good Morning Everyone

    All I’m going to say is, these politicians will have to go out of their way, way out of their way, and prove to me that I can ever believe or trust any of them about what they say they will do. All I ever hear anymore is, promises, promises, promises, and not one of them kept, except to raise taxes, and to keep raising them until we are taxed to death. Oh, wait, never mind, they’re keeping that one too, we’re already being taxed on that.

    Sorry for the change of subject here, and don’t know about anybody else, but it snowed like crazy here last night, and it’s still snowing out. Have at least a foot of snow around here, and it’s suppose to snow for most of the day, and it’s damn cold too.

    Hope you all will have a good day today.

    Take Care.

    Judy

  7. Judy Sabatini says:

    By the way, I did forget to mention, that today marks the 68th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. God rest the souls of those who perished that terrible day.

    God Bless those few survivors we have left.

  8. First….hats off to Pearl Harbor and the many that lost lives that day. You are remembered.

    Second….the Republican Party, as it stands now, is not mainstream. (Direct enough?)

    Third….the Democratic Party, as it stands now, is not mainstream. (Direct enough?)

    Fourth….There is no current political party that represents the mainstream today. I have found that most of the friends that I have that did vote for the current administration are exasperated and are scratching their collective heads and wondering why they stepped out of the frying pan into the fire.

    Fifth….These same people, and I as well, have noticed that tea parties do work and that letters and emails and showing up works.

    Sixth….I do not believe that the current system will survive the 2010 elections. I do not really care whom is President. But I do care who is in charge of Congress. I think it is best for this country to be split in the house and Senate. I hope that the republicans win enough seats to defeat the filibuster proof Congress.

    Seventh….as it now stands, I feel that it is better to be in grid lock right now and let the country pull itself out of this mess. Our economy will recover just fine if the politicians stay out of it.

    Eighth…..there is ONLY one way to do this now. Vote the SOB’s out of office. The vote put them in…the vote takes them out. Armed resurrection is out of the subject. Throwing books on the fire does not do it either. Hypothesizing does not do it. Rebel rousing without action does not do it. Talking with no action does not do it. Refusing to vote to “punish” whatever does not do it. The vote does do it. It is the ONLY thing that will do it. If you wish not to vote as a protest…that is your right (courtesy of the US armed Forces). If you complain about the process without voting….that is your right (courtesy of the United States Armed Forces). So far it is your freedom of choice to protest however you wish….but not voting to take part and not voting to change our system and not taking part to change what you don’t like…..well, you may be alive and it is your freedom….but have you fulfilled your responsibility to yourself, your family, and your country. Only YOU can answer that. To just lay low and let the system fail and then be there to pick up the pieces in a profitable fashion, as has been implied by some, is predatory and makes you no better than the ones that have caused it. THAT is my observation and MY opinion from a lame brained retired Colonel who knows nothing. ( Direct enough ?)

  9. It is interesting how the world centers on Washington.

    Tomorrow, the 8th, is actually the day of the attack. Hawaii is on the other side of the dateline and it was attacked @ 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time – December 8.

    But since Washington was still on the 7th day of December, that is the “day of infamy”.

    • What? I think you have your time zones mixed up. Hawaii is 6 or 7 hours behind Washington. Hawaii is never before Washington time-wise…

      The attach occurred at around 7am local time in Hawaii. It was around 1pm eastern time. Both on December 7th.

      • I stand corrected.

        Dec. 8th, Japanese time.
        Dec. 7th, Hawaiian time.

        Thanks, Todd.

        • I still contend that the Earth is flat. This whole time-zone thing, therefore, is very odd to me.

          • Kristian Stout says:

            You know, I don’t watch comedy tv anymore, I can come here and get all the laughs I need. You guys make all of this political crap a little more bearable than it might otherwise be. Thanks guys, I appreciate it! 😉

            • Kritian….you are catching us on an off day..it gets a lot better than this….sometimes I can take Mathius on and it is comical…but today….lord only knows why….I agree with him…boggles the mind…

              For Matt: throw me…yes ME…in the category of Go home Cheney…you have had your fifteen minutes and fourteen of it was too long. Points here? Come on Matt…you have never given me points…cough up at least one.

              • I may not have said as much, but you have lots of points. I keep the tally on a chalkboard here in my office.

                +10 points = 217

              • A 10 pointer…cool. Thanks. 🙂

              • Kristian Stout says:

                I’ve seen you guys put out some really funny threads. You both should consider going on the road. I love to come here for a lot of reasons but one of the biggest is to see what you and Mathius are going to come up with next.

  10. Public awareness of Washington’s ongoing behavior will give rise to another party(s). It won’t happen in time for 2010, perhaps by 2012. The parties and leaders of such are trying to hold onto their relevance, and in some cases trying to take ownership of tea partiers and 912’ers et al, since they too, see these groups as a huge threat to their existence.

    Cheney won’t run and everyone knows it (although I too would love to see BO try to debate him). I like him on the sidelines ruffling feathers.

    The WH is losing control and the pressure from all sides continues to build. This weekend’s behavior of heading to the hill to offer bribes and blackmail for health care votes is an example. Heading to Copenhagen and now attending at the end of the meeting to give away $$ and sign away who knows what is another example. The puppet’s strings are getting yanked harder and harder and it will be interesting and scary to see when it will finally explode.

    • v. Holland says:

      Funny isn’t it that he takes so much time making decisions like Afghanistan but climategate happens or people start questioning heath care and that seems to engender a rush to get things done. Sorta makes one question what is true motivations are, or at least it should.

      • You’re right. This “citizen” is wasting precious time debating where to send our troops. They are Christian warriors. We should be sending them in by the hundreds of thousands, immediately, and THEN make a plan. In fact, I think this time spent planning is socialist. We should put our people in there, and let the free market of the battlefield determine the best solution.

        V. Holland is correct. Health care is happening instantly, without any debate, while precious months were wasted planning a war. We didn’t waste any time planning World War II. We just went in, beat Hitler, and nuked Japan. Climategate almost found a study that contradicts thousands–literally THOUSANDS–of independently published lientist articles. This is what America needs to focus on. Especially Demoncrats.

        • v. Holland says:

          If I have misinterpreted your remarks, accept my apologies, if not would you like to actually talk are do you prefer to just drip with sarcasm.

  11. Two Thread HiJacks…

    1) I’m looking for a new email service. I don’t trust Google. Can anyone recommend a service that respects my privacy?

    2) Requiem for Dollar…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574575761660481996.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

    Ben S. Bernanke doesn’t know how lucky he is. Tongue-lashings from Bernie Sanders, the populist senator from Vermont, are one thing. The hangman’s noose is another. Section 19 of this country’s founding monetary legislation, the Coinage Act of 1792, prescribed the death penalty for any official who fraudulently debased the people’s money. Was the massive printing of dollar bills to lift Wall Street (and the rest of us, too) off the rocks last year a kind of fraud? If the U.S. Senate so determines, it may send Mr. Bernanke back home to Princeton. But not even Ron Paul, the Texas Republican sponsor of a bill to subject the Fed to periodic congressional audits, is calling for the Federal Reserve chairman’s head.

    I wonder, though, just how far we have really come in the past 200-odd years. To give modernity its due, the dollar has cut a swath in the world. There’s no greater success story in the long history of money than the common greenback. Of no intrinsic value, collateralized by nothing, it passes from hand to trusting hand the world over. More than half of the $923 billion’s worth of currency in circulation is in the possession of foreigners.

    View Full Image

    Associated Press

    President Richard M. Nixon after his Aug. 15, 1971, speech which established that dollars could not be exchanged for gold.
    In ancient times, the solidus circulated far and wide. But it was a tangible thing, a gold coin struck by the Byzantine Empire. Between Waterloo and the Great Depression, the pound sterling ruled the roost. But it was convertible into gold—slip your bank notes through a teller’s window and the Bank of England would return the appropriate number of gold sovereigns. The dollar is faith-based. There’s nothing behind it but Congress.

    But now the world is losing faith, as well it might. It’s not that the dollar is overvalued—economists at Deutsche Bank estimate it’s 20% too cheap against the euro. The problem lies with its management. The greenback is a glorious old brand that’s looking more and more like General Motors.

    You get the strong impression that Mr. Bernanke fails to appreciate the tenuousness of the situation—fails to understand that the pure paper dollar is a contrivance only 38 years old, brand new, really, and that the experiment may yet come to naught. Indeed, history and mathematics agree that it will certainly come to naught. Paper currencies are wasting assets. In time, they lose all their value. Persistent inflation at even seemingly trifling amounts adds up over the course of half a century. Before you know it, that bill in your wallet won’t buy a pack of gum.

    For most of this country’s history, the dollar was exchangeable into gold or silver. “Sound” money was the kind that rang when you dropped it on a counter. For a long time, the rate of exchange was an ounce of gold for $20.67. Following the Roosevelt devaluation of 1933, the rate of exchange became an ounce of gold for $35. After 1933, only foreign governments and central banks were privileged to swap unwanted paper for gold, and most of these official institutions refrained from asking (after 1946, it seemed inadvisable to antagonize the very superpower that was standing between them and the Soviet Union). By the late 1960s, however, some of these overseas dollar holders, notably France, began to clamor for gold. They were well-advised to do so, dollars being in demonstrable surplus. President Richard Nixon solved that problem in August 1971 by suspending convertibility altogether. From that day to this, in the words of John Exter, Citibanker and monetary critic, a Federal Reserve “note” has been an “IOU nothing.”

    From the Solidus to the Euro
    A guide to currencies through the ages.

    Solidus

    Art Resource, NY

    A gold coin introduced around A.D. 310, early in the reign of Emperor Constantine I. In the Byzantine currency system, it was the prime coin against which other coins could be exchanged and was used in international trade and major payrolls. Its use continued into the 11th century, when Constantine IX began debasing it.
    Pound sterling

    Getty Images

    The U.K. currency is the oldest currency still in use. Its paper form was introduced when the Bank of England was formed in 1694.

    Dollar

    American Numismatic Society

    The Coinage Act of 1792 affirmed the dollar as the U.S. currency unit and specified that each was to equal the value of the Spanish milled dollar and was to contain 371 4/16 grains of pure, or 416 grains of standard, silver.
    Euro

    Deutsche Bundesbank/Getty Images

    This common currency for 16 European Union countries launched on Jan. 1, 1999, replacing, among others, Italy’s lira, Germany’s Deutsche mark and France’s franc. The euro erased most of Western Europe’s monetary borders.

    To understand the scrape we are in, it may help, a little, to understand the system we left behind. A proper gold standard was a well-oiled machine. The metal actually moved and, so moving, checked what are politely known today as “imbalances.” Say a certain baseball-loving North American country were running a persistent trade deficit. Under the monetary system we don’t have and which only a few are yet even talking about instituting, the deficit country would remit to its creditors not pieces of easily duplicable paper but scarce gold bars. Gold was money—is, in fact, still money—and the loss would set in train a series of painful but necessary adjustments in the country that had been watching baseball instead of making things to sell. Interest rates would rise in that deficit country. Its prices would fall, its credit would be curtailed, its exports would increase and its imports decrease. At length, the deficit country would be restored to something like competitive trim. The gold would come sailing back to where it started. As it is today, dollars are piled higher and higher in the vaults of America’s Asian creditors. There’s no adjustment mechanism, only recriminations and the first suggestion that, from the creditors’ point of view, enough is enough.

    So in 1971, the last remnants of the gold standard were erased. And a good thing, too, some economists maintain. The high starched collar of a gold standard prolonged the Great Depression, they charge; it would likely have deepened our Great Recession, too. Virtue’s the thing for prosperity, they say; in times of trouble, give us the Ben S. Bernanke school of money conjuring. There are many troubles with this notion. For one thing, there is no single gold standard. The version in place in the 1920s, known as the gold-exchange standard, was almost as deeply flawed as the post-1971 paper-dollar system. As for the Great Recession, the Bernanke method itself was a leading cause of our troubles. Constrained by the discipline of a convertible currency, the U.S. would have had to undergo the salutary, unpleasant process described above to cure its trade deficit. But that process of correction would—I am going to speculate—have saved us from the near-death financial experience of 2008. Under a properly functioning gold standard, the U.S. would not have been able to borrow itself to the threshold of the poorhouse.

    Anyway, starting in the early 1970s, American monetary policy came to resemble a game of tennis without the net. Relieved of the irksome inhibition of gold convertibility, the Fed could stop worrying about the French. To be sure, it still had Congress to answer to, and the financial markets, as well. But no more could foreigners come calling for the collateral behind the dollar, because there was none. The nets came down on Wall Street, too. As the idea took hold that the Fed could meet any serious crisis by carpeting the nation with dollar bills, bankers and brokers took more risks. New forms of business organization encouraged more borrowing. New inflationary vistas opened.

    Not that the architects of the post-1971 game set out to lower the nets. They believed they’d put up new ones. In place of such gold discipline as remained under Bretton Woods—in truth, there wasn’t much—markets would be the monetary judges and juries. The late Walter Wriston, onetime chairman of Citicorp, said that the world had traded up. In place of a gold standard, it now had an “information standard.” Buyers and sellers of the Treasury’s notes and bonds, on the one hand, or of dollars, yen, Deutschemarks, Swiss francs, on the other, would ride herd on the Fed. You’d know when the central bank went too far because bond yields would climb or the dollar exchange rate would fall. Gold would trade like any other commodity, but nobody would pay attention to it.

    I check myself a little in arraigning the monetary arrangements that have failed us so miserably these past two years. The lifespan of no monetary system since 1880 has been more than 30 or 40 years, including that of my beloved classical gold standard, which perished in 1914. The pure paper dollar regime has been a long time dying. It was no good portent when the tellers’ bars started coming down from neighborhood bank branches. The uncaged teller was a sign that Americans had began to conceive an elevated opinion of the human capacity to manage financial risk. There were other evil omens. In 1970, Wall Street partnerships began to convert to limited liability corporations—Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette was the first to make the leap, Goldman Sachs, among the last, in 1999. In a partnership, the owners are on the line for everything they have in case of the firm’s bankruptcy. No such sword of Damocles hangs over the top executives of a corporation. The bankers and brokers incorporated because they felt they needed more capital, more scale, more technology—and, of course, more leverage.

    In no phase of American monetary history was every banker so courageous and farsighted as Isaias W. Hellman, a progenitor of an institution called Farmers & Merchants Bank and of another called Wells Fargo. Operating in southern California in the late 1880s, Hellman arrived at the conclusion that the Los Angeles real-estate market was a bubble. So deciding—the prices of L.A. business lots had climbed to $5,000 from $500 in one short year—he stopped lending. The bubble burst, and his bank prospered. Safety and soundness was Hellman’s motto. He and his depositors risked their money side-by-side. The taxpayers didn’t subsidize that transaction, not being a party to it.

    In this crisis, of course, with latter-day Hellmans all too scarce in the banking population, the taxpayers have born an unconscionable part of the risk. Wells Fargo itself passed the hat for $25 billion. Hellmans are scarce because the federal government has taken away their franchise. There’s no business value in financial safety when the government bails out the unsafe. And by bailing out a scandalously large number of unsafe institutions, the government necessarily puts the dollar at risk. In money, too, the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone. Debased banks mean a debased currency (perhaps causation works in the other direction, too).

    Many contended for the hubris prize in the years leading up to the sorrows of 2008, but the Fed beat all comers. Under Mr. Bernanke, as under his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, our central bank preached the doctrine of stability. The Fed would iron out the business cycle, promote full employment, pour oil on the waters of any and every major financial crisis and assure stable prices. In particular, under the intellectual leadership of Mr. Bernanke, the Fed would tolerate no sagging of the price level. It would insist on a decent minimum of inflation. It staked out this position in the face of the economic opening of China and India and the spread of digital technology. To the common-sense observation that these hundreds of millions of willing new hands, and gadgets, might bring down prices at Wal-Mart, the Fed turned a deaf ear. It would save us from “deflation” by generating a sweet taste of inflation (not too much, just enough). And it would perform these feats of macroeconomic management by pushing a single interest rate up or down.

    It was implausible enough in the telling and has turned out no better in the doing. Nor is there any mystery why. The Fed’s M.O. is price control. It fixes the basic money market interest rate, known as the federal funds rate. To arrive at the proper rate, the monetary mandarins conduct their research, prepare their forecast—and take a wild guess, just like the rest of us. Since December 2008, the Fed has imposed a funds rate of 0% to 0.25%. Since March of 2009, it has bought just over $1 trillion of mortgage-backed securities and $300 billion of Treasurys. It has acquired these assets in the customary central-bank manner, i.e., by conjuring into existence the money to pay for them. Yet—a measure of the nation’s lingering problems—the broadly defined money supply isn’t growing but dwindling.

    The Fed’s miniature interest rates find favor with debtors, disfavor with savers (that doughty band). All may agree, however, that the bond market has lost such credibility it once had as a monetary-policy voting machine. Whether or not the Fed is cranking too hard on the dollar printing press is, for professional dealers and investors, a moot point. With the cost of borrowing close to zero, they are happy as clams (that is, they can finance their inventories of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities at virtually no cost). The U.S. government securities market has been conscripted into the economic-stimulus program.

    Neither are the currency markets the founts of objective monetary information they perhaps used to be. The euro trades freely, but the Chinese yuan is under the thumb of the People’s Republic. It tells you nothing about the respective monetary policies of the People’s Bank and the Fed to observe that it takes 6.831 yuan to make a dollar. It’s the exchange rate that Beijing wants.

    On the matter of comparative monetary policies, the most expressive market is the one that the Fed isn’t overtly manipulating. Though Treasury yields might as well be frozen, the gold price is soaring (it lost altitude on Friday). Why has it taken flight? Not on account of an inflation problem. Gold is appreciating in terms of all paper currencies—or, alternatively, paper currencies are depreciating in terms of gold—because the world is losing faith in the tenets of modern central banking. Correctly, the dollar’s vast non-American constituency understands that it counts for nothing in the councils of the Fed and the Treasury. If 0% interest rates suit the U.S. economy, 0% will be the rate imposed. Then, too, gold is hard to find and costly to produce. You can materialize dollars with the tap of a computer key.

    Let me interrupt myself to say that I am not now making a bullish investment case for gold (I happen to be bullish, but it’s only an opinion). The trouble with 0% interest rates is that they instigate speculation in almost every asset that moves (and when such an immense market as that in Treasury securities isn’t allowed to move, the suppressed volatility finds different outlets). By practicing price, or interest-rate, control, the Bank of Bernanke fosters a kind of alternative financial reality. Let the buyer beware—of just about everything.

    A proper gold standard promotes balance in the financial and commercial affairs of participating nations. The pure paper system promotes and perpetuates imbalances. Not since 1976 has this country consumed less than it produced (as measured by the international trade balance): a deficit of 32 years and counting. Why has the shortfall persisted for so long? Because the U.S., uniquely, is allowed to pay its bills in the currency that only it may lawfully print. We send it west, to the central banks of our Asian creditors. And they, obligingly, turn right around and invest the dollars in America’s own securities. It’s as if the money never left home. Stop to ask yourself, American reader: Is any other nation on earth so blessed as we?

    There is, however, a rub. The Asian central banks do not acquire their dollars with nothing. Rather, they buy them with the currency that they themselves print. Some of this money they manage to sweep under the rug, or “sterilize,” but a good bit of it enters the local payment stream, where it finances today’s rowdy Asian bull markets.

    A monetary economist from Mars could only scratch his pointy head at our 21st century monetary arrangements. What is a dollar? he might ask. No response. The Martian can’t find out because the earthlings don’t know. The value of a dollar is undefined. Its relationship to other currencies is similarly contingent. Some exchange rates float, others sink, still others are lashed to the dollar (whatever it is). Discouraged, the visitor zooms home.

    Neither would the ghosts of earthly finance know what to make of things if they returned for a briefing from wherever they were spending eternity. Someone would have to tell Alexander Hamilton that his system of coins is defunct, as is, incidentally, the federal sinking fund he devised to retire the public debt (it went out of business in 1960). He might have to hear it more than once to understand, but Congress no longer “coins” money and regulates the value thereof. Rather, it delegates the work to Mr. Bernanke, who, a noted student of the Great Depression, believes that the cure for borrowing too much money is printing more money.

    Walter Bagehot, the Victorian English financial journalist, would be in for a jolt, too. It would hardly please him to hear that the Fed had invoked the authority of his name to characterize its helter-skelter interventions of the past year. In a crisis, Bagehot wrote in his 1873 study “Lombard Street,” a central bank should lend without stint to solvent institutions at a punitive rate of interest against sound collateral. At least, Bagehot’s shade might console itself, the Fed was faithful to the text on one point. It did lend without stint.

    If Bagehot’s ghost would be chagrined, that of Bagehot’s sparring partner, Thomson Hankey, would be exultant. Hankey, a onetime governor of the Bank of England, denounced Bagehot in life. No central bank should stand ready to bail out the imprudent, he maintained. “I cannot conceive of anything more likely to encourage rash and imprudent speculation…, ” wrote Hankey in response to Bagehot. “I am no advocate for any legislative enactments to try and make the trading community more prudent.”

    Hankey believed in the price system. It might pain him to discover that his professional descendants have embraced command and control. “We should have required [banks to hold] more capital, more liquidity,” Mr. Bernanke rued in a Senate hearing on Thursday. “We should have required more risk management controls.” Roll over, Isaias Hellman.

    So our Martian would be mystified and our honored dead distressed. And we, the living? We are none too pleased ourselves. At least, however, being alive, we can begin to set things right. The thing to do, I say, is to restore the nets to the tennis courts of money and finance. Collateralize the dollar—make it exchangeable into something of genuine value. Get the Fed out of the price-fixing business. Replace Ben Bernanke with a latter-day Thomson Hankey. Find—cultivate—battalions of latter-day Hellmans and set them to running free-market banks. There’s one more thing: Return to the statute books Section 19 of the 1792 Coinage Act, but substitute life behind bars for the death penalty. It’s the 21st century, you know.

    • But let’s be clear.

      A gold standard will not help anyone if it is still under the control of a government or government-granted cartel.

      As shown above, it will still be debased and destroy the wealth of the people.

      Only when money becomes a free trade good will it satisfy the requirement to bring stability to the measure of wealth of the people.

      • Agreed. If the zionists in charge of Wall St. had only been less regulated, or not regulated at all, this entire financial debacle would never have occurred. It was the oppressive governmental oversight that forced otherwise well-behaved economists to stray outside the law.

        Look to the Bible, when the world operated without the burden of any government save the Lord’s. Society there was more blissful than all the Socialized morphine drips in the world.

        Look to the origins of this nation. Do you think they would have even bothered debating gay rights in 1776? That was when America was at its most perfect. Obama would have been, at best, 4/5ths of a person. That sounds about right to me.

        • v. Holland says:

          😦

          • I don’t mean to be racist. That’s just how I feel.

            • Wow, I see why hole is part of your name – you must have just crawled out of one.

            • BH,

              Here at SUFA folks strive to keep their discussions based on logical thinking. I’m not telling you can’t feel the way you do, but I’d like to suggest that you consider how those feelings affect your proposed solutions to the nation’s problems. It might be more constructive. If you’re here as a troll trying to solicit comments that can used against us, don’t bother. You’ll find that folks here are easily sucked in. If your participation is honest, then welcome.

              • I may hate the leadership of our nation, and despise the drones that follow him, but you’re right: it’s important to be tactful. I like to rant and have a good time, but here, I’ll do my best to present my objections logically. After all, we should have mercy on the people who support socialism unknowingly. The true sin is knowing something is wrong, and doing nothing.

                The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

              • Much better! 😉

                I like to rant too, and understand how you feel. I agree we should have mercy on those who unknowingly support socilaism, or support it because they don’t understand what it really is. I find it very hard to do and sometimes fall short. I’m very much to the point of just giving them the rope so they’ll hang themselves already, and be done with it. Not a very merciful attitude, I know, but I think its the only way they will learn. Talking to them doesn’t seem to work.

        • Please, do tell us more about these Zionists running Wall Street. I am quite interested to hear about this.

    • BF observes: A gold standard will not help anyone if it is still under the control of a government or government-granted cartel.

      D13 further observes: This is probably the most important statement in any economic conference….whether it is gold, silver, platinum, or goose feathers. Any standard under the control of government or government granted cartel is devastating.

      • D13

        I saw your post from yesterday and gladly accept your wager. How will you live up to your end of the wager as a Alabama shirt will be hard to come by out in cow country?

        • Probably as hard to come by as a Longhorn shirt in Bama….however….I have a very good friend here that is a “Bama Freak”….even his house is painted in Crimson trim…flag in the window…etc. He has a Bama shirt for me and I will take pics and send them to you….However, I do not anticipate having to wear it. But, if you cannot get a Longhorn Shirt, sir, trust me…I will find a way to get one to you. Here is looking forward to a great game with no Heisman on the line. We will hold your monster running back under 75 yards. No one can shut Ingram down completely…that guy is a horse. Throw the pass, we will be concentrating on locomotive man.

  12. v. Holland says:
  13. v. Holland says:

    Cheney for President-not
    Palin- I like the woman and I don’t believe her personal stances which I agree with many -means she wants to turn our country into a theocracy anymore than I would want too, but she at the present time simply isn’t ready to be president and neither is Obama IMHO.
    Rush-I see no reason to even discuss him as a party leader. He is a good radio personality who I personally like to listen too but I think people overestimate his power.
    I really don’t think the Republican party has any spot light leaders right now and I think anyone who seriously wants to be a leader is waiting awhile before they step into the fray. Personally, I am really hoping that some one steps up in the next year that isn’t being talked about now. But like some others I am more concerned with Congress.

    • Glenn Beck for President!!!

      He may be a nutcase, but he’s more honest than anyone in DC. He has been closer to right on every issue than McCain, Obama, Bush or Cheney. And he’s much more entertaining than any of them.

      Side note, Lou Dobbs would carry more votes than Cheney, and is considering options.

      • v. Holland says:

        I suspect Glen has to much “common sense” to willingly spend his life with politicians.

  14. Judy Sabatini says:

    Anybody have any thoughts about Mitt Romney?

    • This is a good starting place, although some would argue wikipedia is not to be trusted (definitely not on science, and if the article on Obama is any indicator, not on liberals either): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Political_positions

      He’s pretty good, but he’s nowhere near the beaming light from heaven that is Mike Huckabee.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Yea, but, I hear now that his reputation is on the line for releasing that guy years ago. The one who shot those 4 police officers here about a week ago.

        Personally, I like both.

        • Leave it to lieberals to look to the past to find fault. Look to the future. I look at what Huckabee is doing now, the TV interviews he does, and I see the potential for greatness. I look at where Romney’s Massachusetts is headed, socially, and I don’t see a leader who can stop a juggernaut.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            I guess only time will tell, and if Romney runs again. By the way, welcome to the club.

            • Both Romney and Huckabee will simply continue the same path.

              If you want liberty then you must break the chain and stop voting for STATISTS.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                HI JAC

                Please don’t jump on me, was merely asking a question, and for that matter I do like both. Didn’t say I’d vote for them though.

                Hope you’re doing good today.

          • As a non-liberal Arkansan, I can say Huck is a great guy, and would have made a better CIC than McCain or Obama.

            That does not mean he would have been a great Pres. His position on illegal aliens is weak, and that is an issue that must be resolved at some point in time. Like SS, the longer its ignored, the harder it will be to address.

            And he is a nanny state type, went on a health kick years ago, which is good, except he did FORCE
            some of his views upon we the people. It is against the LAW to smoke in most buildings in Arkansas. I am a non-smoker, but see that as a personal choice.

  15. Judy Sabatini says:

    No, we don’t compare this health care bill to slavery, we just don’t want it rammed down our throats Senator. I find his remarks quite offensive.

    Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

    The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.

    Senate Republicans on Monday called Reid’s comments “offensive” and “unbelievable.”

    But Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

    “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

    He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

    “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

    That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Reid’s remarks were over the top.

    “That is extremely offensive,” he told Fox News. “It’s language that should never be used, never be used. … Those days are not here now.”

    Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., suggested Reid was starting to “crack” under the pressure of the health care reform debate.

    “I think it’s beneath the dignity of the majority leader,” Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said. “I personally am insulted.”

    • Ms. Judy,
      Unless I am mistaken you usually keep up with Reid’s poll numbers, correct? If you don’t mind me asking, where are they now?

      Stay safe,
      Displaced Okie

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hello

        They’re at about 38% right now. That’s what I read yesterday.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          I keep up with them because I am a Nevadan, Reno actually, and I care what’s happening to this state.

          • Thanks. I thought that’s about what they were. I was pretty sure you lived in Nevada- moved there from San Francisco/Oakland, right?. Ive been here pretty much daily for about a year now, but usually I can’t post because I’m at work.

            Stay Safe,
            Displaced Okie

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Yes, came from the bay area, a little town called Pinole actually. Ever hear of it?

              We’ve been here since 1990, after my husband retired from Lockheed 2 years before they closed shop in Burbank, Calif.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Well, let me clarify better for you. I lived in Northern Calif until I got married at the ripe old age of 17, moved to Southern Calif after I got married, in 1969, stayed there until we moved up to Reno in 1990.

  16. Dick Cheney in 2012, it is not going to happen. As it stands now he can occupy the sidelines throwing bombs at the dems and does not have to worry about being politically correct or pissing off any group. He is free of the restraints of an elected politician courting votes and special interest. I think he is right where he wants to be. Anytime he opens his mouth it ties the left, the media and the administration in a tight knot trying to counter anything he says. Personally I am not very fond of the man but I enjoy watching him cause fits to the people that loath him. I say continue on.

    The current Republican Party is not a party that can represent mainstream America, neither is the Democratic Party. When the Republican Party gave their soul to the religious far right they were only concerned with imposing their morality on the country. They gave up government fiscal responsibility, true liberty and accountably to all the citizens of this country. Don’t get me wrong, I consider myself one of those far right religious country boys but I recognize that I have no right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. Without serious change the only way the Party will make headway is when the people vote against the Dems.

    One other note, if I may, I think that the tea parties and other organizations out there are just normal citizens fed up with the same old bull crap that politicians from both parties keep feeding to the people. To ignore or belittle them will carry a price in the 2010 elections. These are local groups and the congressional elections are on a local or regional area.

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    NO, NO, NO, No to funded abortions, never.

    Don’t Be Fooled, Democrats Want Funding for Abortion to Be Part of Health Care Reform

    By Forum Contributor

    Do we really trust President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership to safeguard the “status quo” on federal funding of abortion?

    During his speech to Congress on September 9, 2009, President Obama radically departed from his former promises to Planned Parenthood when he stated: “under our [health care reform] plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” He did not explain how this would be accomplished when, at the time that he gave that speech, none of the five versions of health care reform legislation on Capitol Hill prohibited federal funding of abortion — and two expressly included it.

    Nearly three months later, abortion funding remains one of the most hotly debated issues in health care reform, largely because President Obama has not followed through on his promise to ensure that abortion funding is not in the bill. In fact, he offered no opinions on specific abortion-related amendments until the Stupak-Pitts amendment was added to H.R. 3962 on the House Floor.

    Now, however, he has echoed the mantra of the abortion lobby and pro-abortion members of Congress, stating, “there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

    In reality, pro-life members of Congress carefully crafted the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, added to H.R. 3962 with the support of 64 democrats, to mirror the Hyde Amendment which has applied to programs funded through the Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations Bill since 1976. In contrast, the pro-abortion “Capps amendment,” a version of which is currently in the Senate bill, expressly provides for federal funding of abortion and private insurance plans that cover abortion, flouting over 30 years of federal policy.

    The fact that the Stupak-Pitts amendment, not the Capps amendment, maintains existing law can be established from studying the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that apply to other programs.
    The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds that are appropriated through the LHHS appropriations bill from being used to pay for abortion and prevents federal funds from being used to subsidize health care plans that offer abortion coverage.

    In other words, programs like Medicaid cannot directly pay for abortions or subsidize private plans that include abortion coverage. The Stupak Amendment applies exactly the same principles to the new programs created by H.R. 3962. Just as Medicaid dollars cannot be used to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortions, neither can the new affordability credits created by health care reform.

    Other government programs apply these principles to federal funds as well. The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has a longstanding restriction on abortion funding and coverage. The current law provides: “No funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal employees health benefits program which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions.”

    Importantly, even as President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership are professing their desire to maintain the status quo, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out the Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services Appropriations Bill (S. 1432) without the provision restricting abortion coverage in the FEHB Program.

    Perhaps that is why Democrats do not want the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to be part of health care reform – it contradicts their grand plan to change the law on federal funding for abortion.
    A simple survey of other changes and proposed changes to abortion-related laws during the first year of Obama’s presidency and the 111th Congress supports this theory – President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy and there is movement in the Senate to codify that repeal; Congress rejected the “Wicker Amendment” to prevent federal funding of the U.N. Population Fund which has an admittedly pro-abortion agenda; the House passed the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act without the “Dornan Amendment” to prevent all Congressionally appropriated funds from paying for elective abortions in Washington, D.C. and the list goes on.

    Do we really trust President Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership to safeguard the “status quo” on federal funding of abortion? Their actions so far in this Congress more than suggest that they are right on board with the pro-abortion lobby’s plan to mainstream abortion as health care, entitled to federal subsidization like any other surgical procedure. The vast majority of Americans disagree. That is why members of Congress who professes to oppose taxpayer funded abortion must insist that the Stupak-Pitts language remains in the final health care reform bill, and reject any disingenuous “compromises” offered by their pro-abortion colleagues.

    • Judy, that’s just not completely accurate. I found this secret internal memo on the servers for the Elders of Zion World Domination League the other day:

      To whom it may concern:
      (Internal Policy Memo – EYES ONLY)

      We do not simply want to fund abortions. Ideally, we would like to make them mandatory unless you pass a government regulated parenting competency course and form 2345(c) Democratic Party loyalty oath. We do so love killing babies. No one, of course, more so that President Obama, himself. When he can’t get his hands on an unborn baby to reduce to the delicious stem cell slushy he so craves, he takes Air Force One up to Alaska to club baby seals – using a club imprinted with the seal of the Presidency on it. This explains why he is full steam ahead on climate change – he cares far more about his baby seal supply than about the economy.

      This was, of course, well documented before the election, but for some reason (*cough* ACORN *cough* WALNUT *cough*), he was able to win the election anyway. Ultimately, he plans to institute a one world government with the reanimated corpse of Ted Kennedy at the helm. Despite being a reanimated corpse, Kennedy will still somehow consume more liquor than the entire population of Russia combined. He will fund this through a CO2 tax on Americans every time they exhale.

      And there’s nothing anyone can do to stop us… BWA HA HA HA!

      Sincerely,
      The Reanimated Corpse of Nancy Pelocy

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey Mathius

        I won’t even get into the abortion issue as you know full where I stand.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Meant to say, full well where I stand. Sorry for the boo boo.

        • I know where you stand, and you know where I stand. I’m not getting into it with you today, I just wanted to share my stolen memo with you.

          You should forward it to her and say “I know what you’re up to!” It would be interesting to see how she responds. (keep a cross handy, just in case).

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            No, you send it to her, I wouldn’t even send her the right time of day. You keep that cross handy. Let me know how it turns out for ya.

            And thanks, didn’t want to go into it with you either. I think we came to that bridge a while back, didn’t we?

            • Yes, but I’m sure we’ll wind up having it out again some time. In the meantime, however, let’s just be friends 🙂

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I have no intentions of having it out with you again on that subject. I say, we just leave it where it is for now.

                Nothing I enjoy more, than having a friend like you Matt. You’re funny, smart, and seem easy to get a long with, so yes, let’s just be friends. Remember, I don’t fight, I might argue, but not fight.

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    In a stroke of completely accidental timing, the EPA has now declared CO2 to be a dangerous pollutant. This means that the EPA can now regulate CO2 emissions on its own, without the need of laws or Congressional approval.

    Many of us knew this was coming….

    Absolutely no one is surprised that it was announced the same day as the start of the Gropenhagen “climate conference”.

    • v. Holland says:

      Can this be taken to court using climategate info to overthrow it?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        It COULD happen, but it isn’t very likely. Traditionally EPA has only been taken to court because “environmental concern groups” want EPA to STRENTHEN its regulations, not weaken or eliminate them.

      • To win against EPA you must prove their science is Faulty. If there is any question or doubt about the accuser’s science and EPA’s science the courts have historcially given the Govt scientists the “benefit of the doubt”.

        There in lies the problem. The system is not designed to allow us to stop it, only to make it bigger. And once those in the agency are the same as those on the outside who want more control, we are lost.

        • JAC:

          I knew the EPA would do this but it really gets me upset. Unelected bureaucrats making law through regulations. Manufacturing will go outside the USA to escape this BS. Prepare for a decline in your standard of living.

          In a strange way, I’m hoping the collapse happens. I cannot stand any statists and recognize the true evil of government. I think this will only end when the system collapses. I see no way to change anything through the future election process. Totally depressing to see this erosion of our liberty each and every day.

          • Birdman, Maybe someone on this site will become the next great American Patriot. I have to agree with your small desire for collapse, I’d rather see it sooner than later, not getting any younger you know! Besides, I’m prepared now, and it would be a bummer to let all that preparation go to waste. 😈

          • Birdman

            Welcome to my club of depressed optimists. I have been fighting this particular enemy for 30 years (environmentalism and govt agencies). It has all come to exactly where I thought it would. Although, there is still more to come. This is not the last of it.

            Voting would make a difference if the People woke up and recognized what was really going on.

            But the education needed to WAKE up a 100 million or so folks will take longer than we may have. So you may be correct. It may take a total collapse. But I fear that without knowledge of the possibility of liberty, a collapse will just lead to another statist experiment.

            Everyday I struggle with the question of how much of my remaining years am I going to give up to this fight or should I just find a little ranch in the middle of no where to spend my time. Of course the latter is a little like hiding my head in the sand, but I do think about it.

            I say we keep fighting for now. But it is OK to get a litte down once in awhile. As long as we don’t let that consume us as well.

            Happy Trails Bird.
            JAC

            • How are we fighting the statists? They do what they want to do. Healthcare will pass sooner or later and the same with cap and tax.

              I don’t have an answer to stop the madness of government. I know education of the public would help but it may be too late. The 100 year progressive movement won or will win. The masses want their cookies and both parties will find a way to deliver them.

              Maybe we should get out of the way and let them pass whatever they want. Let the debt crush the system. That’s the only way it will stop. Some other statist system will probably arise but maybe not.

              • BM,

                I understand your dispare. There are two fights that one can fight. One is now and the foreseeable future, that’s the fight for freedom and liberty. That’s the easy one.

                The second one, if the economy collapses, will be the fight for survival, that will not be so easy over the long haul, and it will be one hell of a fight.

                So, pick your poison! 🙂

                G!

    • What’s that phrase? Can’t seem to remember!

      Oh Yeah,

      WE ARE SO SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

      and

      I TOLD YA SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      EPA now runs the country through control of WATER and now AIR.

      • So, I’m guessing that the Collapse just got a lot closer.

        If you haven’t read A Time to Stand by Jeffy Oliver, you may want to.

        http://www.booksbyoliver.com

        • Cyndi:

          It will not cause collapse in the sense we have been discussing here before.

          It spells the death of Liberty, however.

          A completely FEDERALLY controlled economy, through environmental regulation.

          We will have to pay for windmills and solar panels and electric cars and, and, and.

          Because it will be the only way to meet the new pollution standards.

          The FEDERAL govt will have to run and control the whole thing.

      • Hey JAC..you gotta love my family. You probably remember that we have a cow/calf operation in Oklahoma…28,000 acres with two…yes count em’….TWO 24/7 springs (rare up here)…anyway, the EPA wants to come on our property and “monitor” our springs since they are natural springs and run over 2 cubic feet per minute and are considered (are you ready for this…navigable). And since we run about 4,500 head of cattle, they wish to make sure that we are not allowing our cattle, deer, pigs, horses, birds, rabbits, rats, mice, coyotes, turkeys, etc….to do their solemn natural thing and poop and pee around the springs. The springs are anywhere from 10-22 feet wide and three feet deep and run our property. They wish to set up monitoring stations and want unfettered access to such. We, of course, said no. So they show up with a court order from some Federal Court in Illinois. We of course said no and faced contempt charges. We questioned jurisdiction of a Federal Court in Illinois having anything to do with Oklahoma…and since we Texans own this ranch in Oklahoma (go figure), we especially question the jurisdiction of anybody North of the Red River….especially Illinois. We very politely told them that any infraction upon our land will be dealt with accordingly and we can shoot very straight and we mean it. Of course, we were expecting the Army next to show up but the Sheriff did come out and we told him that we would not allow them on our property and that we question their right to be there. However, not wanting tanks to come and enforce their order (that is what it would have taken) we got our own federal injunction to block the Illinois order and our injunction comes from a federal judge in Oklahoma. Now…this is a no bull shit story. It now stands that they are not allowed entrance and we are patrolling….armed.

        But……..you are talking the EPA and I am sure we pissed on somebody’s parade. NO FEDS are coming on our property to look at any creek or spring that we have. This is how ridiculous the EPA is…and we are questioning EPA jurisdiction over natural springs on private property.

        • Colonel,

          Way to piss on there little arrogant butts. I hope you get the chance to stomp a mudhole in their asses and let coyotes lick it dry! 🙂

          G!

        • D13:

          I am also surprised that EPA took this action directly.

          First of all, water quality issues are handled by the States through various agreements with EPA. It is the States that are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and other related regulations.

          Second, it is the Corp of Engineers who usually handles issues related to “navigable” waters, wetlands and such related things.

          Big Key to All this is……. Does the water from your springs run into a natural channel that eventually leaves your property?

          If it does, your springs are part of the river system and you are subject to regulation by somebody, which in effect included the Corps and EPA.

          If not, you may still be subject to wetlands protection and other related State laws.

          Aint Freedom just a wonderful thing?

          What’s the matter, did you really think you had a right to own your property?

          Here in Montana the Feds are trying to impose on some rancher’s stock ponds. Totally constructed, artificial water catchments. Now classified as wetlands and waterbodies, ie. lakes under clean water. Sounds like the same thing you are experiencing.

          So, I’ll do some looking around to see how those cases are going. It may well tie into your situation.

          There were some amendments being considered late last year, and I assume this year, to the Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. These amendments would give the Feds total control over all water on all lands. It expands the WETLANDS provisions to accomplish this. Hell it might of passed for all I know. I stopped tracking this stuff because I know the real answer is in a complete makeover.

          Keep me posted on this one Colonel.

          P.S. I am so coveting your large cow/calf operation. Do you make it up for branding?
          Can you tell, I’m thinking…………

          Best to you and yours
          JAC

          • Jac says: Big Key to All this is……. Does the water from your springs run into a natural channel that eventually leaves your property?

            Yes…it does run into a natural flow to a lake that is the reserve water supply for Ardmore. OF course, this lake has septic tanks that empty into it and it has boats and all sorts of contaminates. The springs actually flow over sandstone and granite to get to the reserve supply. The Corps oof Engineers is not involved at all. The State has deferred to the feds. It will not work, of course. we already have an injunction. They can set their testing stations up anywhere they wish but not on our land. The Corps of Engineers takes over at the lake side and main rivers according to these papers. Anyway, they will not get on. It WILL have to be by force.

            JAC says: What’s the matter, did you really think you had a right to own your property?

            D13 responds: Yessir we do think this and are willing to take it to court. We do have the resources to do that.

            JAC says: I am so coveting your large cow/calf operation. Do you make it up for branding?
            Can you tell, I’m thinking…………

            D13 says: Yep. We have two calf drops per year…fall and spring. The fall calf drop is pretty slim but the spring calving is pretty hectic. We usually run 82% drop in the spring and 61% in the fall..If you can ride, you are welcome to come and help round up. We can call most in with horns but we do have to ride the draws push them out. However, we do have a coyote kill each year. We take about 80-110 off every year. They are not trapped…they are shot. No poison. We ride for that as well.

            • D13:

              Red Alert Colonel

              Just watched weather report. Heavy blizzard headed to Nebraska and Oklahoma. You got about 24 hours if there is anything you can do for those cattle.

              Very high winds and wet heavy snow. Last time we had one of these up north we lost thousands of head. They are saying no one will be able to move around in both states and Kansas by Wed morning.

              I can ride, and I am an old hand at huntin and shootin coyotes. Used to supplement the income with furs, back when they were selling for $100 or more. Used a .243 with full jacket 80 grain. Had to track a few but the holes were easily sewn so the buyer didn’t know.

              Keep me posted come spring.

        • v. Holland says:

          Darn, I am trying to keep up with whats going on in this country and I am still surprised when I hear stuff like this. Surprised and just dumbfounded at the insanity.

    • Does that mean that just by exhaling we are polluting?

      *Displaced Okie begins holding his breath out of fear of being fined or taxed for emitting pollution*

      …1-2 minutes later…

      *Displaced Okie passes out*…

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Theoretically, yes, you are now polluting when you exhale. I am sure that the “threshold” will be set sufficiently high (at least initially) that you need not have any fear of incurring any personal fines.

        Of course, they may strenthen the regulations later and lower the threshold….

        We won’t really know anything for certain until they actually propose a regulation. Right now all that EPA has done is given itself the authority to regulate CO2, they haven’t ACTUALLY regulated it yet.

        Gotta love it when a government agency can simply “give itself the authority” to do something…

        Of course, the Supreme Court already said that it was ok for EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant….

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I guess we just stop exhaling then, right. Breathe in, but not out.

        • Oh, and Judy…..do not forget…you cannot allow the breath you take in to come out anywhere in the nether regions lest you be in violation of air pollution and methane displacement.

    • Peter says: “This means that the EPA can now regulate CO2 emissions on its own, without the need of laws or Congressional approval.”

      Help me out here.

      • Congress does not have to pass any laws to limit CO2 because the EPA can now regulate it without congressional approval.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Once something is declared a “pollutant”, the EPA can write regulations which immediately get incorporated into the Federal Register. No debate, no votes, no nothing.

      • This is also what they do with Drugs, they don’t have to pass a law control a substance–just have the FDA place it on schedule I, schedule II, etc.. list.

        Government Beauracracy: the de facto “4th branch” of government….

        Stay Safe,
        Displaced Okie

    • It makes no difference how much the science is debunked; the elitist will have their way. This is only about control, not climate.

  19. Just took this headline from Fox:

    “Reid: GOP Would’ve Defended SlaverySenate majority leader likens Republicans who oppose health reform to those who clung to slavery”

    OK folks, can any of you tell me which of the two political parties tried to “cling to slavery” and which of the two was created around the concept of “abolishing slavery”??

    I think it is official. Mr. Reid is certifiably insane.

    The Blacks were outraged at comparisons of gay rights and slavery. I wonder how they are going to react to this comment? I am betting they are silent (Dem’s that is) because the fully support the “health care is a right” concept.

  20. Judy Sabatini says:

    Can we say hypocrites here?

    Carbonhagen: World Leaders Drive to Climate Summit in Gas-Guzzling Luxury Fleet

    Monday, December 07, 2009

    Dec. 7: A delegate to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen arrives in a Mercedes Benz — one of a fleet of 1,200 luxury cars and limos rented for the event.

    World leaders and VIPs began pouring into Copenhagen Monday morning for the city’s long-awaited climate summit, arriving in style in a fleet of gas-guzzling limos and luxury cars.

    Most delegates to the climate change conference haven’t exactly been hoofing their way to Denmark’s capital, swarming the city’s airport with 140 private jets, 1,200 hired limousines and a carbon footprint the size of a small country.

    Video shot on the scene Monday shows squads of new arrivals at the green gathering pulling up in BMWs, Mercedes Benzes, sleek Volvos and plush Jaguars. A bus reserved for the delegates rode along empty outside the conference center.

    The head of Copenhagen’s biggest limo company says her business usually has a dozen cars on the road. But during the conference — which has been billed as the last best chance to save the environment — she’ll have 200 vehicles churning out fumes, the Daily Telegraph reported.

    “We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” Majken Friss Jorgensen told the newspaper. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

    France alone has ordered 42 vehicles, she said, and the auto supply in Denmark is very quickly drying up. To make up for shortages, Jorgensen and her competitors are bringing in lines of limos from as far away as Germany and Sweden.

    “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfill the demand,” she said, adding that just five cars in her fleet will be environmentally friendly hybrid vehicles, which are almost impossible to procure in tax-heavy Denmark.

    Once the estimated 30,000 delegates, activists, protesters and members of the press arrive this week and next, they’ll find a sumptuous and steeply priced spread awaiting them.

    Expensive hotels are sold out, and the conference organizers have been busy laying 560 miles of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet, according to the Times of London.

    The conference center hosting the meetings has set up four “climate kitchens” to cook healthy, organic meals for attendees, but they aren’t coming cheap.

    Visitors ordering the regular meal will get finger sandwiches, a quiche, some cheese and dessert, but those going “deluxe” get a mini croissant, canape with smoked salmon, mini pizzas, fancy cheese and some pineapple in chocolate — all for an estimated $40 a person.

    The whole conference rings up at just under $215 million, according to a report from the U.K.-based Taxpayers’ Alliance, which argued that even though delegates to the climate conference don’t expect to emerge with any signed commitments, they’re still doing potential damage by making their two-week visit.

    Conference organizers have gone the whole nine yards seeking to offset the Copenhagen carbon crunch (the U.N. estimates an output of 41,000 tons of gas), using energy-efficient lights, powering the proceedings with a giant wind turbine, and offering visitors recycled materials instead of wasteful plastic water bottles. They’ve also purchased carbon offsets to help manage the output from their 12-day affair.

    But Matthew Sinclair, the research director for the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said their presence means that “a huge amount of money is going to be spent on the summit, and thousands of tons of carbon dioxide emitted to get there, just to give the delegates a good photo opportunity.”

  21. Hi Ya’ll!

    It’s been awhile, but the call to action was once again brought in today’s discussion. Some time ago I sent USW a note about an idea I had, of which he replied that maybe JAC should take a look at it. Maybe today is that day.

    After all the talk about different ways of battling the Feds, the one thing that popped into my mind was starting local or State level. That gave me an idea, so I looked up the Ohio Constitution. Here is Article 1:

    § 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)
    [ View Article Table of Contents ]

    All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

    I’m certainly no lawyer, but it would seem to me that some of the legislation being debated, going to be debated, or in the case of the EPA totally arrogant announcement that they consider CO2 a pollutant (which is insane at best to think that a naturally occuring event is regulatable), would or could violate my State Constitutional Rights.

    If, this is true, then I could demand the State government to Use Article 10 of the US Constitution to protect those rights against the overreaching Federal Government. This could be done by gaining an allie withing the State government, or if need be by taking the State to court and let the Ohio Supreme Court force them (if they concur).

    So, with that said, is there any input from our intellectuals here today?

    G!

    • Not fair, G man….you asked for comments from intellectuals….you left me out on that one…I am now hurt, displaced, feel tormented, discriminated against, put down, tromped on, and so on and so on. Therefore, I want your house. Obama said I could have it because I am not an intellectually displaced person. He said so…..fork it over, man.

      • Don’t sell yourself short, Colonel, you got it going on upstairs. I will gladly give you the keys to my house. Obama said so, so I guess thats OK with me!:mrgreen:

        G!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hey G

          How goes it with you? How’s the weather back there. As you know, we have major snow here, have about a foot or so around our house.

          Suppose to ease up by this evening. The mountains got well over 2 feet of fresh new snow. But, then you probably already knew that, didn’t ya.

          Hope you’re doing good today.

          • Hi Judy!

            Yes, I know about your storm, I was listening this morning. It’s cold here with snow flurries, nothing to speak of.

            Can’t get snow when I want it! 🙂

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Hey, G

              Sorry it took so long to get back, but Matthew was on the computer. If you want, I’ll gladly send you some of ours. You can have it. I hate winter, too freaking cold, I’m not a cold person.

    • GMan

      You might get the state to take action but without looking deeper I think you, and the state, would loose for sure.

      The Federal trumps the States. The courts have already ruled that EPA has the authority and in fact is required by federal law to consider CO2 as a pollutant. They did and now they say it is. The State would have to prove that the Federal law violates the Federal constitution by taking away authority that was not given to the Federal but is retained by the State, per Article 10.

      But the courts have already ruled that the federal environmental laws trump the states. Unless the case could be built around an untested legal issue it would never make it to the first level of appeal.

      There is greater promise for challenging those parts of the Health Care Legislation that require citizens to buy into the federal program. That goes beyond regulating interstate commerce and may therefore be challenged. Then it comes down to the make up of the court when the case floats to the top.

      Sorry G, but I see little chance of actual victory. However, one must realize there is political gains to be made if the States start filing lawsuits and work to stop this garbage. When Idaho filed lawsuits against the Clinton Roadless Rules everyone laughed. But in the end, Idaho got to develop its own rules dealing with roadless and other issues and they got it accepted by Congress. Had the Idaho A.G. not had serious brass the State may have never gotten the leverage it needed. Not to mention that his actions saved many other states from suffering the fate of those affected by the Columbia Basin Assessment (ICBEMP). The Algorians had plans of spreading that model to the Missouri River Basin but the legal challenges raised by Idaho slowed it all down until the 2000 election.

      • Interesting article, says that the EPA, under the Clean Air Act, would have to regulate anything emitting 250 tons, like Gore’s mansion. They have already talked about raising that to 25,000 tons, which should be illegal, that would be legislating, not regulating.

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2402161/posts

        Myself, I think the timing is too perfect, distract us from healthcare being forced thru.

      • Thanks for your input JAC! When I thought of this, the EPA was a non-factor at the time. I was looking at ObamaCare and Cap and Trade.

        I, for the life of me, can’t understand how a naturallyoccurring part of nature can be considered pollution? I can see unnatural chemicals that would not normally enter the atmosphere being considered, but what are these EPA whackballs going to do, fine a volcano? If a volcano could think, it would be laughing hilariously today! 😀

        • They won’t regulate the volacanoe.

          But everytime it belches we will have to make sacrifice of a few thousand breathing people to compensate. Otherwise we will exceed the total maximum daily load of CO2.

          I love it. Sacrifices to the volcanoe god to keep the CO2 from escaping.

          In fact, I have some ideas for the first on the list. How bout you GMan? Got some ideas?

          OTFLMAO

          JAC

          • You bet I do! I’d like to offer that bitch from Frisco who called the teapartyers Nazi’s.

            I wonder, do I want to do the pushing from the edge of the volcano, or out of e helicopter? Hmm, tough decision!
            😕

            Then the list just keeps growing from there.

            G!

            • Keep Ron Paul and throw the rest of them in. He’s the only one who understands liberty.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I say, make her stand at the edge, lift her with the helicopter, then drop her in from as high as you can get.

              There, covered all 3 basis for you.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    Tea parties gain ground in healthcare battle
    Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 12/7/2009 6:00:00

    Tea Party activists are being encouraged to continue their fight to derail Democrats’ planned government takeover of America’s healthcare system.

    Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint addressed a gathering of Tea Party activists last week and credited them with blocking Democratic efforts to enact a government-run health insurance program. He also said grassroots activists have a chance to prevent passage of healthcare legislation currently being debated in the Senate.

    Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, one of the lead organizers of the massive 912 March on Washington two months ago, believes Tea Party activists are the biggest single reason members of Congress have been reluctant to pursue big government initiatives, but notes any grassroots effort aimed at changing Washington’s big-spending ways faces an uphill battle.

    Pete Sepp (National Taxpayers Union)”That’s why Tea Party activists, along with members of established organizations over the years, have to band together and make sure that members of Congress don’t get away with ramming through healthcare while no one’s looking,” he states. “And that’s one reason why, for example, we need to have more rallies on Capitol Hill, more rallies in local areas, and keep up the fight.”

    Sepp says Senator DeMint has been an effective spokesman in helping grassroots activists “recognize their power and understand that they can change the way Washington works if they put enough energy and time into the effort.”

  23. I don’t think Cheney will run. He doesn’t want the hassles of public office. He’s happy just pointing out all of Obama’s mistakes.

    A Palin/Cheney ticket in 2012? That would be like a time warp back to 2000 – a know-nothing-president with Cheney pulling the strings behind the curtain. Of course, the team would have a prettier face…

    I find this comment interesting:

    I think Cheney is a tell it like it is guy (or tell it like he wants you to believe it is).

    Isn’t that a major contradiction?

    And the root of the problems in this country?

    • Yes, it is a contradiction, and so is Cheney. My little attempts at humor.

      In reality, I see Cheney as a blunt guy. He says what others are afraid to say. At times that means he tells it like it really is while the rest of the politicians continue to dance. At other times, his bluntness comes through telling us what he wants us to believe regardless of facts. So doesn’t my contradiction apply to half of DC, at least?

  24. FOOTBALL

    For the record, the BCS has no balls.

    As I expected, they put TCU up against Boise St. instead of letting TCU take on Cincinnati and Boise go against Florida.

    How complicated could it be. 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4; 5 vs 6; 7 vs 8

    What good are polls and computer ratings if you don’t use them to make the match ups for the bowl games?

    Its time to break the back of the Govt protected BSC monopoly (and BSC was not a slip of the fingers).

    Bama and Texas had better prepare for playing on a crappy surface.

    The Rose Bowl will be torn up from the Oregon vs. Ohio State game and the last El Nino year caused heavy rains down there in early January.

    • Yes….Florida was really raising hell about not wanting to play TCU or Boise. THey got their way.

      It is all about money.

  25. v. Holland says:

    Interesting!

    Rasmussen: Tea Party outpolls Republicans

    The notion that the Tea Party movement is a vocal minority in the Republican Party may have been put to rest today. A new three-way generic ballot from Rasmussen Reports finds that a Tea Party candidate would fare better than a Republican candidate, 23% to 18%, with the Democratic candidate coming out on top at 36%. The poll also found 22% remained undecided.

    There is even better news for a Tea Party candidate when it comes to independents. They chose the Tea Party candidate (33%) over both the Democratic (25%) and Republican (12%) candidates. Nearly a third of independents were undecided at 30%.

    The last generic congressional ballot poll from Rasmussen Reports on December 1 found Republicans edging in front of Democrats 44% to 37%.

    For now, the leaders of the Tea Party Patriots want to remain a movement, not a third party. That’s what Jenny Beth Martin, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, told us last week.

    http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/12/rasmussen-tea-party-outpolls-republicans.html

  26. Judy Sabatini says:
  27. Judy Sabatini says:

    Where be everybody? Anybody out there? Hellooooooooo!

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    be back in a bit, talking with sister on phone.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    Well, Guess I’m out for the night, so I will say my good nights to all.

    Will see you all here tomorrow.

    Love everybody

    Take Care

    Judy

  30. v. Holland says:

    I got a good laugh out of this.

    Updated December 07, 2009
    Man Arrested for Throwing Tomatoes at Sarah Palin, Police Say

    FOXNews.com

    The incident happened during a book signing at the Mall of America in Minnesota.

    A man was arrested for allegedly throwing two tomatoes at Sarah Palin from the second floor balcony during a book signing event at the Mall of America in Minnesota, MyFoxTwinCities.com. reported.

    Neither tomato came close hitting the former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, but did hit a police officer in the face, the station reported.

    The unidentified man may face charges for assaulting a police officer, according to the station.

    Die-hard supporters treated the event like another Black Friday, lining up outside in freezing weather before the mall doors opened at 5 a.m.

    Emily Calhoon, a high school junior from Minnetonka, took the day off school with a group of fellow students and arrived at 4:45 a.m. Calhoon, 16, said she likes Palin’s conservatism.

    “She’s a lot more relatable than the stereotypical old rich white male,” said Calhoon as she waited in line, clutching a copy of Palin’s memoir of her life and political career, “Going Rogue.”

    The former Alaska governor arrived just before noon. Wearing her trademark red, she took the stage joined by her husband Todd and carrying their son, Trig.

    Palin did not address the crowd and did not take questions from the large contingent of reporters. She started signing books immediately.

    Fans wanting a signed copy had to purchase it from Barnes & Noble, the event’s sponsor. Most in line had two copies.

    Barnes & Noble would not reveal the number of books it sold at its Mall of America store for the event.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/man-arrested-throwing-tomatoes-sarah-palin-police-say/

  31. Well, maybe more people should consider these research articles >>>
    http://jjoshuajj21.wordpress.com/ <<<<<<

Trackbacks

  1. […] due to New Blank Panther voter intimidation case? SMALL DEAD ANIMALS  It pays to be green STAND UP FOR AMERICA  Have Republicans Fallen out of the mainstream? SNOOPER REPORT   PelosiCare and ReidCare counting their days WORDPRESS POLITICAL BLOGGER ALLIANCE […]

%d bloggers like this: