Tuesday Night Open Mic for December 15, 2009

Tuesday night is upon us, and with it comes the ever popular open mic. I do have a bit of a request for folks who post articles for open mic, or on other days, for that matter. If you want to post an article here, that is welcome and great. It is sharing information. But add to the conversation when you do. Help those of us here to understand why that article is pertinent, important, or interesting. As you can see, with each topic I offer, I attempt to add some thoughts of my own, a synopsis or analysis of what I am reading. It helps folks to weed through it all. We have hundreds of comments here daily. Without understanding the importance or relevance of an article, many folks may simply skip over it and miss out! I appreciate the patience everyone has had over the last two weeks with my sporadic participation. Busy and long days for me. I feel good about the amount of articles I have managed to post, but I know that it is disappointing for some when I have a day where there is nothing new to discuss or comment on. I greatly appreciate the extra things others have added during discussions that help make up for my December shortcomings!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    As Interest in H1N1 Vaccine Wanes, a Surplus Is Feared

    Health officials across the U.S. have been worrying for months that there won’t be enough H1N1 vaccine to immunize everyone who needs protection against the flu virus.

    But this week, some officials in central Ohio said there may be a surplus due to waning public interest.

    A spokesman for U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday it’s too soon to tell if there will be a surplus.

    “Supply and demand varies across the country,” said Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the CDC. “Some areas have a greater demand than supply, and other areas vice versa. Whether there will be a surplus or not is hard to say right now.”

    Read the rest of the article at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580280,00.html?test=latestnews

    Lo and behold, another national emergency averted. How much do you want to wager that the federal government will step forward and tell us that they are responsible for limiting the impact of the Swine Flu virus on Americans. The fear mongering caused a rush on a vaccine that has had several recalls that are a result of limited testing and lowered standards. As a result, the federal government helped the pharma companies reap another bounty at the hands of the taxpayer. Only to find out now that Swine Flu really isn’t that big of a deal and that they are going to have excess vaccine because people don’t feel like they need it (or they feel like it isn’t worth the risk of taking the vaccine that was rushed to production). How is all that for a payback for political favor. I know…. conspiracy theory. I will stop now.

    One question that I had about the numbers in this article. The article says that 50 million Americans (which is roughly 1 of every 6) have had Swine Flu this year, and that 10,000 have died from Swine Flu this year. This is the first time I recall seeing numbers this large. Are they accurate or are we still inflating whatever numbers get the point across? Both numbers seem awfully high, especially the one in 6 number. Think of all the people you know, do any of you have that ratio personally, that one of every 6 people you know has had Swine Flu?

    It seems to me this is government creating a crisis, then finding a way to ensure that big business profits from said created crisis. And we all get the shaft in the deal. This is a recurring theme as you will see it again later!

    • Those numbers do seem awfully high…

      That said, I have to object to a sentence in your last paragraph. “It seems to me this is government creating a crisis, then finding a way to ensure that big business profits from said created crisis.” You suppose intent where I don’t think there is any. I think there is a severe overreaction by well-meaning individuals within the government, and that business is trying to make a profit. But then I don’t have any evidence of this either, so I will allow Occam’s Razor to decide between the two: massive collusion and conspiracy to drum up a crisis to ensure profits for favored businesses versus People. Are. Dumb.

      I have reported. You decide.

      • Common Man says:

        Matt/USW;

        Not sure why the government made such a fuss over swine flu, but I do question the numbers based upon my personal experience. Two weeks ago I was down and out for the majority of the entire week. Headaches, terrible body aches, horrible coughing, always tired, no appetite, and stomach cramps. Along with me, my best friend, his wife and daughter were also sick. They had all that I had plus high fevers. They all went to the MD, but were not given any medicine, told to take tylenol, get plenty of rest and if it didn’t get better in 7-10 days come back.

        Nobody was diagnosed with Swine Flu. That would have required a specific blood test at an out-of-oocket cost of $300 each. Turns out the symptoms of Swine Flu are the same for the regular flu; according to our MD’s.

        So if one has to pay $300 to determine Swine Flu verses regular flu, and that test was not covered by insurance, how many people paid to be sure? We decided the $300 could be better spent.

        How did the government obtain those numbers if the majority wouldn’t or couldn’t pay the additional cost? I am sure the MD’s and various clinics didn’t conduct the test on each individual they saw at their own expense.

        Not sure if my people had it or not, but it didn’t kill any of us, just screwed up our work and week.

        CM

        • You don’t need a huge number of people to be tested in order to get viable statistics. All you really need is a sufficiently random sample of, say, 1000 people. Consider that election polls are usually fairly accurate but if you look, their sample size is usually around that size. I am not saying the stat is correct (again, it seems very high), but it is possible that the CDC paid for the test for a random sampling of people. I suppose it’s also possible to technically “have the flu,” but have an asymptomatic or very light case (I’m just making this up, but it could possibly explain the disparity if you count them too).

          Have you been hanging out with Rara Avis or Birdman lately? Maybe you got the avian flu..

          • Common Man says:

            Matt;

            Because it comes from the government I still question its validity.

            The good news is I am all better and back in the saddle again. It was not fun and I encourage everyone to avoid it regardless of it’s name; it sucked.

            CM

          • Matt:

            I very much doubt the CDC was running a designed statistical sample to come up with their numbers.

            Why my conclusion?

            Because I discussed this matter with three doctors this fall, when kid #3 showed signs of the flu. ALL three had been told, by whom I don’t know, to report ALL cases of the flu as H1N1.

            This is how they got the inflated numbers recently reported in the press. So those cases where testing was done and H1N1 was confirmed are not random. They are from the set of people who went ahead with testing or who had doctors potentially profiting from the testing, thus recommending the tests.

            For the record, I think there are multiple motivations at work here. Those in CDC who want to be on the safe side. And those who know they can profit from a vaccine so they make promises of delivery. CDC jumps at the chance for the vaccine and off we go. This time there was a third motivator. The desire for crisis that is deep within the progressive mindset. When one is always looking for a crisis you can find one almost anywhere.

            Crisis and velociraptors are similar in that way.

            Best to you and yours
            JAC

            • “Report all cases of the flu as H1N1”

              Exactly JAC, know several people that have been sick and all claim to have been told it was H1N1 but not a one had the actual test for it.

          • Matt,

            I do not agree.

            It is well known and published that the Tamiflu vaccine they used was ‘expiring’.

            The crisis fit too well so to consume this stock, enabling the manufacture to have a large, new, order without having to deal with ‘out of date’ returns.

            As far as the stats – they are not valid unless also compared to a baseline.

            Taking stats out of a sample population that already has the disease you are testing for to see if they have the disease is a fallacy of stats, especially with something that is infectious.

            It will tend to create massive bubbles of cases – and if you assume one of these bubbles are ‘typical’ you will end up skewing the whole measure.

            Of course, the other way too – a depression bubble will skew it the other way.

            In other words, such a methodolgy is flawed.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I vote massive collusion between big government and big Pharma. Seems pretty obvious.

        • Me too Peter B. For those who think its all ‘well meaning people’, I offer the psuedo-scientists of ClimateGate…..

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The flu season is not considered ‘over’ is it?

    • Never attribute to malicious intent what can be explained by stupidity.

    • From FOX

      800,000 Doses of Children’s H1N1 Vaccine Recalled

      ATLANTA — Hundreds of thousands of swine flu shots for children manufactured by French drug company Sanofi Pasteur have been recalled because tests indicate the vaccine doses lost some strength, government health officials said Tuesday.

      The recall is for about 800,000 pre-filled syringes intended for young children, ages 6 months to nearly 3 years.

      The shots were distributed across the country last month and most have already been used, according to the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Doctors were notified of the voluntary recall on Tuesday.

      Dr. Anne Schuchat, a CDC flu expert, stressed that parents don’t need to do anything or to worry. The vaccine is still safe, she said. The issue is the vaccine’s strength.

      “No action (is) necessary by a parent of a child who received this vaccine,” said Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the CDC. “(The) only thing they need to do is make sure their child gets two doses if they’re in the 6 month – 35 month age group, which is the group impacted by the recall.”

      Tests done before the shots were shipped showed that the vaccines were strong enough. But tests done weeks later indicated the strength had fallen slightly below required levels. Why the potency dropped isn’t clear.

      Children in that age group are supposed to get two doses, spaced about a month apart. Health officials don’t think children need to get vaccinated again, even if they got two doses from the same lots, said Schuchat.

    • First part in a series.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

      The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

      In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

      Why?

      One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

      I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

      The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

      The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

      • LOF;

        I am with you. After a great deal of research I have concluded that the current regime, as well as their predecessors are using the Cloward-Piven ideology to futher their efforts, which is to change the Republic.

        There are many examples to support this. The real question, that I noted in my earlier post, is how do we turn the fishes head?

        I am not a pesimistic person by nature, but I very concerned that we as a people are too late, and therefore must endure the collapse. It seems that even though more and more people are protesting government actions, they (the government) just get more and more determined to push their agenda.

        I hope we are not too late, but only time will tell

        Hope you are well and looking forward to a Happy Christmas.

        CM

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    An Odd Post-Crash Couple

    More than a year after the election, the Arizona Republican is looking to repair that reputation by joining up with Democratic firebrand Maria Cantwell to propose something that will be anathema to both Wall Street and the Obama administration. According to two congressional sources, the two maverick senators want to reinstate Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that forced the separation of regular commercial banking from Wall Street investment banking. The senators’ proposal echoes a failed amendment introduced in the House last week by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York.

    The Senate prospects for the success of the McCain-Cantwell bill—which the two plan to announce together on Wednesday morning—seem bleak at best. But McCain and Cantwell join a still small but not insignificant insurgency of chronic doubters, including former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who say not nearly enough is being done to change Wall Street and, in particular, to address the “too big to fail” problem. The issue is one of the few in Washington that can unite the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Democrats like Cantwell deplore Wall Street’s outsize role in the real economy and its lobbying influence, and conservatives such as McCain are appalled at the way the market system has been undermined—some would say rigged—by the power of the big banks.

    Bankers and regulators, Volcker said earlier this month, “have not come anywhere close to responding with necessary vigor” to the crisis. He wants to ban federally guaranteed commercial banks from risky trading in derivatives and other arcane instruments that could precipitate another huge bailout some day. That too is a proposal no one who currently controls the levers of power in Washington is considering. But among those who now support Volcker is Arthur Levitt Jr., the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. “I tend to be in the Volcker camp in saying banks should either be investment banks or take deposits and make loans,” Levitt told me in an interview this week.

    Read the rest of the article from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/226938

    Here is another one of those issues that I am unsure about in my own mind and that I certainly need to understand better. Allow me to first publicly thank BF for his input yesterday as his response to my questions helped me to much better grasp what I was reading and ferret out some of my thoughts. I still don’t have it all figured out, but his response, along with some others, really were quite helpful to me. And now I am here again.

    I am familiar with the Glass-Steagall Act, in fact I have written graduate level work on the act. What I am wondering is whether the re-introduction of the act can have any real impact on the risk and regulation of the banking industry. Today’s environment features banking conglomerates so large and with so many lobbyists, I cannot imagine that the government has the resources or the ability to effectively make this stick and have it actually impact things.

    But on a further note, as I mentioned yesterday, I am really torn about the idea of introducing more government into the equation. I am a free market guy. As such, I tend to look at things exactly as JAC pointed out yesterday: With any problem I start with the premise of solving it without government intervention. As I work through it, I keep government out. If I find I cannot reach a solution that is in line with liberty and freedom, I ask whether I was right in the first place to attempt to regulate or limit or whatever I was trying to do. If I can reconcile my principles with regulation or whatever is needed, and I find no solution that keeps government out of the equation, I then start to ask how I can involve government in the least intrusive way. Government as a last resort. There are very, very few things that I ever come up with that I cannot find a solution that excludes government. This is one of those areas, but one which I admit is probably so because I simply don’t understand economics well enough.

    • I, too, need to research a little to have a well-formed opinion on this one. I will say, in advance of this research, that people here were up in arms over it yesterday. But my boss (who worships Mises and has taken me on as a project to try to correct my Keynesian views – he would fit in very well here) believes it to be a very good idea – and he is a very smart and knowledgeable individual. When (on extremely rare occasion) he is in favor of government intervention, there is always a very good justification for it.

      • Matt:

        I think you misread what folks are “up in arms” over.

        Adding layers of “global” or even national regulations is not the same as requiring a split in banking funcitons.

        Yes, it is “officialy” regulating, but there is a huge difference.

        Remember my comment that it would be much simpler to outlaw the risky B.S. investment mechansisms that build the regulations necessary to “protect” us from ourselves. It was not a joke.

        There comes a point where adding straw to the camel is self defeating. Best to just dump the load and let the camel go back to his family.

        As I posted to USW, I do not think this is as straight forward as many are claiming it to be. I also would like more information. I think it might prevent certain types of problems in the future but do not see how it would have prevented those created by the housing bubble.

    • USW:

      Simply separating the two functions looks good but is not totally supported by the actual evidence. I say totally because there were some banks with mixed functions that struggled.

      But for the To Big to Fail crowd who were the key players? I recall that most of them were primarily “investment” banks.

      Furthermore, once the housing bubble burst any of the “regular” banks would be at risk. Unless they had sold the mortgages, including all assets and liabilities, they would have suddenly been subject to balance sheet problems requiring greater assets. Regulations would have required them to stop lending and start hoarding cash. They would have had to forclose and dispose of property quickly to reduce the imbalance as well.

      Nobody is going to prevent banks from selling their paper to investors, because that would limit their ability to make loans and thus profits. So if they can still sell their paper to “investment bankers” then how will the game be changed by forcing a more distinct split between the functions?

      The “investment bankers” will still be at risk, from the paper they bought. It is the investment bankers that controll the larger amount of Capital. This is the group considered to big to fail because the investment side fuels the world’s economy.

      I would like to see more specifics as to how this would actually prevent any such problems in the future. I have a feeling this is more about creating the perception of a solution in order to restore confidence in the system. Remember, many politicians and lobby groups jumped on this as the “cause” of the collapse when it first started. My experience is that when someone, especially politicians, quickly jump on something it is usually NOT the real problem.

      And for the record. In my opinion the REAL problems was not Greed itself, nor was it a lack of regulation. It was a lack of CHARACTER. It was the loss of those values that used to comprise that character.

      The best to you and the missus.
      JAC

    • What I am wondering is whether the re-introduction of the act can have any real impact on the risk and regulation of the banking industry.

      USWep,

      I believe – en masse – most people mistaken the cause of the economic collapse.

      The 3-card Monte game is working to point to particular actions of the banks as the cause – so hiding the real cause – massive injection of money into the economy by the FED at the behest of the government.

      The FED is under attack like it has never been since its birth. It is in full self-defense mode. Ron Paul is demanding an audit – he has all the votes he needs – and Obama will veto it.

      But the net effect of this is to shine a light in the deep dark cavern of cartel banking.

      These guys do not like the light at all. They are back-room manipulators and they mumble and stumble badly when in the public eye.

      They are in the shadows because even if they are evil geniuses, because they visibly sweat and wring their hands in fear of being caught. They do not have very good poker faces.

      So they are calling in all their chits. They want all the people, and Congress to watch the 3-Card Monte game.

      It’s the “big banks” fault, not the FED. It’s the “stupid borrowers” fault, not the FED. It’s something else, but, for sure, never has, and never will be, the FED’s fault. Learn your lesson yet?? If not, they;ll repeat it even lounder until you do….

      Because the People and Congress want a whipping-boy, they are providing one …..Re-Regulate the Big Banks, but leave the Big Bank’s Big Bank alone.

      Why?

      Because the Big Bank of Banks – the FED – exists solely to protect the Big Banks. So, the Banks will take the blame, take some penance, while snickering that their Greatest Creation will remain untouched. In the long run, their profit, protection and survival rests with the FED. Taking a spanking in its place is very small sacrifice.

      But on a further note, as I mentioned yesterday, I am really torn about the idea of introducing more government into the equation.

      Keep this in mind.

      The banking regulations exist to enhance the profit and power of the largest banks in the US. More regulation will increase the centralization and power of these banks.

      As V. Holland observed, the Big Banks write the legislation they want Congress to pass.

      And as you observed, the mingling of risk investment married to risk-adverse lending has been around of decades. Unraveling this will cause an economic collapse all by itself.

      The real answer, of course, is the impossible answer.

      Impossible because the People have no recourse.

      The People cannot remove their money from a overly risky bank and put it into the risk-adverse one – competition in banking does not exist.

      The only option is for the People to remove their money and put it their mattress, but People are more scared of their own irresponsibility then the irresponsibility of others, so that response of money withdrawal will be by the very few and not nearly enough to be noticed.

      Matt

      But my boss (who worships Mises and has taken me on as a project to try to correct my Keynesian views – he would fit in very well here) believes it to be a very good idea – and he is a very smart and knowledgeable individual. When (on extremely rare occasion) he is in favor of government intervention, there is always a very good justification for it.

      Then your boss is merely a fair weather Miseian and a foul weather Keynesian. And you can tell him I said so.

      There is no case where government intervention is good or justified in any economic model…if you claim yourself a student of Austrian Economics.

      As Hayek demonstrated, the market is further distorted by government regulation, damaging unintended consequences grow, resulting in a magnification of suffering on the People, who then call upon government to intervene even more.

      The positive-feedback loop of Government intervention ends with totally political tyranny with total economic stagnation and collapse.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Turning Carbon into Cash

    Wahab’s entrepreneurial success is a product of the complicated world of carbon finance. Wealthy bankers at the Goldman Sachs commodities desk in New York are helping to make the Nigerian-born Wahab’s dream a reality. After unsuccessfully shopping his idea around to local banks, Wahab came across E+Co, an American nonprofit company that invests in clean-energy businesses in the developing world. E+Co saw the potential for his project to generate carbon offsets, an increasingly valuable commodity that corporations purchase to help neutralize their own emissions. Toyola’s stoves usually replace older ones that burn wood and charcoal less efficiently and that pollute the homes of Ghanaians and release greenhouse gases. Each stove that Wahab sells to replace less-efficient one prevents the release of about the same amount of greenhouse-gas emissions over its useful life (about three years) as is released by driving a Honda Civic for one year. That reduction in carbon emissions is then monetized and sold as an offset. And in this case, the offsets are being snapped up by Goldman Sachs.

    At present, it’s difficult to determine the size of the U.S. carbon-offset market. Goldman Sachs estimates put it at between $100 million and $130 million a year. But, with emissions-reduction plans working their way through both the U.S. Senate and the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the market is set to expand rapidly. Forecasters such as New Energy Finance and Point Carbon anticipate that with regulation, the U.S. cap-and-trade market could balloon to anywhere from $300 billion to $1 trillion.

    Offsets are currently a voluntary purchase in the U.S., unlike in Europe, where cap-and-trade laws limit greenhouse-gas emissions and force polluters to offset their consumption by purchasing carbon credits. So why would U.S. firms buy carbon offsets now? Their motivations are partly altruistic and partly commercial, says Gerrit Nicholas, head of the North American Environmental Commodities Sales Team at Goldman Sachs. Companies can claim a premium on products billed as “carbon neutral.” Some like to create a green brand image, while others have corporate social-responsibility objectives or plans to achieve carbon neutrality simply out of good will. But for big energy companies that see regulation on the horizon that would potentially burden them with an enormous carbon liability, the main driver is cost. “If you expect [prices] will change once regulation comes into effect, you can buy something at a fraction today of what it might cost you even a year from now,” says Nicholas. He anticipates that once regulation is in effect, demand for offsets like those offered by E+Co will rapidly outstrip supply.

    Read the rest of the article from NewsWeek via MSNBC: http://www.newsweek.com/id/226941

    What a great little “feel good” story. A man makes stoves under the shade of a tree. He expands, with the help of the ever benevolent Goldman Sachs, and saves the world one hut at a time with his cleaner stoves. Allow me to first say that I fail to understand how such a thing as carbon offsets make sense to anyone. It is akin to fiat money. How is it possible that something is purchased, traded, or sold, which does not exist in the first place? Suppose I purchase 100 carbon offsets. But I want to store them away and save them. I want to put them in my vault. Can I do so? Of course not. Anyone wonder why we are bailing out big banks when they are purchasing 130 million dollars worth of something that doesn’t exist?

    Take note of what was said about what is happening in Europe. Polluters must, by law, offset their consumption by purchasing carbon credits. That is where we are headed with this cap and trade BS. And all for a AGW crisis which is completely fabricated by the Algorians (credit still goes to JAC for that term). And here we have the big banks snapping up carbon offsets while they are cheap, which they will grow rich on later once we are forced to purchase them. Let’s make that a little more clear. The big banks, with the big money, throw money into purchasing something which only exists because someone passed a law that say they exist, and will later get even bigger and richer by selling these things which don’t really exist to the rest of us who will be forced by law to purchase a thing that only exists in our minds because a law said they exist. Does anyone else think this sounds like Bizarro World?

    Here, my friends, is government at work. They create a crisis (AGW in this case) which is not a crisis in the first place. To fix that crisis, they create a law which brings into existence a fictional good called a carbon offset. They then pass another law that requires that fictional good to be purchased. And this will create a fake solution to the problem. Government creates a fake crisis to sell a fake product that solves a fake crisis. And who are the beneficiaries? Government and Big business. The losers? You got it, you and me. We pay a higher price for all goods and services because of the fake product government requires to be added to the production costs. And despite all of this, those on the left still somehow fall for the delusion that their party is actually the party looking out for the people and stopping big business. Amazing!

    And one other thought on this. I found this article on MSNBC. Obviously, the article speaks for itself and the name of the article when you go to read it is “Turning Carbon into Cash”. However, the headline on MSNBC was not the headline of the article. Instead the headline of the link on that “news” site was: Newsweek: How carbon offsets can enrich the poor. Literally dozens of people go to MSNBC each day (I jest as I am sure millions do, but it will get down to dozens eventually). And 95% of them will not click on that article and read it. But they will remember that a news source had an article that said carbon offsets can enrich the poor. The title they offered was misleading, but will stick in the back of many folks minds later when carbon offsets become a more mainstream topic. That, my friends, is subtle manipulation and it is the art practiced by today’s media. Go ahead and tell me I am wrong.

    • USW, Good points on AGW and the nanipulating media. AGW, IMHO, has been exposed for what it is, a fraud. The fact that the MSM are mostly ignoring “climategate” is proof enough, as they support AGW legislation and refuse to report the truth for fear it will fail.

      Posting for comments as well.

      Hope everyone has a great day!

      G!

    • From the Desk of Mrs. Weapon,
      Good morning everyone. I have a job interview today so I am looking to the fans of SUFA to cross their fingers/say a prayer/contemplate a Buddhist teaching/etc! This is a great opportunity for the Weapon family as this may free up Weapon to pursue new job prospects and not have to work in the madness of Christmas retain anymore!!! This is also a benefit to all of you since this will also free him up to respond and write more during the holidays so if you are looking for selfish reasons to send well wishes to the Weapon family, I ask you to do so.

      First and foremost, I have to thank my husband for his “shout out” to me during his article on the Obama grading article. I am a bit behind on my reading of the website and was disappointed in myself when I read his comment. As you all know, I have the best husband in the world and I am not always the best wife, hence, my example above. Even during these busy times, he has taken the time to put up Christmas lights and participate in hanging the ornaments on the Christmas tree this year. I love my husband more than the world so I wanted to send a little shout out back to him.

      Regarding the article above…. the cap and trade debate to me is one of total bs. This topic is for those who do not keep up with the realistic view of how cap and trade affects our economy. How in the world can you ask a company to pay for the byproducts they produce without true scientific knowledge of whether these byproducts actually cause effects on the environment? My question to those who do believe this is a good policy is how? How will this help anyone? How will this decrease the amount of emissions going into the environment if someone else can buy them? Maybe I am ignorant to this topic but I cannot find a logical reason as to how this will help anyone, except the governments. Please…someone help me answer some of these questions so I can understand how something like this can be passed.

      A Happy Holidays to all!

    • Not only will we get to spend money on a make believe good, we will get to pay real taxes on this make believe good. Government in action – makes you fill warm inside does it not.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/12/16/fears-quarter-of-wales-largest-woodland-will-be-felled-for-wind-farm-91466-25399887/

      Why the hell would you cut down 30% of the trees in a large forest (trees which TAKE CO2 AND CONVERT IT TO O2) in order to put in a wind farm?!?!?

      That is the height of stupidity. At the ABSOLUTE BEST they are spending tens of millions of dollars for a slight cut in coal useage and a big drop in trees which REDUCE the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!

      • They’re doing it because one, there’s a pile of money to be made, and two, they know the whole CO2 heating up the planet is BS. Oh, that was a rhetorical question wasn’t it? 😉

      • Think about the trees that will be saved when the MSM print media go out of business. All that paper will be saved. It’s green for the MSM print media to go out of business and will help the environment and save CO2 consuming trees.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Connecticut Democrat calls for Joe Lieberman recall

    A House Democrat from Connecticut said Tuesday that Sen. Joe Lieberman should be recalled from office over his opposition to the Senate health care bill.

    “No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.

    Connecticut has no recall law for state officials, and the Constitution does not authorize states to recall members of Congress since each house has the authority to police its own members. DeLauro acknowledged that she didn’t know “what the Connecticut process is because I never found myself in this position — but I think it is unconscionable that he would hold up health care.”

    She said that millions of people die because they lack health insurance.

    DeLauro’s comments speak to concerns running through Democratic circles in Connecticut and in Washington after Lieberman exerted his will on Democratic leaders and the White House, saying he would join a GOP filibuster if the bill included either a public insurance option or a provision allowing people aged 55-64 to buy into Medicare.

    Read the rest of the article from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30627.html

    Allow me to first say that I have zero understanding why someone of this low intelligence was elected to the House of Representatives. I read three articles with various comments from DeLauro, and she is an idiotic woman who relies on pure rhetoric while offering nothing that even borders on the realm of reality. He logic was condensed to “millions of people die”, which is somewhat on par with the “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper stickers out there. But then again, that seems to be the ruling mentality of the Democratic party these days. Find a good slogan, infuse some emotional rhetoric around it, and watch the idiots without critical thinking skills flock to the cause.

    Joe Lieberman is not “holding health care hostage” as DeLauro claims. They need 60 votes. He only represents a single vote. There are at least 40 other votes needed to defeat this farce of a bill. To single Lieberman out is dishonest, and is only being done to attempt to put pressure on him to get back in line. The tactics have been abysmal by the left on this issue. Resident liberal hate mongers moveon.org called for a boycott of donations and support for the “Komen for the Cure” organization unless the organization dropped Lieberman’s wife from the leadership. Wrap your head around that for a second. They pushed to boycott a group that seeks a cure for women’s breast cancer because one of the members of its leadership is the wife of a Senator who won’t toe the political liberal line. How disgusting is that? What lowlifes the moveon.org folks are (a Soros group, for the record).

    But the reality for me is this: A United States Senator is a voting member, one of only 100, who are tasked with evaluating a proposed legislation and deciding whether to support it. There are many reasons why they don’t or do support it. But their JOB is to decide for themselves what to do (I don’t pretend this system works, just stating how it is supposed to work). It is bad enough that there has become this disgusting expectation that members of Congress will follow the party line rather than serving their constituents. How much lower the party system has sunk when its members now want a recall of a sitting member for not following the party line.

    I say stick to your guns Joe. The Democratic party is full of assholes, just like the Republicans (talking politicians not citizens). They already screwed you once by backing Ned Lamont in the primary because you wouldn’t fall in line. You won that battle and sent Lamont back to obscurity and sent a message to the DNC to kiss your ass. I despise the two parties. I submit that the people will finally win when all 535 members of Congress tell the DNC and RNC to kiss their ass and begin following the will of their constituents.

    • But their JOB is to decide for themselves what to do

      Agree 100%

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Yes, their Job is to decide for themselves what to do after looking into the facts and determining the impact their actions will have on their constituents.

        Their job is NOT to make decisions based on having received money from insurance companies. (This statement goes to all Congressmen and their preferred lobbyists). Lieberman has fully supported a Medcaid Buy-In plan for years – he campaigned on it in 2000, and supported it as recently as a few short months ago, as being in the best interests of Connecticut citizens. What changed: money from the insurance industry.

        It is completely fair to call Lieberman out on this switch and demand that he explain himself. That being said, MoveOn.org’s calls in regards to Lieberman’s wife and Komen are completely indefensible.

        • And, again, agree 100%.

          For those keeping count, that’s 200% agreement so far.

        • Buck in an interview I saw last night Joe’s excuse/flip-flop was we (government) are way further in debt today than we were in 2000. Not saying that’s the real reason for the change but it is a valid one.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Normally I would say that is a valid reason for a change. I find it hard to believe that as the real reason though, since Lieberman had also supported this proposal only weeks/months ago.

      • I’d like to add that this goes both ways. While senators should be free to ignore party leaders and do what they think is right, they should also be free to ignore their constituents and do what they think is right. I know I’m going to get some flack for this position, but I think it’s important.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Agree 100% (hey, we’re up to 300%)!

          But they cannot turn their backs on their own personal beliefs as to what is right nor their own constituents in favor of the opinions of the lobbyists who pay them.

        • Common Man says:

          Matt;

          America is suppose to be a Republic and in a Republic those elected to represent their constituents should do so unless doing so violates the Constitution; which is first and foremost. They each took an oath to uphold the Constitution; unfortunately their (Congress) record for doing so over the last 100 years is very dismal.

          Those representatives who choose not to follow their constituents wishes need to be replaced with someone that will. Otherwise we as a people will continue to witness liberty and freedom vanish.

          CM

          • Were that the case, we would have a direct democracy. The founders understood that people cannot be trusted to sufficiently inform themselves of the issues or to go against their immediate best interests for their long-term benefit. So they set up a system whereby a group of (hopefully) well intentioned and (hopefully) intelligent and (hopefully) ethical and (hopefully) hard-working individuals would represent the interests of their constituents, while not always their wishes.

            • Common Man says:

              Matt;

              You hold a lot of “hope”, and when you have “hope in one hand and Sh*t in another, what do you have?

              CM

            • Matt:

              “Were that the case, we would have a direct democracy.”: That’s not exactly correct. They did expect them to “represent” their constituency not just “do what was in their best interest”.

              Representing a constituency is not at all the same as a direct democracy.

              Your comments are true to a point, however, in that they expected the voters to electe the wisest, most honorable, and most trusted among those being represented.

              And, yes, they knew that the elected representative would be forced to act on behalf of his constituency without having direct knowledge of their desires, much of the time. But not always.

              Remember, the founders wanted the number of the House to be based on no more than 30,000 to increase the ability of the Elected member to represent those who elected him.

              What has gone awry is not just the lobbyists and money. But an attitude bred into our intellectual elite that THEY know better. THEY tell us what is good for us. They don’t represent any of us necessarily, they LECTURE US. Then they ratiionalize their decision to US by handing out free COOKIES to shut us up.

              So put me down for 75% agreement.

              That brings your total to 375. At this rate we’ll have the economic crisis solved by tonight.

            • Hell must have indeed frozen over this morning. I actually agree with Matt. Oh God…..

              🙂

              • I think that makes you a liberal. Don’t worry. If you take a disinfectant shower soon enough, you should be ok.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            And those Congressmen that fail to follow their constituents’ wishes can be voted out of office by those same constituents in the next election cycle.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      C’mon USW! Stick to your guns Joe?

      Huh?

      He is a classic flip flopper as he has proven with his position on buy-in. How is that sticking to your guns?

      Also – I was a bit astonished at the comments regarding Moveon.org and Komen. I am curious where you read that. Moveon has asked for donations to help run support against Lieberman. I also read on both Fox and Daily News (NY) that Jane Hamsher of FiredogLake has been pressuring celebrities to cut ties and pressure Komen to remove Lieberman’s wife (who we should mentioned was current/past hack for big pharma). I could find nothing supporting a boycott of donations to Komen.

      Joe Lieberman is a piece of garbage – rotten with much of the ilk that try to kiss his ass to appease him – until someone else lines his pockets.

      FTR – right wing groups have long advocated boycotts of supporting Komen – specifically because of their support for Planned Parenthood. Sample link: http://track-em-down.com/boycotts.html

      • USW, I have to agree with Ray on one issue here. While I know that Senators and Representatives can change their minds and while I applaud Mr. Lieberman on several issues….I do see it no different than the good lady from Louisiana that sold her vote for $300,000,000. I have a real problem of the “flip flop” on either side. It is pure hypocrisy to sell ones vote or “hold out” to get what you want which will probably be a chairmanship somewhere and, I feel, that Lieberman is doing an “in your face” issue here and I think while appropriate…it is still wrong and should not be done.

        However, Lieberman pales significantly to the pressure applied by the Obama administration (specifically Rohm Emmanuel) to the Nebraska Senator and the threat to close Offut AFB (10,000 jobs) or at the very least put it on the BRAC list if he does not vote FOR the health bill. This type of politics is worse than the flip flop. If this were done in the business sector it would be extortion.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          D13 – having trouble corroborating the BRAC story for Offutt AFB – I know it was a blog posting quoting an unnamed Senate Aide (gee, I wonder who) – which does not exactly give it the substance of fact. I also thought BRAC 2005 was the last of the rounds (for now at least)? Anywhere to better validate the Offutt angle?

          • Actually, there is a BRAC list out now but it has not changed any from the 2005/2007 list.

            The information that I have actually came from a briefing that I attended yesterday ( I am still a contract DOD employee until age 63 1/2 as an adviser and still in the loop on intel briefings ) at Fort Worth JRB (Joint reserve Base). There are three new base/post closings that have been threatened to be “put on the list” which includes Fort Worth NAS JRB because of Senator Hutchinson and the fact that she was resigning and has now chosen to extend her resignation because of the health care. Because of her extension and vote against health care, it has pissed off some of the Obama administration, we are told, and the prospect of being put on the BRAC list has to be treated as more than a rumor. Fort Worth NAS JRB has been designated as the Command and Control for all of the joint reserve bases in the US and employs just over 5,000 personnel. The briefing, which is not classified obviously, was a “heads up”. This is where I got the information. I cannot verify how true it is but it is apparently more than just hype because of the planning of it. The word further is that if closed, the JRB HQ will be moved to Illinois.

            So, I would venture to guess….that there is some truth to it if not all true. This does not surprise me at all as I know this is how politics is played.

            If I can get further corroboration that is not classified in any manner, I will certainly forward same to you.

            How are you doing, my friend?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Jeez – well – if it were a briefing I’d think there is some kernel of truth to it. BRAC has been political from the very beginning. What a shame and utterly disgusting.

              Thanks D13!

              • Yessir…..BRAC has been around a long time and has been used a lot in closings and consolidations according to whom is in power. Fort Worth NAS JRB used to be known as Carswell AFB….very important strategic SAC base in its time. CLinton put it on the BRAC list and closed it down and eliminated the only military hospital in North Texas. Part of the so-called peace dividend. They were going to sell it to Fort Worth for a business sector until it was discovered that it was so contaminated with jet fuel and no one would buy it as it was part of the EPA super fund. Senator Kay Hutchinson was instrumental in getting the joint reserve base headquarters here under the Bush Administration and it is now a Naval Air Station with the Army and Air Force and Marines stationed there.

                This is preposterous and is a blight if true and I believe it is true because I certainly do not doubt that we would have been briefed otherwise.

              • Update for Ray:

                received a call last night at 2330 hrs informing me that any discussion of the BRAC list is NOW classified. (too late). It seems that the BRAC list may have some truth to it. The directive came from the CIC omnipotent. Apparently, it has some validity considering that the White House is VEHEMENTLY denying it even though the 2005/2007 list has now been revised to go into effect in 2012 and it has been confirmed that Fort Worth JRB is back on the list. Coincidental I am sure since Senator Hutchinson has postponed her resignation until after the Health Care Vote.

                You decide. 🙂

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                HA! Thanks D13. I did laugh when I read the Media Matters screed about this in reference to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh blowing off on it. I don’t believe everything Media Matters publishes. 🙂

                Well done sir.

  5. As promised, here’s my post from the other day..

    An Open Letter To Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

    Senator Hatch,

    I have recently purchased a home in New York, and am therefore not one of your constituents at this time. However, pursuant to extensive discussion with learned friends, I have come to the conclusion that you are the correct source of information to address a grave problem I face.

    As you know, scientists claim that the world is warming. With higher average temperatures, non-indigenous species are able to gain a foothold into new territory. In places such as Florida, this comes in the form of pythons. In California, new rodent species have begun to invade. In my new residence in New York, the invasive species we face is U. ostrommaysi – more commonly known as the Utah Raptor.

    Being an elected representative of the great state of Utah where this species was first discovered, we hope that you may have more knowledge in how to handle this 6 1/2 foot tall man-eating menace. It is well known that they will migrate indoors during cooler weather (such as we are experiencing now) and can hide in closets and crawl spaces. Homeowners run the risk of being mauled in their sleep, their small children and pets being dragged away.

    I have constructed and placed several gigantic versions of the classic spring-loaded mouse trap, as well as two Malaysian tiger traps but fear that it is not sufficient. Further, if legislation currently before Congress is enacted, U. ostrommaysi will become a protected endangered species and I could go to jail for 3 years or be fined up to $25,000 just for protecting my loved ones.

    I look forward to hearing from you on these important matters, and appreciate in advance the assistance.

    Kindest regards,
    Matthew ********

    PS: Attached is a sketch my wife, Emily, drew of a battle I had just this morning when one sprang from my closet at 5 AM. [Does anyone know how to post a picture here?]

    • Matt,

      I recommend you get a tame bear for home defense.

      Polar Bear Goes Hunting for Climate-Gate Scientist at Copenhagen Summit

      By William La Jeunesse

      – FOXNews.com

      Using a megaphone that pierced the rumble of hundreds of people gathered at the conference center housing Copenhagen’s climate conference, a man dressed as a polar bear went looking for controversial scientist Phil Jones — but he was nowhere to be found.

      http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/polar-bear-phil-jones/

  6. Hey Matt, the good Senator asked me to forward this to you.

    An Open Letter to Matthew **********

    Dear Matt:

    Thank you so much for your letter of concern. I can assure you that the members of Congress, both Senate and House, will take your dilemma into consideration and I am equally sure that they can address the issue of U. ostrommaysi. However, allow me to say that careful analysis and research money has been introduced to find the Amber that houses the mosquito and DNA of the Raptor in question. Be rest assured that we have also genetically altered the chromosome content to ensure that we control the species in that they cannot breed on their own…..not unlike altering our rules of government to control the species…errr the constituents…errr…I mean the American people.

    The introduction of this rare species of Raptor is to ensure that the worst fears of the American People are realized and that the monsters….errr…Raptors that live in closets, under the bed, basements, behind gas units and such have been introduced to save another endangered species and that is the TRUE conservative and the TRUE Liberal….Utah raptors are authorized to consume the far right wing conservative and the far left wing liberal. I have introduced a bill to mandate that Utah Raptors consume government economists, Wall Street Brokers, Bankers, and Czars. In addition, the Utah Raptor has been altered to consume the Federal Court system cronyism and Supreme Court Justices’ that make law instead of interpreting law.

    We are unable, at this time, to allow the Utah Raptor to consume the President elect…as we have yet to devise a suppository that will reduce the gas emitted from such consumption and since the U. ostrommaysi is currently on the endangered species list, we, of course, cannot endanger this specimen. However, much like the Florida alligator that is now prolific, we anticipate that the introduction of the U. ostrommaysi into New York, Michigan, etc. will greatly enhance the species since the food chain appears to be abundant in those areas.

    If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch

  7. Common Man says:

    All;

    Many thoughts:

    1) Liberman sold out, or bucked under the pressure of having something he didn’t want revealed revealed. He is no better nor worse than any of the other morons seated today. His decision to support the bill is an example of how powerful we have allowed government to become. The fact that we allow these sub-human individuals to maintain their positions regardless of the filth and BS they spew, is mind numbing. There are no right minded men or women in Congress. We are no longer being represented only used like any other commodity.

    2) Cloward – Piven Strategy – I have been reading up on this and have concluded the current regime is embracing it full fledge. What does everyone else think?

    3) The government is now the largest employer in the world today, and gettng bigger. They are amassing numbers never seen before in the history of the US. In additon they are creating their own rules and laws, most of which defy the Constitution and Natural Law. Representatives are snubbing those who elected them and banning together to further their power. The current regime is working diligently to further remove liberties and impliment controls that could very well crush individual rights. Money is being printed and spent at a rate which will likely create a debt we can never recover from. Despite an increase in the overall public desire for them to stop, they continue; and with a fervor.

    IS IT TOO LATE TO TURN THE FISHES HEAD?

    4) I am noticing a great number of returning Vets experiencing various problems; especially those who choose not to re-up, but return home and try to re-adjust to normal society. I have talked to a number of young men and women returning from the wars, as well as their families, and the majority have some form of PTSD. I can personaly attest that every one I have met is screwed up mentally, and as a result are engaging in either drugs or the drink. Everyone I know has gotten into trouble in some form or another. Why? My son, nephew, neighbor and many others I know are all demonstrating some form of destructive behaivor, and get very little help from the VA; some get none at all. Have we created another batch of Viet Nam era youth? Should our children stop enlisting? Maybe no military means no wars?

    CM

  8. Common Man says:

    BTW:

    Not getting any of the follow-up comments even though I checked the box each time. Anybody else having the same problem?

    CM

  9. Does the second amendment or any Bill of Right apply to state and local governments?

    http://www.kcra.com/news/21979828/detail.html

    City Council Votes To Join Lawsuit Before Supreme Court
    POSTED: 10:59 pm PST December 15, 2009
    UPDATED: 11:25 pm PST December 15, 2009

    Comments (8)SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Sacramento City Council passed a resolution Tuesday night supporting a lawsuit that could change the way the U.S. Supreme Court defines Second Amendment rights.

    Several cities have voted to join the lawsuit brought against the city of Chicago by a resident there. The cities have joined the suit as ‘Amicus Curiae,’ basically supporting the city’s position that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, should not apply to local governments.

    Sacramento City Councilman Kevin McCarty, D-District 6, told KCRA 3 that if the lawsuit fails, it could impact several local laws that regulate gun and ammunition sales. He pointed to a recent double homicide, calling it a good example of why the Second Amendment should not apply locally.

    “We’re afraid that if that court case goes the wrong direction, that could terminate what we are doing locally,” McCarty said. “By stepping up and supporting this court case, we think it will continue these laws here that are working.”

    Gun advocates said they believe the lawsuit erodes citizens’ rights.

    “The City Council of Sacramento is misdirected,” said Sam Paredes, director of Gun Owners of California.

    Paredes said the City Council should be targeted criminals not guns.

    “The City Council is trying to go after the wrong thing when trying to control crime,” Paredes said.

    He said the lawsuit has already sparked a firestorm of controversy.

    “Phones are starting to ring off the hook,” Paredes said. “People are absolutely amazed the City Council is going to take a position like this.”

    By teaming up with Chicago and other cities, the Sacramento City Council hopes to stop gun violence.

    “We’ve been able to take off the streets 200 guns, arrest a couple hundred felons,” McCarty said.

    • Get rid of guns…the criminals will have knives…get rid of the knives…the criminals will have clubs….it matters not. I firmly believe in the saying that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.

      It matters not in Texas what the Supreme Court will rule concerning guns….we will still have them, they are not required to be registered, and we will still use them. Pretty simple, really. You can take just about anything you want but leave our guns, whiskey, horses, and women alone. (not necessarily in that order).

    • I am totally confused -they want to outlaw the Constitution when it comes to states-What??????????

      • Help me understand this people-if they win this case, won’t that effectively wipe out State rights-doesn’t this little case have huge implications?

      • I heard this on the radio before looking it up and posting it. Unless it is being misrepresented, this is huge as it would mean the BofR would not apply to states but only to the Federal government. I cannot believe that SCOTUS would approve, but as we know, once an argument is started, it never dies.

        • All;

          Investigate all your laws, state/local to determine when, where and how you can legally carry a weapon. Most state and local laws allow for “open carry”, which means that you can carry a weapon as long as it is visable. When you are going to enter an area that does not allow for concealed weapons simple expose your sidearm. It is tricky, but the open carry law has not gotten a lot of opposition yet.

          This past summer a local resident hosted an “open carry” party at the local city park, inviting all those supporting gun rights to come, enjoy the commaradery and demonstrate (peacefully) citizens right to carry. A lot of folks showed up with weapons exposed and everybody had a good time.

          You need to be careful though because there are laws in each state that mandate when and where you cannot carry in any form. (Government buildings, bars, schools, etc.)

          CM

          • You need to be VERY careful. Many cities, counties, townships, etc have laws against open carry that came about aimed at denying blacks the ability to defend themselves. Local law enforcement
            were selective in who they punished.

            http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carry-laws-explained/history-of-georgias-carry-laws/

            1906 to 1911 In 1906, Clark Howell and Hoke Smith battled for the Democrat nomination for Governor. The candidates spent much of the time debating how best to disenfranchise black men, spreading fear about “Negro rule”, and claiming to be the most ardent white supremacist. After the election, the newspapers published 4 stories in rapid succession about attacks on white women by black men and other stories about an epidemic of black crime. 20

            On the afternoon of Saturday, September 22 1906, thousands of white men and boys, agitated by the continuing flow of newspaper stories about black on white crime, gathered in downtown Atlanta. After midnight and for two more days, the mob attacked black-owned businesses, blacks riding on trolley cars, and black neighborhoods. Once the Blacks learned of the riot, they secretly armed themselves and then effectively defended their homes and families from the invading mob, while the police protected white neighborhoods and property. 21

            In the years following the riot, white voters and the all white General Assembly systematically disenfranchised and then disarmed blacks in Georgia.

            To further the illusion that this law was not discriminatory against blacks, the Georgia Supreme Court decided Strickland v. State. The Court ruled the 1910 law was Constitutional because the law was within the purview of the police powers of the state.24 At this time, the police were all white and often members of the KKK who could be counted on not to enforce the law against white people.

          • On April 20, 2009, Wisconsin Attorney General JB. Van Hollen issued a memorandum to district attorneys stating that open carry was legal and does not warrant a charge of disorderly conduct. In contravention of this memo, Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn instructed his officers to put anyone openly carrying a firearm “to the ground” without having probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the individual committed any crime, seize the person’s firearm, and determine later if the individual could legally carry it.

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

          • CM:

            I just took the training course for my license. During the training, I was informed that MI was an open carry state but should I try to walk down main street with my pistol exposed I shouldn’t be surprised when two cop cars show up with guns drawn and tell me to lay spread eagle on the sidewalk. The legal person informed me they would find something else to charge me with like disturbing the peace or something to that effect. Yes, we have open carry but if you try something like that in the city there will be trouble.

            • Common Man says:

              Birdman;

              It can also depend on the city you live in and who you know, or better yet who knows you. I won’t argue you could find yourself face down on the sidewalk, but that does not dismiss your right.

              I have a carry permit, so I choose not to expose my weapon. The laws make it difficult sometimes when I am out running around.

              BTW: What did you have to pay for the course, what is your weapon of choice and how much range time was involved in the course?

              CM

              • The training was $150. I had individual training since nobody else signed up for the class. I had about 11 hours total in the class and then 100 rounds of shooting. I think it was $105 at the court house. I should get my permit in January, unless they find out I am a regular on SUFA!

                I have a 44 magnum and a 9mm. I plan on using the 9mm. Ammunition is very difficult to find. I have been waiting since September for casings and bullets from Midway. I still cannot find primers any place close to where I live.

              • I use cheaper than dirt and sportsmans guide for most of my ammo, have just got some reloads in from these guys, but have not tried yet. Bet they will have primers.

                http://www.bluestarbrass.com/catalog/

                My CCW cost $125 including FBI background check and ammo. Choice in carry
                Vektor CP1, 9mm. Size of a Glock 26, but more rounded and concealable.

              • Primers and powder have a hazardous material handling fee so I usually try to buy those from a local source. Midway may have them but it’s expensive to ship them. I may have to go that route. I have a Ruger P95 9mm. It’s probably larger than what you have but the price was right.

              • Common Man says:

                LOF/Bird;

                Glock 22 in winter, Walther PPK 380 in warmer months.

                Just did pick up a Kimber I have been saving for, sweet.

                Also have a Ruger .44, but much to big to lug around.

                I also have the “Judge” by Taurus. that one is a real hoot on the range.

                CM

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Hey VH, hope all is well. A while back JAC and I got into this issue a little bit.

        Basically MOST of the Bill of Rights have been found to apply to the States due to the 14th Amendment through a theory of incorporation. The 2d Amendment has never been held to have been incorporated. The nitty gritty issue is whether the 14th Amendment mandates that the provisions of the 2d Amendment applies not just to the federal government, but to state governments as well.

        The outcome has huge implications insofar as how far state and local governments can regulate gun rights. Assuming incorporation is found, the state governments will be held to the same standards as the federal government in this arena.

        What’s interesting here is that in the recent Supreme Court case involving DC’s gun laws, the Court held that the 2d Amendment does protect an individual right. The question of incorporation was never addressed as DC is not a state. Based on this holding though, I would be very surprised if this reached the Supreme Court and the Court did not hold for incorporation. Once it is decided that this is an individual right, it seems only logical that due process under the 14th Amendment would kick in and extend that individual right to protection from state governments.

        I hope this brief summary helps explain the background of the case.

        • So your saying that right now because the 2nd amendment hasn’t been incorporated-the States can infringe on our right to bear arms and these people want to keep it that way. That means that right now the question of whether or not all these gun control laws are legal is based on this question not being answered?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Yes and No.

            I’m no constitutional scholar and a lot of this is based on my recollections of past cases studied.

            As originally drafted, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; it was a limit imposed on the federal government. The 14th Amendment was subsequently found to apply many of the Bill of Rights to the states as well (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.) The 2d Amendment was never found to apply, in large part because it was not certain that the 2d Amendment protected an individual right. Now that the Supreme Court held that it is in fact an individual right, I believe it would be hard pressed to not similarly hold for incorporation.

            But just because the 2d Amendment is found to apply to state governments does not mean that all of these gun control laws are illegal. There would have to be caselaw as to the standards government must meet — Freedom of Speech applies to state governments, yet local governments will often infringe on the freedom of speech, but in doing so must overcome a certain burden and meet certain requirements. The same would hold true for an incorporated 2d Amendment.

            • Thanks Buck, will have to think about this for awhile-can’t think of anymore questions at the moment. 🙂

              • I was wrong 🙂 I do have another question-Anyone have any idea why it originally only applied to the federal government?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Basically because the Bill of Rights as written indicated no intention to apply to the states. It was seen at the time of drafting as a check on the federal government.

              • V.H>

                The entire Bill of Rights did not apply only to the Fed. Govt.

                Some applied to the Fed and others to Fed and State.

                Each amendment was a separate provision.

                Notice, the first states “Congress shall make no law….” This one applied only to the Fed. govt.

                The second has no such provision, it applied to all.

                But as we have learned, the Supreme Court changes the original intent by ruling (interpretation). And Matt is correct regarding the 14th.

                While many maintain it was not the intent of the 14th to incorporate all rules the Supreme court has ruled that it is so, and thus it is the law.

                Remember, the states had their own bill of rights and the intent was to primarily limit the Federal govt and their fear was the Fed could override the States. So they stuck a bill of rights on as an amendment, in order to get the states to ratify the primary document.

                This was a political compromise. And it has both benefited and harmed us over time.

                Hope your day is good.
                JAC

              • Buck The Wala says:

                One point of contention: Originally, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the state governments. This was upheld in an 1833 Supreme Court case.

                Completely agree with your description of the political compromise though.

              • Hope your day is good too-Complicated issue-don’t want the Fed. to force their interpretation onto the States(which they already do) but also don’t want the States to be able to take away our individual rights. Of course, I figure that if our government actually followed the Constitution instead of trying to find loop holes to pass their agenda’s -this wouldn’t be complicated. But I figured out a long time ago that when your dealing with our government and their rules and self serving interpretations making any assumptions based on logic is a losing proposition.

        • Buck do you have any idea when you and JAC discussed this-I would like to go back and read it, if I can find it.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Now you’re asking too much 🙂

            I believe it was sometime in October, possibly during another open thread. Maybe JAC has a better idea…

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The amendments found in the Bill of Rights are described as “The rights which every man possess AGAINST government”

      The 2nd amendment is no exception. If the 2nd amendment states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that is the right of the people AGAINST any government, be it Local, State, or Federal.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Given the peculiar wording of the 2d Amendment, it was not so certain that the 2d Amendment conferred an individual right. Now that the 2d Amendment has been found to confer an individual right, it will almost necessarily follow that the 2d Amendment be incorporated and apply to state governments as well.

        • Just because there was a pre-amble, as there was with many writings in that day, including our founding documents, does not mean the “wording was peculiar”. It simply incorporates a reasoning for the law to be put in place. In other words, the pre-amble: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was to indicate that the specific right: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” was for the purpose of maintaining a free state. This reasoning was put in place so that other reasons like hunting or self-defense could not be said to be the only purpose of this freedom. As such, arguments such as “no need for hunting to get food” or “the police will protect you” could be used to do away with the amendment. Its purpose was to have a way for the people to overthrow a tyranical government. This is a specific right designed to ensure freedom from tyranny in the future. the pre-amble was to make sure that no other argument could be used against the right granted in this amendment. As for its application or incorporation, it is my understanding that the ratification process involved was part of the incorporation, and that the only really questionable amendment under that reasoning is the 16th.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            The wording of the 2d Amendment is peculiar when looken at in conjunction with the other Amendments. The sentence doesn’t flow as well as others, making it that much more difficult to discern original intent. For this reason, there has been (and continues to be) much debate as to what the 2d Amendment means.

            Think of it this way: only last year did the Supreme Court find the 2d Amendment to confer an INDIVIDUAL right.

            • And think about the thoughts of the four dissenters.

              “In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s judgment was “a strained and unpersuasive reading” which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had “bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law”.

              The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.””

              I thought amendments were the means of making changes to the constitution, not local legislation?

              “the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate” Damn straight they did, and its erosion has caused a tragic diminishing of our country and our freedoms.

            • An in-depth look at the Chicago case.

              http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/02/killing-slaughterhouse

            • Only last year was a case taken to the Supreme Court level that demanded a decision, I am not sure that is the same thing as saying that it has only just been recognized as such. It was only in the past few decades that localities passed laws in contention with the 2nd amendment.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                The debate over the 2d Amendment being an individual vs. collective right goes back further than just a few decades.

                An 1842 Arkansas case (State v.Buzzard) held for the collective right approach, finding for a collective right approach. The court in that case further upheld a state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

  10. To me it gets interesting at #10, 11 and 25. One thought, follow the money, like yesterdays article, do most of these people not look out for what is good for them, not the people or the nation? From The Bobo Files

    http://mastersinhealthcare.org/2009/25-most-influential-people-in-healthcare/

    25 Most Influential People in Healthcare

    by The Health Sensei on December 7, 2009

    Every year, Modern Healthcare puts out a list of the most influential people in healthcare. It really speaks to the state of our healthcare when you read the list and see how many of those who are considered powerful in healthcare are Washington insiders and politicians. However, they are the ones who make the rules and set policy. Here is a list of the top 25 most influential people in healthcare today, according to Modern Healthcare:

    1. Barack Obama: The President of the United States has a huge role in influencing healthcare policies, and proposing ideas for new healthcare innovations. Barack Obama brought attention to the issue of healthcare during his presidential campaign. He also has a big role when it comes to influencing the public. Obama is a very visible figure whose speeches on healthcare have been broadcast. He is one of the most powerful people when it comes to setting healthcare policy, and probably will be as long as he is in office. As one of the most influential leaders in the world, Barack Obama is expected to take the lead in one of the most important issues of our time.

    2. Kathleen Sebelius: As Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius has a great deal of clout when it comes to healthcare. Her cabinet level position means that she has the ear of President Barack Obama, as well as the ears of other policy makers and influence brokers. She is responsible for overseeing health services in this country, as well as suggesting policy ideas and working with members of Congress when it comes to suggesting different courses of action with regard to healthcare reform. Kathleen Sebelius is considered the “go-to” person for the U.S. health system for as long as she holds a position on the president’s cabinet.

    3. Nancy-Ann DeParle: This might be one of the most influential people in healthcare that you have never herad of. Nancy-Ann DeParle is the director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Healthcare reform is such an important subject that Barack Obama made an office dedicated to the process. DeParle’s job is to coordinate White House policy on health reform. She works closely with Kathleen Sebelius, as well as reports to the President about her ideas and the progress being made on health reform. She helps set policy and encourages compromise in working out reforms that are likely to make it through. She also hosts forums on health reform.

    4. Max Baucus: One of the committees that is influential in Congress in terms of deciding the outcome of health reform is the Senate Finance Committee. And the chair of the Senate Finance Committee is Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. As the chairman of this committee, Baucus decides on how expensive healthcare measures should be, as well as helps craft bills for health care reform. He can also decide which bills make it through the committee, and which never make it to the Senate floor for consideration. Max Baucus had a hand in creating one of the versions of the health reform bill that is under consideration right now, and he is very visible in terms of sharing his views about healthcare.

    5. Charles Grassley: Even though he is not the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley is still quite influential in terms of healthcare policy and law. He is a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and represents Republican interests on bills, include those relating to health, that come before the committee. Grassley is from Iowa, and is also considered to represent a “Heartland” view of healthcare. He has a history of compromise, and working with others, and is one of those who proposed changes to health bills in an effort to make them more broadly acceptable.

    6. David Blumenthal: One of the issues that is prominent in healthcare is the need for information technology. Electronic medical records and other technologically related issues affecting healthcare are overseen by David Blumenthal. He is the national coordinator for health information technology. The idea is to bring healthcare up to speed with the rest of technology, and use technology as a way to help improve healthcare. As a reuslt, Blumenthal — and his ideas — are quite influential in health circles. Even better: He has a background in healthcare policy as a professor at Harvard Medical School.

    7. Carolyn Clancy: As the director fort eh Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, Carolyn Clancy has direct insight into the workings of healthcare. Her position allows her to do research into the quality of healthcare in the U.S. Additionally, she authors papers on healthcare issues, and helps direct policy. Clancy is also visible and influential as she prepares statements and information for the general public. She is a medical doctor with firsthand experience in the health industry, and her position provides her access to policymakers and the chance to be a policymaker herself.

    8. Barry Straube: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is very important in terms of providing policy ideas and items related to the government run healthcare programs. Barry Straube is currently the director and chief clinical officer of CMS, and is influential in setting policy and providing ideas and information about health care reform and other health related issues. His insights are valued by Kathleen Sebelius, since CMS is part of the Health and Human Services department in the U.S. government. Straube helps coordinate policy and oversees what is happening with Medicaid and Medicare, as well as makes recommendations on topics related to healthcare, reform and government programs.

    9. Peter Orszag: Instead of being a healthcare wonk, Peter Orszag is actually an economist. But because healthcare is so entwined with money decisions, and because health related issues take up a large portion of U.S. resources, it is little surprise that someone who runs the Office of Management Budget is so influential in healthcare. As former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Orszag is intimately familiar with the federal budget, and how money moves through the system. He recommends health policy moves — and analyzes suggestions for how they can be funded, or whether they even can be funded, based on the realities of government finances.

    10. Andy Stern: The fastest growing union in the Americas is the Service Employees International Union, and its president is Andy Stern. Stern is influential because of the number of people he represents — both in the U.S. and internationally. He is influential in healthcare because he is an outspoken advocate of universal coverage. With access to two million members of his union, and the ability to be persuasive, it is little surprise that this man is a major influence in healthcare. While he can’t seem to sway lawmakers into providing health system overhaul that includes truly universal healthcare, he has been keeping a public option and the idea of healthcare for all in the spotlight.

    11. James Guest: One of the biggest pushes behind healthcare reform has been Consumers Union, which publishes the popular Consumer Reports line of magazines. One of the publications is even called On Health, and it looks at different issues related to the health industry and what consumers can do to be healthier. The president and CEO of Consumers Union is James Guest. He is regularly outspoken about the need for reform and transparency in healthcare. He often takes members of the government to task for putting the interests of their health industry contributors ahead of the consumers that elect them. Guest is seen as an advocate for the people, and he is well-known for providing helpful information on healthcare to ordinary consumers.

    12. George Halvorson: One of the biggest managed care organizations out there is Kaiser Permanente. And the president of this integrated managed care giant is George Halvorson. As the head of a healthcare industry player, it is no surprise that Halvorson is one of the most influential people in healthcare. He has millions at his disposal to help lend his word and insights weight. Kaiser Permanente has 8.6 million health plan members, and more than 160,000 employees. It’s no wonder that Halvorson has a pretty god amount of clout when it comes to healthcare in the United States.

    13. Bill Gates: Huh? It may seem strange that Bill Gates is on the list of the 25 most influential people in healthcare. After all, he’s the tech guru and multi-billionaire behind Microsoft. It seems a little strange that he would influence healthcare. However, one must remember that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which he founded along with his wife, offers a great deal of money to health causes. Additionally, someone with the amount of money that Gates controls — not to mention the business interests he is involved with — can be influential in just about whatever sphere he enters.

    14. Arnold Schwarzenegger: At first, it may seem a little odd that the actor and body builder turned politician would have such a huge influence on health care. However, when one stops to consider that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of the most populous state in the U.S., it starts to make a little more sense. Additionally, Schwarzenegger has been pushing for healthcare reform in California. His thoughts on healthcare, reform and the government’s involvement in providing healthcare are listened to because he is the leader of a very important state.

    15. Nancy Pelosi: As the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has a lot of influence in a lot of ways. She holds a very high profile position, and when she speaks, even those who do not agree with her have to listen to watch she says. Pelosi is a Democrat from California. She has made healthcare legislation a priority, and has spoken of support for a public option for health insurance. Pelosi has a lot of say with regard to which bills are considered in the House, and has influence over what health care reform legislation might finally look like.

    16. Richard Bracken: The Hospital Corporation of America, as you might guess, is an organization with a vested interest in healthcare issues. The Hospital Corporation of America lobbies for its positions, and influences healthcare policy decisions, as well as representing different hospitals. The president and CEO of HCA is Richard Bracken. His background in healthcare administration is one that allows him intimate knowledge of how the healthcare system works, as well as insight into different ways the policies would affect hospitals. He regularly meets with policy makers to share his views and can help shape the direction of healthcare in America.

    17. Steve Burd: The CEO of Safeway, Steve Burd, is well known as a healthcare reform advocate. He is known for motivating his employees to live healthier lifestyles, and for introducing an incentive program that paid them for healthier habits. Lower insurance premiums are offered to those who live healthy lifestyles, or change unhealthy habits. Burd has been advocating for reform that rewards good behaviors, rather than just punishing everyone for a society that has collectively poor health behaviors. He is outspoken about this concept, and his example is one that could influence other companies to follow suit.

    18. Sister Carol Keehan: As the president of the Catholic Health Association, the nun Sister Carol Keehan has a lot of influence in terms of healthcare policy. She strongly advocates quick healthcare reform, and is willing to anger even some in her own religion to achieve. She recently came under fire from prolife advocates in the Catholic church for her willingness to work with prochoice advocates to advance the cause of healthcare reform. Her views and willingness to compromise also make her someone who is to be reckoned with — and listened to — in the realm of health care.

    19. Paul Diaz: It is not surprising that CEOs of powerful healthcare companies are on this list of influential people in healthcare. Paul Diaz is the President and CEO of Kindred Healthcare, and is well known as the leader of a major healthcare company. Kindred Healthcare is known for running hospitals in the south and midwest, and for giving contributions to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, even though Diaz himself is a Democrat. As expected, Kindred has the ears of a number of lawmakers, and works hard to get its voice heard in the healthcare debate and make sure that the company has a place at the table when it comes to healthcare reform.

    20. Donald Berwick: One of the foremost thinkers in healthcare reform is Donald Berwick. He is a pediatrician, and also a professor in health policy at Harvard’s School of Public Health. He is also the President and CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. This organization aims at improving the state of healthcare in the United States. Berwick has long been a voice for reform and interested in healthcare policy. He has written several papers on the subject, and he is considered a thought leader in healthcare. It is no surprise that he is considered one of the 25 most influential people in healthcare.

    21. Henry Waxman: As the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Democrat Henry Waxman has influence over legislation related to healthcare. The Energy and Commerce Committee has much to do with what is related to healthcare policy, since healthcare is so intertwined with money. Waxman helps decide which bills make out of his committee and see debate in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also works with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on other issues related to law and policy in healthcare, as well as meets with members of the Senate and others.

    22. Drew Altman: One of the 25 most influential people in healthcare is Drew Altman, the President and CEO of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Altman is the head of an organization that provides health information and research, as well as helps craft healthcare policy. It is important to note that the Kaiser Family Foundation is not related in anyway to Kaiser Permanente. This can be a point of confusion to many. However, the two organizations are not related, and sometimes have different goals with relation to healthcare. Altman offers policy ideas, and offers insight into healthcare reform, and often speaks with political leaders and others.

    23. Pamela Thompson: As the CEO of the American Organization of Nurse Executives, it is little surprise that Pamela Thompson is a powerful person in healthcare. She heads up an organization that is interested in research to improve patient care and offers help to improve nursing practice. It is an organization that encourages nurse leadership. It is no surprise that she is invited to share her thoughts on healthcare with policy makers, and voices her opinions to influence the direction of healthcare in the U.S. As a leader of a strong organization, she has power and interest in the healthcare debate.

    24. Newt Gingrich: Many people remember the days when Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House of Representatives and helped end the Clinton Administration’s proposed overhaul of the healthcare system. The prominent Republican, though no longer a lawmaker, is still influential in the healthcare debate. He still has useful contacts on Capitol Hill, and he founded the Center for Health Transformation, through which he develops policy ideas and suggestions with regard to healthcare policy in the United States. He is good at networking, and he continues to wield power and influence in healthcare circles.

    25. Bruce Yarwood: The American Health Care Association is a powerful lobbying group with influence over healthcare policy. It is therefore no surprise that the President and CEO, Bruce Yarwood, is one of the 25 most influential people in healthcare. He is able to marshall the resources of an entire organization — the largest nursing home association in the United States. He is consulted by lawmakers and other policymakers with regard to healthcare, especially Medicare, and is able to share his opinions freely with leaders.

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Bernanke gets Time Magazine “Person of the Year” because (of course) the financial collapse would have been “even worse” absent “Ole Ben’s” actions.

    How they can PROVE that anything would have been worse absent his actions is beyond me… unless they have access to a parallel universe in which Ben did not act and they can show us that the results actually WERE demonstrably worse… but I digress.

  12. Is it too soon for an April Fools prank?

    I would like us all to write our elected representatives and Al Gore. The issue, the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in developed nations by carbonated drinks (yes, unfortunately this means beer too).

    This is the perfect opportunity to create a new “crisis” and make the fools look more foolish.

    If in fact man is causing global warming, then he must get used to flat Coke and flat Budweiser.

    • v. Holland says:

      sssshh! SK-I really don’t like flat coke and you really must not give these people any more ideas.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Ahh, but what an opportunity!

        • v. Holland says:

          This issue is much to important-My diet coke is very important to me-I can become very, well, not nice when I don’t have my coke. A lesson that my daughters friends have been warned about-they can help themselves to all the food and drink in the house but they best NOT drink the last diet coke.

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This may perhaps be the most honest speech by a politician in the history of the world. Too bad it got absolutely zero publicity at the time it was made on the Senate floor. Several years later, and all aspects of the speech still appear to be extremely good.

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

  14. Thought this was interesting, from the Bobo Files.

    http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.org/?page_id=84

    Six Files the US Government Keeps on You, and How to Obtain a Copy

    With literally hundreds of agencies working in a variety of fields, the government can keep track of every citizen, resident, and more from birth to death. With the problem of identity thieves and misinformation, these files can hurt you or be a life saver. Below are top six files the government keeps on you, how to obtain them, and why you should have them.

    1. F.B.I. Files : According to Reddit.com, the Federal Bureau of Investigations keeps files on every person in the entire United States. By law, they must send you this file on written request. Best of all, if the file is under 50 pages, there is no charge to send it to you. Simply write to the current F.B.I. director and simply state your request. Have the letter notarized by a licensed notary. Click on the link above for more information.
    2. Your Homeland Security File : Are you a regular international traveler? Then chances are the Department of Homeland Security has a file on you. This blogger put in a request to get their file, with amazing and impressive results. It requires a written, signed letter by you, along with making reference to the Freedom of Information Act. The address, language, and more are included in the article. If you have no problems getting in and out of the country, this is more for fun than anything else. If you are having problems entering or exiting the U.S. visit the DHS site to learn how to fix it.
    3. wagnereduC.I.A. Records : You don’t have to be a slick burglar to obtain a copy of the record the Central Intelligence Agency may or may not have on you. In fact, they provide easy access to many unclassified documents. The site even has links to the most requested items. The C.I.A. provides in detail the four step process to getting a copy of records, including information on fees. The agency even provide a sample letter.
    4. Your Earnings : The U.S. Social Security office keeps a constant track of all earnings since you filled out your first W-2. They know how much you have made, how much taxes you have paid, and how much you stand to earn on retirement. The government already sends you an automatic statement of all your findings, but you can request one at any time. This is a useful thing to do to make sure they have all of your information, including earnings and future benefits, correct. You can visit the site to request one online. Another highlight of the site is blocking access to your account to keep your identity safe.
    5. Criminal Records : This is a useful search if you have had trouble with the law and want to know what is out there on you. Also a good idea if you’ve never been in trouble to make sure your records reflect that. The biggest problem is that there are so many agencies that keep files on criminal records. These can include federal, state, and local law enforcement. This site has many useful links to these sites from corrections to sex offender registries. Click on the links of the agencies that interest you to learn how to obtain your criminal records, or even those of others.
    6. econucsbeduCourt Records : If you have ever gotten so much as a parking ticket, the government has court records on you. Like most government records, they are public and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. When obtaining records, call the court or district attorney’s office beforehand to make sure you know where to go and who to write. Another important aspect is getting the information correct. This includes spelling, type of court (civil, criminal, traffic, etc.), dates, and more. If you have some money to spend Civil Records and other sites like it can retrieve the information for a fee.

    Whether keeping an eye on those who keep an eye on you or just looking for some laughs, these six files the U.S. government keeps on you are a great way to do so. In some cases, you can even request the records of others for background checks or other uses. If you have any trouble obtaining one of the files the government keeps on you, contact the agency directly for more information.

    • Let’s step back and understand why a national or extra-national currency exists.

      Governments have long seized the creation of currency for one reason: manipulation.

      They hold the heart of any economic system – the money – and the can squeeze it as hard and whenever they need or wish to.

      If you research the EU, you will find they are in the middle of a massive economic turmoil – probably worse than the US.

      They have a unified currency – but their economies are not nearly the same at all.

      So Greece and Italy – who are approaching default – threaten the Euro of France and Germany and the rest. It’s half-twist of the Musketeers – its all for one, and none for all.

      The Gulf nations are in the same boat – they have vastly different economies – Dubai highlighted that. They will suffer the same confusion as the Euro – if they go forward with it.

      So, let’s understand the ‘noise’. Whatever they believe is the solution is moot. The noise – they are worried about the problem – the US dollar.

      Therefore, expect a spike increase in the price of oil.

      • That’s it? Or will there be a domino effect into the rest of the economy? Is this another cut in the death-by-a-thousand-cuts?

  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Think about this for a moment:

    If Anthropogenic Global Warming is really real, then claims that a “naturally forced cooling” is currently “masking underlying warming” are complete and utter nonsense even from just a purely logical standpoint.

    If human activities are the MAIN DRIVER that is affecting climate, then NATURAL FORCES would be UNABLE TO OVERRIDE the MAIN DRIVER. Therefore, natural forces MUST BE the MAIN DRIVER of the system!

    Extremely simple, really.

  16. One of the shouted political reasons for “health care reform” was to save main street folks money. Every time they do something in Washington that goes against that makes me wonder that Joe Wilson’s blurted out “you lie” was not far off the mark. Senator Obama was big on imported drugs but now President Obama wants nothing to do with it. For now he has big Pharma in his pocket and he needs them, so in order not to piss them off he had his folks in the senate kill this deal. With all the wheeling, dealing, bribing and buying going on to get votes, how can anyone think this “health care reform” will benefit anyone but the government machine and screw the rest of us? It is not about health care it is about CONTROL.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/15/senate-rejects-low-cost-drug-imports/

  17. A light has come on, this has multiple links, will post in parts. From the Bobo

    Six Files the US Government Keeps on You, and How to Obtain a Copy

    With literally hundreds of agencies working in a variety of fields, the government can keep track of every citizen, resident, and more from birth to death. With the problem of identity thieves and misinformation, these files can hurt you or be a life saver. Below are top six files the government keeps on you, how to obtain them, and why you should have them.

    1. orthonurseorg1F.B.I. Files : According to Reddit.com, the Federal Bureau of Investigations keeps files on every person in the entire United States. By law, they must send you this file on written request. Best of all, if the file is under 50 pages, there is no charge to send it to you. Simply write to the current F.B.I. director and simply state your request. Have the letter notarized by a licensed notary. Click on the link above for more information.

    • Your Homeland Security File : Are you a regular international traveler? Then chances are the Department of Homeland Security has a file on you. This blogger put in a request to get their file, with amazing and impressive results. It requires a written, signed letter by you, along with making reference to the Freedom of Information Act. The address, language, and more are included in the article. If you have no problems getting in and out of the country, this is more for fun than anything else. If you are having problems entering or exiting the U.S. visit the DHS site to learn how to fix it.

    • Wouldn’t it be scary if they actually told you there was a charge.

    • Heres another likely file for each one of us…

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=2

      The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era….

      …A national conversation about social networking and other forms of online privacy is long overdue….

      I dont believe a national conversation about social network is long over due. I think the overdue conversation has more to do with political opposition being investigated as a crime.

  18. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone

    Just reading along for now.

    Hope all is doing well today.

    Judy

  19. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    FYI, here are some EARLIER “PREDICTIONS” by some of the smartest and best informed people of the time.

    As you read these, be mindful that every day new evidence emerges that Algore and his Whorecorps of anthropogenic globull warming hysteriacs ARE NOT by any stretch “the smartest and best informed people” of the time. They’re generally a gaggle of greedy control freaks on a mission from their superiors to level the United States to a point closer to the Third World to facilitate our merger into their One World/New World Order Utopia where, just incidentally, THEY and their elitist pals will — for our own good, of course — run things for us ignorant and uninformed proles.

    Now for your reading pleasure,
    FAILED PREDICTIONS FROM THE PAST:
    “Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
    Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science,
    1949

    “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
    Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

    “I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and
    talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data
    processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.” The editor
    in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957

    “But what … is it good for?” Engineer at the Advanced
    Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the
    microchip.

    “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their
    home.” Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital
    Equipment Corp., 1977

    “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” Bill Gates, 1981

    “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously
    considered as a means of communication. The device is
    inherently of no value to us.” Western Union internal memo,
    1876.

    “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value.
    Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?
    David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for
    investment in the radio in the 1920s.

    “The concept is interesting and well formed, but in order to earn
    better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible.” A Yale
    University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper
    proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to
    found Federal Express Corp.)

    “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” H.M. Warner, Warner
    Brothers, 1927.

    “I’m just glad it’ll be Clark Gable who’s falling on his face
    and not Gary Cooper.” Gary Cooper on his decision not to take
    the leading role in “Gone With The Wind.”

    “A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research
    reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy
    cookies like you make.” Response to Debbi Fields’ idea of
    starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies.

    “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
    Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

    “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.” Lord
    Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

    “If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment.
    The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.”
    Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives
    for 3 M “Post It” Notepads.

    “So we went to Atari and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got this amazing
    thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think
    about funding us? Or we’ ll give it to you. We just want to do
    it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.’ And they said,
    ‘No.’ So then we went to Hewlett Packard, and they said, ‘Hey,
    we don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet.’”
    Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari
    and H P interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer.
    [Ed note: To say their computer is not quite correct, it was
    designed by Wozniak’s entirely.]

    “Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action
    and reaction and the need to have something better than a
    vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic
    knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.” 1921 New York
    Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket
    work.

    “You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development
    across all of your muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact
    of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development
    as an unalterable condition of weight training.” Response to
    Arthur Jones, who solved the “unsolveable” problem by inventing
    Nautilus.

    “Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find
    oil? You’re crazy.” Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to
    enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

    “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high
    plateau.” Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale
    University, 1929.

    “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”
    Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole
    Superieure de Guerre.

    “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Charles
    H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

    “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction”.
    Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872 “The
    abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the
    intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon”. Sir John Eric
    Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to
    Queen Victoria 1873.

    It Was Said!
    “The atom bomb will never go off – and I speak as an expert in explosives.”
    U.S. Admiral William Leahy in 1945.
    “Television won’t matter in your lifetime or mine.” Radio Times editor Rex
    Lambert, 1936.
    “All saved from Titanic after collision.” New York Evening Sun, April 15 1912.
    “Brain work will cause women to go bald.” Berlin professor, 1914.
    “Very interesting, Whittle, my boy, but it will never work.” Professor of
    Aeronautical Engineering at Cambridge, shown Frank Whittle’s plan for the jet
    engine.
    “Can’t act. Can’t sing. Slightly bald. Can dance a little.” A film company’s
    verdict on Fred Astaire’s 1928 screen test.
    “Forget it. No Civil War picture ever made a nickel.” MGM executive,
    advising against investing in Gone With The Wind.
    “You ought to go back to driving a truck.” – Concert manager, firing Elvis
    Presley in 1954.
    “You’d better learn secretarial skills or else get married.” – Modelling
    agency, rejecting Marilyn Monroe in 1944.
    “That rainbow song’s no good. Take it out.” – MGM memo after first showing
    of The Wizard Of Oz.
    “Radio has no future.” “X-rays are clearly a hoax.” “The aeroplane is
    scientifically impossible.” – Royal Society president Lord Kelvin, 1897-9.
    “I would not wish to be Prime Minister, dear.” – Margaret Thatcher in 1973.
    “And for the tourist who really wants to get away from it all, safaris in
    Vietnam.” Newsweek magazine, predicting popular holidays for the late 1960s. (
    Keep Smiling)

  20. Hi Judy-am curious-where do Generals keep their armies. Only guess I can come up with is in their toy chest. 🙂

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hey V

      No, answer is in their sleevies. My son told me that last night. It was so stupid it was funny.

      Hope you day is going well.

  21. Yous guys should love Obama after last night (certainly that mistake maker Diamond should): $38 BILLION

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-voice-of-right-wing-america.html

  22. This just showed up in my email. Has anyone heard of this release of transcripts?

    VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

    AP- WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the school transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain ‘s Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups,

    Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

    .
    LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities:

    1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,

    2) He traveled with a British passport, or

    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a

    British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport, that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. If he were traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you don’t care that your President is not a natural born citizen and is in violation of the Constitution, then delete this and go into your cocoon.

    If you do care then Forward this!

    • Sorry, a search on AP’s site comes up blank, likely fabricated.

    • I’m going to have to say, yet again, that he’s an American. People just need to accept that and move on with their lives.

      But ask yourself this, Cyndi: If he were doing a great job in your opinion, if he were reducing taxes and scaling back government etc, if you couldn’t be happier with his performance, but you suspected that he were actually born in Canada, would you make such a stink about it?

      • So following along is making a stink? That’s what they said about the AGW Deniers. Seems the Deniers were right. Hmmm…..

        As for would I be suspicious if Obama were not destroying the country, probably not, but if evidence were presented that he was in office illegally, then yes, kick his ass out.

        I’m not convinced that Obama is qualified to be president under Article II. Yes, he may hold American citienship just like my parents. They are both foreign born but still Americans. I think the Birthers deserve their day in court just like anybody else, even those who spill hot coffee on themselves and then sue McDonalds. Your reaction is very similar to the followers of Al Gore and their new religion.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          The Birthers had their day in court, on multiple occasions. They have been unable to make a prima facie case and therefore kicked out of court for lack of any credible evidence.

          • Wow.. way to get some use out of that fancy law degree of yours!

          • So if the Birthers can find a conservative judge to decide the evidence is worthy, then can get get rid of the ineligable pres?

            Just because some Leftist has managed to get appointed to the bench doesn’t mean they are honest. Obama’s defenders just can’t entertain the possiblity that they were suckered so they do and say thing in his defense. The more O’Bots defend him, the more convinced I am that he’s hiding something and that his defenders suspect it too. Otherwise, the emotions wouldn’t get cranked up so easily. I’m just sayin’…..

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I’ll try to find a link later one, but I’m pretty sure the judges in question were moderates; possibly even one conservative.

              The evidence just isn’t there for this claim.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Clay_Land

              One of the judges who dismissed the case.

            • It’s mostly just annoyance on our part (do you consider me an “O’bot” by the way?

              It’s not about conservative vs liberal. It’s about evidence. I’ve presented my evidence below to V. What do you have?

              He has been to a country while it was on the black list? I know a few Americans who have been to Cuba. Are they now Kenyans?

              His father was Kenyan? This doesn’t change the fact that his mother is American and regardless of where you’re born (McCain was born abroad, by the way), if one of your parents are American, so are you.

              He lived in Indonesia and had to have citizenship there. Per http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html, “Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.”

              So he would have to renounce his own citizenship as an adult. Which means that there should be a form somewhere with his name on it. Has anyone seen this form?

              I haven’t.

              Have you?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Thanks for taking up this issue Matt; I’ve been on a conference call and now have a ton of work to get done by the end of the day.

    • v. Holland says:

      “This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records”

      I’m curious about the above statement-Is it true and is it legal to spend campaign funds for legal fees?

      • I don’t know if it’s true (I don’t think so). But you can use campaign funds for anything that helps your campaign. If that means defending yourself in court or buying 150k worth of clothes at Lord & Taylor, it’s all kosher.

        He has produced the short form.
        There was a birth announcement in the local paper.
        There are photos of his pregnant mother in Hawaii.
        The Republican governor of Hawaii has confirmed that he was born there.
        Really, I don’t know that I could do much more to prove I was born here.

        Move on, people. Nothing to see here..
        http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

        I felt the same way about Truthers.

        • His Kenyan birth Certificate has been produced. I’ve seen it just like the on line HI BC. Looked as authenic as the HI but only one is real.

          Kenyan newspapers have discussed his Kenyan birth BEFORE he ran for US Pres. (See obamafile.com)

          His grandmother was blabbing to anyone who would listen that she was present at his Kenyan birth, at least until they shut her up.

          What do photos of his mom in HI prove? Nothing.

          My daughter was born in Germany but birth announcments appeared in CA and TN (her parent’s hometowns)
          HI gov is a Dem, I believe, which automatically makes him suspect. But lets say he IS a Repub. Suddenly Repubs are trustworthy? Why didn’t McCain win the election??? Bush lied, people died, blah, blah, blah. Is that now untrue? But Bush was a Republ. ????

          I say we see some of that much promised transparancy. Let the court case been done HONESTLY with LOTS of media coverage.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle
            She’s a Republican. She took a lot of heat when she acknowledge his citizenship.

            Let the court case been done HONESTLY with LOTS of media coverage.

            It was done openly with lots of media coverage. It was thrown out. Repeatedly.

            But again, even if his 9 month pregnant mother had flown to Kenya and he was born there and had a Kenyan certificate, his mother is a citizen. Therefore, at birth, he was a citizen. Period. There’s no way around that. Parents aren’t allowed to renounce a minor’s citizenship. I haven’t seen any evidence that he did it himself as an adult. Where is that form?

            • Where is the form? Shredded probably. Has it occured to you that the people committing this fraud got things taken care of BEFORE anyone was paying attention? Certainly that would be how I would do it were I so inclined to defraud others.

              As for what proof I have, same as you; whatever is on the internet. Unless you’re high up the DNC, you don’t have access to anything but they want you to have.

              • OK, so your whole case rests on a form which you believe once existed but has now been shredded. By this logic, I can accuse you of having renounced your citizenship. Where is the proof that you haven’t done this? I defy you, or anyone else here, to prove a negative.

                The burden of proof must be on the accuser. You have no proof. You have beliefs. You have evidence of questionable veracity which, collectively, may form a flimsy narrative. We have a valid certificate.

                That, not liberal bias, is why this was thrown out of the courts. That, not liberal bias, is why the mainstream media rejects this “controversy.”

                All that is fun and games though. I will use one letter to show that your argument is wishful thinking and not logic. And that letter is “S”. S as in “theories“. You see, if you had a legitimate case and the facts to know what happened, there would be one theory about his birth. X then Y then Z ergo illegitimate. But the fact that you have many different theories shows that you are finding theories to fit your beliefs – not the other way around. (My sincerest apologies to Mises).

              • Here’s my theory Matt: Birthers should have their day in court like anyone else. Truthers should have their day in court. WOW. That’s SOOOOO radical.

                Yes, you are an O’Bot. Just like a robot follows its programming. You have been programmed.

            • So you’re saying that a Repub would NEVER cave in to corruption and political pressure? Then why don’t you support ALL Repubs? Are you okay with corruption so long as it suits your personal ideology?

              • No, but you said she was suspect because she was a Dem. She wasn’t a Dem. She is a Rep. And the Reps were trying to win an election against the Dems. So she definitely had incentive to go the other way.

                Cyndi Said HI gov is a Dem, I believe, which automatically makes him suspect.

                To which I was pointing out that she is a Republican.

                Nothing more.

    • Hi Cyndi,

      As you know, I follow the BC issue closely via several sites and I’ve not heard/read of this.

      • Thanks. Becare about that admission. You might upset O’s followers 😉

        • That reminds me, Cyndi, you never answered my question about whether you consider me an O’Bot.

          • Hi Matt.

            Been reading along today, as this Birther thing came up, I couldn’t help but feel your annoyance at the subject (I’m not a birther, no more than you are a O’bot). As Buck put it, they had their day in court and lost. Effectively, O’Butthead was charged and the charges were thrown out because of lack of evidence. Fair enough, but if new evidence comes forward, he can be charged again, that seems to be how our legal system works.

            Buck’s comment about their day in court seems to apply only when it fits the agenda. Liberals don’t seem to be up in arms about the 2nd Amendment court case posted above, but the gun control nuts had their day in court as well, and lost their asses. Why the difference?

            G!

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Hey G. Sorry if I sound terse, but under a pile of work and wanted to get an answer to you:

              Assuming new evidence came to light, of course the Birthers could (and I’m sure would) bring another action. If they can establish a prima facie case, there would be a trial. As the evidence stands now though, the Birthers had their day in court, as you agree, and now just keep bringing the same tired case on the same tired ‘evidence’.

              The issue with the 2d Amendment is a novel issue that has not been raised nor argued before. The DC case involved the question as to whether or not the 2d Amendment conferred an individual right. The Supreme Court ducked the issue on incorporation as there was no state player. Now the issue is whether there is incorporation. The next case will cover the issue of the standard that applies to government in restricting the 2d Amendment.

              Think of it this way: the 1st Amendment was decided to apply to the States long ago. There are still cases that pop up as to the extent of the 1st Amendment, the standard that applies to government in varying contexts, how restrictive the government can be, etc. etc. etc. Look for much of the same when it comes to the 2d Amendment. It’ll be an interesting few years on this.

              Hope you’re having a good one!

              • Thanks for the reply Buck. You were not kerse at all. I’m far from a lawyer, but on the common sense side, if the SC said it’s an idividual right, and the States ratified it, the issue should be over. The states already agreed to the amendment, and the individual right has been legally established. You are more knowing of the other stuff, so I won’t argue that, as I know little about it. In Ohio, our Constitution language mimicks that of the USC, so I don’t see it as a problem here.

                I hope that Obama is a citizen, if not, then we end up with Biden, and he’s not to bright in my book. With him as POTUS, we could get invaded by the Virgin Islands and he’d be lost. 🙂

                G!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yeah, I pretty much agree with you but con law is (for better or worse) an incremental field. Just because the 2d Amendment is an individual right doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s incorporation. It now needs to be held that there’s incorporation. Again, I’d be shocked if the SC didn’t hold just that.

                When it first broke I tried to follow the Birther story and have yet to see a shred of credible evidence. I honestly believe its a complete non-story. Show me evidence and I’ll be glad to revisit the issue.

              • I’ve only heard accusations, so I agree with you on the birther thing. G!

              • Yeah, all ever heard about Bush was baseless accusations. Give that’s makes him a great president. Obama is good to go to then. I’m converted.

        • Yep, a birther and proud of it. Along with being a racist, a right-wing terrorist, a teabagger, etc. etc. I’ve earned a lot of new titles this year!

    • Cyndi,

      This email appeared several months ago and was reported by Snopes to be an April fool’s joke. Snopes stated at the time that no information had been released by Occidental.

      Unless there has been recent developments I have not seen, the evidence for or against a Hawaiian birth has not been formally presented in court. The cases keep getting thrown out for jurisdictional reasons or some other technicallity.

      As for birth announcements in the newspaper, they can appear one of two ways, by release of information from the hospital or by submission from parents or relatives. The annoucements I have read did not provide any information on the hospital. The non-birthers would certainly point to any linls to hospitals if they were available.

      As for the counter argument that McCain was not born in the US, I have never thought that very persuasive as he was born to US citizens, one an active duty officer in the Navy, in a hospital on a US Naval base. McCain was certainly more qualified than VP Nelson Rockefeller who was born to US parents in Mexico.

      Also the argument that his mother was a citizen hence automatically making him one does not correlate with the laws at the time of his birth. She was under age (18) and therefore could not pass citizenship on directly as I understand the arguments.

      I find his whole secretive past to be problematic. Why are all his school records sealed? Where are the interviews with former classmates from the 3 universities he attended? If a reporter checked into my past, they would find many people who knew me in graduate school and would attest to the fact that I was poor and living on assistantships like everyone else.

      Obama was an adjunct professor at Chicago. Where are his published papers? Did he publish anything while at Harvard? Do the law departments at universities not follow the publish or perish rules that other departments follow?

      I know less about this president’s personally history, than any other in my life time. And this is the information age.

      • Thanks T-Ray, and extra thanks for not treating me with disrespect for asking a simple question. I’m not a hard core Birther, though you’d be hard pressed to know it judging from the emotional outbursts I’ve received just by mentioning the subject. I’m just a casual observer who intuits something’s not right. Obama’s background doesn’t pass the ‘smell test’. I think O’s followers suspect something too, otherwise they wouldn’t get so emotional about it. They would just ignore the question, and forget it ever came up if they really believed the whole idea was ridiculous and untrue. Your response is logical, respectful and without judgement of me. Thanks again!

        • Rush sarcastically calls BHO the Messiah or Chosen One. It may be fitting as it appears he was born in two places at once. Could one call that the “Immaculate Deception”. It gives a new meaning to the term multiple births. Maybe he was light years ahead of us and used the new quantum theory of teleportation.

          The Gov. of HI did make a statement about his birth. Does one not find it curious that not one piece of information was revealed. No mention of the hospital, doctor, time of birth or other facts were given as I recall. I do genealogy. Following offspring or ancestors through generations with sketchy information can be tricky. I usually require a minimum of three independent pieces of information before I assign an individual to other relatives. I look for internal consistency of the data. The only consistency I see here, from both sides is say it often enough, loud enough, and long enough and it becomes truth.

          • I like your humor along with your common sense. That is all we ask for.

          • Rush cracks me up. I never caught the Immaculate Deception comment. I like it!

            So as someone does genealogy, Obama’s story doesn’t add up? I too have noticed that O’s advocates never provide solid evidence of his alledged birth place, while the Birthers claim to have it but won’t be given a fair shake in court or the media. Something isn’t adding up right, which leads me to believe what we are being told by O and crew is not on the up and up.

            Of course, even if its poven with reasonable certainty that O is not eligable under Article II, it won’t make a bit of difference. He will remain in office and his follwers will defend him.

            • Just supposition but if he knew he was ineligble when he took the oath, then the oath was a lie and everything subsequent to that is also. How can he protect and defend the Constitution if the very first thing he did violated the Constitution.

              I know many liberals think they can pick and choose the clauses they will uphold, but then we violate the fundamental principle of rule of law as opposed to rule of man.

              I find it incomprehesible that a court will not hear this case as it is fundamental and it is so easily solved by just releasing the information. Obama is not responsible for the conditions of his birth. He is responsible for showing his qualifications for the office he holds.

        • Cindy,

          They would just ignore the question, and forget it ever came up if they really believed the whole idea was ridiculous and untrue.

          Isn’t this what the Obama Administration is doing? Just ignore the questions? And yet when they do that, you claim they are covering something up and ask why don’t they just produce the documents to resolve the issue?

          So what is the right response – ignore it or resolve it?

          • O has spent about a million dollars FIGHTING to keep it out of court, so I can say that he is not ignoring it. BTW, I wasn’t talking about O. I was talking about his followers. The RIGHT response to to resolve it openly, FAIRLY and legally in court with as much coverage and exposure as OJ got in his criminal trial.

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    If this passes, the I see a lot more abortions taking place. Get pregnant, let the government pay for the abortion. Can’t afford a baby, get an abortion, let the government pay for it. Have enough kids, got pregnant, don’t want it, let the government pay for the abortion.

    If this bill passes, there will be more babies killed because it will be way to easy to get an abortion if women decide after being pregnant for a while, and they decide they don’t want it after all, they can get an abortion on the taxpayers money.

    Sorry to say this again, but I am 100% against abortions. Yes, I know, but what if the mother’s life is at risk if she continues with it, and abortion is the only way to save her life? I then say again, why can’t doctors try to find a way to save both lives if at all possible? Or should I say, let the government try and find a way to save both lives, after all they’re getting involved in people’s personal lives now, aren’t they? Maybe they should decide on who’s life is more important, sine they’ve decided to get into the medical practice.

    But nobody takes into consideration what a baby goes through during the abortion, but I guess that’s okay, since some think it does not or cannot feel anything until it’s born. To that, I say BULL.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/passage-senate-health-care-reform-hinges-abortion-funding/

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Judy: I understand how passionate you are on this issue and I respect that. We’ve had a few discussions on the issue in the past.

      On the issue of federal funding though, one thing I saw a few weeks ago on Bill Maher that stuck with me (and I’d be curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on this): Maher made the point that, as the law currently stands, abortion is legal. It is a valid medical procedure. Since it is legal, then why should it be illegal to fund?

      Just food for thought…

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Buck

        Yes, I know it’s legal, will never be illegal, but, why make the taxpayers have to pay for it? Why do we have to pay for someone else’s mistake? Yes, and I also know that there are those cases of rape and incest, but there again, why must the taxpayers have to pay for the abortion.

        You’re right Buck, I am passionate about this subject, and it just tears me apart to think that the government can be so nonchalant about it, like an abortion is just sweeping the dirt away or under the rug. I know Obama is pro choice, heck, he’s even for partial birth abortion, and there again, why bother going through with a pregnancy if you’re going to change your mind and then suck the brain out of that baby, then watch it die?

        No, I don’t think they can or would make abortions illegal, for one thing, there would be more back alley ones performed or self abortions being done, and then I’m sure there would be more medical problems for the woman as well.

        Let me ask you something Buck, and you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but I’m curious. What would you do if your wife was pregnant, and of course you’re a very happy camper about it.You can afford it and all, But, then she decides that she doesn’t want it anymore, and gets an abortion, how would you feel, and how would you handle that situation?

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Thanks for your thoughts on that. I understand your view as to why must the taxpayer pay for it, but there are similarly things I may disagree with. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the issue and how one thinks about it), we don’t get to choose where our money goes.

          As to your question, that would be a horrendous and gut-wrenching experience. I honestly can’t imagine exactly how I would feel. How would I handle it? I don’t know, but lets hope that I never find myself in that situation.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Yes, that is the problem, we don’t have a say in it, or a say in anything about the way they handle out money. They are going to do what ever they feel like doing with out money, whether it be flying off somewhere or having some lavish party somewhere. Either way, we’re screwed, right.

            I hope you never find yourself in that situation either. I have known a few gals who have done that, and I really had a hard time in understanding why they did that. For the most part, it was mainly for convenience for them. I didn’t ask, I didn’t want to know. I know one gal who has had at least 5 of them, then one day she got pregnant and decided to keep that one. Didn’t ask why she decided to keep that one, but not the others. For one thing, it wasn’t my business and it wasn’t my place.

      • Optional surgery. Many optional surgeries are legal, does not mean they should be covered by insurance.

      • I was talking to a plastic surgeon a few weeks ago. He was afraid that many of his patients or would be patients will not get the care they should, because of the medicare / medicaid cut-backs. He indicated that a major part of his patients came to him after having skin cancer.

        Legal and valid medical practice.

      • ooops – should have read a few more comments !! Pretty obvious !!

    • v. Holland says:

      There are many elected procedures that insurance doesn’t pay for, abortion should be one of them if it’s being paid with the public’s dollars because in most cases it is not necessary-the only instance where I feel this could be up for debate is when the life of the mother is involved.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        But there are no elective procedures (as far as I know) which the government has strictly prohibited from being funded.

        I like the way you think though – carving out an exception for the life of the mother (possibly rape as well) would probably be a very acceptable solution to many.

        • v. Holland says:

          It might be acceptable for most but not to me-life and death situation only.

        • v. Holland says:

          I personally feel that I have a perfect right to determine that abortion is taking another life and that no one should have the right to do that-but I also realize that I don’t have the right to tell another human being that they must DIE to protect the life of another. But a rape victim as sad as that situation would be, it is not life threatening and basically life isn’t fair-many people are harmed by evil people and they have to live with the consequences of someone else’s evil, doesn’t mean they should do something evil, too.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            This goes back to the question I had before here. Why then if a person murders a pregnant woman and her baby, why then is that person brought up on murder charges for killing both, but at the same time, a women isn’t brought up on murder for killing he unborn baby? Is that not still taking a life?

            Yea, I know, abortion is legal, and murder isn’t. But it’s still taking an innocent life.

            • v. Holland says:

              I don’t really know but my opinion is that there isn’t an actual definition for when life begins so the courts have just decided that if the mother believes it’s a life-then it is punished as taking a life -if the mother says it isn’t a life, to justify ending that life then the government takes her word for it and lets her have an abortion. Lots of contradiction because I don’t see the courts calling it murder in the above example depending on what month of the pregnancy the crime occurred in.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Well, my definition of when life begins, is at the moment of conception. I know I’ll get an argument from some on that, but that has always been my belief, and I won’t change that belief.

                Everybody’s diiferent on what and how they believe when life begins. Some think it’s not until the baby is born. Some believe it’s until until it’s fully formed. And then you have some who believe the way I do.

        • v. Holland says:

          “But there are no elective procedures (as far as I know) which the government has strictly prohibited from being funded.”

          That is an interesting topic because you know there will be lots of them.

          • v. Holland says:

            That is -if health care passes in it’s current form-here’s really hoping that doesn’t happen

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Oh sure there is V, as long as you pay for them. Things like Botox injections, tummy tucks, face lifts, boob jobs whether enlarging or shrinking, and whole body procedures. Not unless your insurance covers them, but then, itsn’t that soon to change?

              You can have anything done as long as you pay for them, well, with the exception of an abortion, then that’s covered.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        But, how do you make that decision? How can anyone decide whose life is more important than the other? I truly feel for anyone who might have been, or will ever be in that situation. If the woman’s life is danger of her going through with the pregnancy, then having to have an abortion to save her life, I can only imagine what she has gone through and what she will have to go through for the rest of her life knowing that if she ever got pregnant again it could kill her.

        But what about those who have decided to go through it, and everything came out alright, knowing that if she got an abortion, that she would have killed that baby for nothing. That’s some of things I think about when this situation comes up. It’s all those what if’s.

        • Judy,

          Very correct question.

          Before anyone can begin to discuss the implications of “exceptions”, they must be have a firm, competent, consistent and reasoned understanding of their position on abortion or right-to-life.

          If a person is still wobbly on the simple basics, they are wholly unprepared for any discussion regarding the very complex.

          • Further, there tends to be a desire to use the ‘exceptions’ as a negotiation tool of compromise.

            I point to our friend, Buck, who is willing to compromise some position while suggesting accepting the “rape/threat to life” exceptions. The standard belief and strategy here is to nick an edge in the brickwork of right-to-life; get a compromised agreement that there are exception.

            If a right-to-lifer falls for this ploy without the thoughtful reasoned understanding of why a particular case is an exception the pro-abortionists crack open the brickwork with the “well, anything can be an exception then, because you have no reasoning to prove one or the other”.

            This doesn’t necessarily mean there may not be exceptions – it merely means that the individual must be clear and wholly insightful to their own position before then can begin to untangle the complexity of those exceptions.

            • v. Holland says:

              This works in the reverse too-the pro abortion people don’t seem willing to limit the current abortion laws because they fear it will weaken the right to abortion.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Well, you know me, and how I think and feel about this subject. I’m surprised I said what I did, but it was only repeating what I have said in the past about it.

              I will not change in that way of thinking or my beliefs for that matter. I will always defend the innocent life of the unborn, always. That’s my stand on this, and I will always stand there, won’t budge. I will not, can not defend an abortion, never.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Hey BF,

              Not compromising my beliefs in the slightest. I’ve laid out my own beliefs on abortion in the past and my statement was not an indication of my own views, but just a general comment as to VH’s post.

              Have a great night!

  24. USWeapon Topic #5

    Wireless Company Mixes Liberal Politics With Business

    A San Francisco-based wireless company is working liberal political activism into its business plan in a unabashedly partisan marketing strategy that experts say could catch on in today’s polarized culture — but also could alienate many potential customers.

    The company, CREDO, even boasts that it has the support of President Obama as it markets itself as an agent of social change. It pitches its mobile phone services with a vow to fight for “real” health care reform, free speech, peace and the environment.

    To those ends, CREDO claims it has raised $63 million for liberal causes and groups such as the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, Planned Parenthood and Earthjustice — all the while skewering its bigger, well-established rivals AT&T and Verizon Wireless for financially supporting Republicans and moderate Democrats.

    It’s unclear whether the business strategy is paying off financially — CREDO’s figures aren’t available and company executives did not return messages requesting an interview. But in an age when companies of all stripes are trying to bolster their corporate images by appearing environmentally friendly, a highly partisan appeal is seen as a risky but potentially fruitful new approach.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/12/wireless-company-mixes-liberal-politics-business/?test=latestnews

    Thought this was interesting. A highly partisan message as a marketing strategy for a company. It makes sense that this is in San Francisco. Any are that continues to elect Pelosi is open to this message. How sad that partisanship has taken such root in America that the companies begin to market using the tactic as well. My prediction, the company will fail miserably. Too busy attempting to put forth a message to actually create a good service. In the end, people are highly affected by this only on one side. The partisan folks on the right will absolutely refuse to buy this product because of the message. So 50% of the customer base will be alienated up front. Most of the other 50% will have 10% who buy to support the cause, while the rest will buy based on reliability and service level. People boycott products they don’t like at a much higher rate than people buy products they like the message of. Purchasing decisions are based on value. Boycott decisions are made on ideology.

    The company will be dead in two years.

    • The company will probably be bailed out….

    • Liberal brainwashing is everywhere. Newsbusters.

      On Today: James Cameron Reveals Liberal Propaganda in Avatar
      Photo of Geoffrey Dickens.
      By Geoffrey Dickens (Bio | Archive)
      December 14, 2009 – 13:04 ET

      Prompted by NBC’s Meredith Vieira, on Monday’s Today show, Avatar director James Cameron revealed the liberal undertones in his new blockbuster as he told the Today co-anchor the plot centers on how greed and imperialism “tends to destroy the environment…” and how the human characters in the sci-fi flick “are doing the same thing on another pristine planet that we’ve done on earth.

  25. This may have been posted here in the past but here is a link to The On Line Freedom Academy (TOLFA). I did not take the course yet but I took the test and scored 99 out of 100. I scored high because of this site and reading Kent’s views and some of his links. My wife scored 44 out of 100. She asked to see how I answered the questions and it just about led to an argument. A year ago I would have answered like my wife. My eyes and mind have been opened over the last year and I have learned alot here and through various books. I’m now educating my wife on some of what I know. I don’t know too much my self but I have a strong desire to learn.

    http://tolfa.us/

    • A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it’s open.

      • Mathius, take the test and see how you score.

        • 97 out of 100, but because I believe my duty is to raise my child with firm and positive principles rather than expand freedom for someone else.

          But the latter was a close second.

          • Wow, I would have expected 110% for you…

            • Being free means sometimes you disagree with others.

              I’d debate the question writer on one or two of the ‘preferred’ answers – but the essentials are pretty much correct.

          • Black Flag: You are raising your child properly AND educating others. I always appreciate your views and learn alot from you.

          • When I took the TOLFA entrance exam, I didn’t score 100% either- I think I got a 97 or 98. Then I went back to see where they were wrong. 😉

            • Hi Kent!

              I scored a 66. Not too good, but I think I should have waited till I was away from work longer. It’s a Psych test, and one’s mentallity at the moment can effect the outcome, so I don’t give it high scores as far as the results

              By the way, one of your articles about Dec 15, was posted here yesterday, I was impressed withit and felt it was spot on.

              Keep fightin! 🙂

              G!

            • Kent, did you complete the TOLFA course?

              Overall, is the TOLFA program pretty much in line with most of your views?

              Do you know anything about Jim Davis who designed the program?

              • Sorry about the paternal-twin posts above. I couldn’t find the one I tried to post and decided it had disappeared. Now, here it is. Oh well.

                Yes, I completed TOLFA, and did find it very much in line with my views.

                He is an atheist, as am I, so he is rather hard on religion. However, I do feel that even Christians (or other religious types) would benefit by paying close attention to that section so that they will know what some of the objections to their beliefs are based upon. Then, if you can, find reasons (not excuses) why he is wrong.

                I don’t know him personally, but have exchanged emails with him and find him to be a pretty nice, and pretty smart, guy.

                I would also recommend his book that ties in to the theme: A Vision of Liberty. It is a fictional account “looking back” on the first few years of the free society that results when government dies with a whimper.

          • When I took the TOLFA exam, I didn’t score a 100% either- I think I got a 97 or 98. Then I went back to see what they got wrong. 😉

        • Took the first unit, scored a 60. Some of the questions are loaded and certain preferable alternatives are missing.

          Adding, who says the site is right and I am wrong? It is clear in cases what the “correct” answer is, and my opposing viewpoint is often presented as a caricature of itself.

          Still, interesting. I’ll try another unit tomorrow if time permits.

          Admit it, 60 is better than you expected for me.

          • Yep, I thought you would score much lower than 60!

            This is an anarchist/freedom site so I would expect liberals to score lower.

          • I’d be interested in the answers some of you gave to these questions….

            To bad it won’t print them out…

            • That little brat who screwed with my ride is going to JAIL! 🙂

              • My brat had to seek medical attention to have footwear removed from excretory canal.

              • See, again, this is where I run into trouble. Of the options, I have to say arrest the kid and then surgically remove my food from his rectum. But I would prefer a combination of all three.

                Have the police arrest him. I’ll talk to his parents about remediation. And allow him off the legal hook if he goes to therapy or gets job training (whichever applies to the kid in question).

                Just arresting him doesn’t cure the problem, it just gets him off the street for a while and makes him unemployable which only guarantees that he’ll be more of a problem in the future. Fix the issue (therapy/job training), fix my car (restitution), scare the bejusus out of him (cops). Trifecta!

              • Why get the government involved at all. Our justice system is geared toward punishing him and, if he is just a kid, he may not even get that. I want my car fixed (restitution) and chances are that his parents will have to do that. His parents car insurance will probably pay for the damages or my insurance.

                You make some good points. The answers don’t fit like a glove but I don’t think the government can really deal with it. When I was a kid, I would be far more fearful of what my parents would do.

            • Common Man says:

              I got an 84 and I am with G-man the little sh*t would have to deal with being procecuted.

              Should be an interesting course of study.

              CM

      • It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

    • Birdman – You scored much better than I did and I feel I’ve come a long way in the past year! Did you sign up for a mentor? I did, although won’t have much time until the New Year.

      Look interesting though – thanks for sharing!

      • Kathy, I’ll probably sign up for a mentor soon. Who knows, I may end up with Kent as a mentor!

    • Interesting, took the first one (no mentor) scored 61. A problem I have is the way the question’s are “framed”. They force you to a black/white position, and leave no option for VDLG. Do I like taxes, no, but that does not mean I can see their total elimination at this time.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I JUST TOOK IT AND SCORED A 69.

      • That is because all taxes are theft, LOI.

        There is no such thing as a moral tax.

        Whether they can be eliminated in 24 hours – no. But that does not mean they are acceptable or supportable.

        • You are wrong, good sir. If ALL agreed on and paid a tax, that would be moral, not theft. Unlikely in the real world.
          I can agree with the absolute today that all taxes we are paying are theft. That is not to say I could not agree to some taxes.

          I still think a Dept. of Defense is needed, and could even agree to stopping our incursions in other countries, unless attacked. I can also see than nearly all government functions could be better done by private companies, including the courts and prison system.

          But the questions are not framed to allow a VDLG viewpoint.

          • You are wrong, good sir. If ALL agreed on and paid a tax, that would be moral, not theft.

            If it was voluntary, then – by definition – its not a tax.

            Unlikely in the real world.

            Because people believe:
            “Thou shalt not steal except by majority vote”

            I still think a Dept. of Defense is needed, and could even agree to stopping our incursions in other countries, unless attacked.

            If it is valuable, then people will pay for it.

            Red Cross/United Way, etc. seem to do fine with that model.

            I can also see than nearly all government functions could be better done by private companies, including the courts and prison system.

            The only thing government does well is nothing.

            But the questions are not framed to allow a VDLG viewpoint.

            They have a whole section on ‘limited government’ and its fallacy.

            • Will look into their limited government section when time allows.

              “I believe my duty is to raise my child with firm and positive principles rather than expand freedom for someone else.”

              Like you, some of their answers do not match my thoughts, and I am damned if I will give into their bias. I understand the principal behind the questions, but think their framing is dishonest.

              More study may result in more respect of their views and methods.

              • v. Holland says:

                Have been skipping ahead a little and just looking at different questions they ask -they seem to be a little dismissive of religious beliefs.

              • Agree, I can multi-task
                obey and glorify God, enrich my children, serve my country, enjoy all that it can offer me and achieve as much as my talents allow.

                Question 5: What is the purpose of your life?

                to serve my country

                to build as big a fortune as I can

                to enrich my children with good principles for living

                to enjoy all that it can offer me and achieve as much as my talents allow

                to leave the world more free & prosperous than I found it

                to obey and glorify God

          • “If ALL agreed on and paid a tax, that would be moral, not theft.”

            That would also be a donation, not a tax.

    • I also found this:

      http://takelifeback.com/oto/p1.htm

      This is about how we can educate people on freedom and the power of 1 person educating 1 other person. I didn’t read it all yet but it looks interesting.

      • I finished reading “The Power of One”. Jim Davis, who prepared TOLFA, explains in these five articles the on line freedom academy. If you get the time read the five articles.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I got a 97.

      I think Mathius is right about loaded questions, and preferable alternatives.

      I answered all questions honestly, but knew where they were going with it as soon as I read each one.

      There were a few that I would have answered with something outside the box.

      I was tempted to say grow pot instead of trading for a bull only because pot is worth more than cattle and easier to take care of. Appalacia is considered perfect growing conditions. I have a capitalist mentality, and pot yeilds a much higher profit margin.

      I went with the bull because need trumps want. We need to eat, but don’t need pot.

      More people eat beef than smoke pot.

      • but [we] don’t need pot.

        Speak for yourself.

      • Without government meddling, pot would be almost worthless, though. Only prohibition makes growing it a money-making endeavor.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I would have to agree.

          I spent half of my short term military career chasing drug runners all over the Caribbean doing search and seizure type missions.

          The war on drugs is a complete waste of time, money, and resources.

          (False operation acting as a front to escort high value black market products/drugs safely into the US to be sold and later used for black ops funding)

          America wants it’s drugs and America gets it’s drugs.

          Legal or not, pot is everywhere.

          There is someone always growing it somewhere.

          There’s always someone willing to hook a fellow smoker up with a buzz or a bag.

          A few simple precautionary measures will easily circumvent law enforcement.

          They can’t keep up with it.

          It’s way too big.

          It’s the grandest conspiracy ever.

          It is, always has been, and always will be a part of human culture.

  26. Quote of the day.

    Obama repeated his demand for action, telling ABC News “the federal government will go bankrupt” if the health care bill fails. He said Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” path if no action is taken.

    All I can say is wow.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Okay, question. How can the government go bankrupt if the health care bill fails? Aren’t they taking money in from other sources, say like our pockets?

      Just be wondering.

    • Thinking, thinking, thinking….that sounds familiar….

      Obama warns of catastrophe if stimulus delayed

      WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says the recession will turn into a “catastrophe” if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly.

      Obama rejected several criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone will solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform are not also critical to address at the same time. The White House released some of Obama’s remarks ahead of an event on executive compensation limits.

      Obama subtly referenced his win in November while arguing that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach.

      Obama urged members of Congress “to act without delay” while also promising to “work to make it stronger.”

  27. Good day all, posting for comments.

  28. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7294665.stm

    Fake fears over Ethiopia’s gold
    By Elizabeth Blunt
    BBC News, Addis Ababa

    Ethiopia’s national bank has been told to inspect all the gold in its vaults to determine its authenticity.

    It follows the discovery that some of the “gold” it had bought for millions of dollars was gold-plated steel.

    ————

    Ho Ho Ho…. gold in the Central Bank is fake!

    Now the questions – how much and where else??

    Ho Ho Ho

    • This would be twice in as many months. Didn’t you post that China had gotten some bad stuff as well? Sounds like a pattern developing.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    Speaking of HO HO HO

    Picture this.Obama is sitting on Santa’s lap, and Santa says, Ho Ho Ho, and Obama says, Where, Where Where.

    Sorry I couldn’t resist.

  30. Single-payer health care plan dies in Senate

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

    But never fear – a “no” to government power is only temporary; a “yes” is always permanent.

    • v. Holland says:

      The question is how temporary and what are they gonna do in the meantime to make it appear that they are right.

  31. v. Holland says:

    What is #32-we get post like this every once in awhile and I can never figure out what they are.

    • It’s a link to another blog. Too bad his article was debated here 10 months ago or so.

      Hope you are well tonight VH!

      G!

    • It is what is called a pingback. It means that on the page linked to, there is a link to this site. What appears to be the case this time is that the author there wrote an article and used my site as a reference. By putting a link to this article on his site, wordpress automatically creates a comment that looks like #32.

  32. v. Holland says:

  33. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    I’m making a list and checking it twice for accuracy. This is my list of awards for various things that we hear and see throughout the year. I have found one of the most idiotic statements ever made by a supposed world leader, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales made this statement in Copenhagen this week:

    Prince Charles said world leaders owe it to “our children and grand children” to make a difference.

    “The future of mankind can be assured only if we rediscover ways in which to live as a part of nature, not apart from her,” he said. “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.”

    7 Years? Wow, he forgot about the Mayan thing in 2012 I guess.

    So today, Prince Charles wins the “Flaming Idiot World Leader Stupid Statement of the Year Award”. 🙄

    And the awards will continue!

    G!

    • Lets add the runner up:

      Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is also working hard behind the scenes to “bash heads together” over key issues like the amount of money the rich world is willing to pay poor countries to help them reduce emissions.

      The rich world? Let me see, The U.S. has a 12 trillion dollar national debt. There is now way for this debt to be paid off, so how does that make the US a rich country? Our Govt. has made sure we are not a rich country so I wonder how much we will be getting paid by the rich countries in the future? OK, nothing!

      The road to revolution is being paved by stupidity, the only thing needing to be built is the onramp, and it’s under construction.

      G!

      • G-Man,

        Just a thought on US Net Worth:

        $57,718,000,000,000 – US household and nonprofit net worth
        $12,000,000,000,000 – US Government Debt
        ——————-
        $45,719,000,000,000 – US net worth

        So the US net worth is $45.7 Trillion.

        But this does not include assets held by the Federal and State Governments – buildings, land, military equipment, bridges, roads…the list goes on and on…how much would we get if we sold EVERYTHING?

        • Todd:

          The U.S. Govt Debt is around $100,000,000,000,000.

          You forgot all the obligations from social programs and the total amount obligated during the financial crisis, which is somewhere upwards of $20 trillion.

          And, since your post was in response to what is a “rich country”, are you proposing that American households liquidate their assets in order to pay the debt and then to contributie to the global wealth redistribution scheme?

          Net worth and Net Income and Cash Flow are all differant animals.

          • JAC,
            I was commenting on the true net worth of the US. The $12 trillion debt is only one part.

            Obligations from social programs don’t figure in. They’re just redistribution from one person to another. Net worth of the US doesn’t change.

            And yes, I think all , American households should liquidate their assets, pay off the debt and then give everything that’s left to the global wealth redistribution scheme.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Come on now, there must be some other world leader who said something even stupider over the course of this past year!

      • That was just this week, I will work hard to find more, and add more awards as the days go by. I find it humorous, and it is meant to be.

        Hope you and the family are well!

        Peace!

        G!

      • I agree. I submit for nomination the entire inaugural address of the Messiah.

  34. To: Those on here that feel terrorism is a criminal instead of act of war.

    Question 1. Do you feel that they should then be tried as common criminals subject to our laws and the protections of our constitution?

    Question 2. If the answer is yes, then as common criminals, if found guilty, should they be treated as any common criminal and put into general population?

    Statement: IF the answer is yes to both…..cool. If the answer is no, please justify.

    • Colonel,

      You have asked a tough question. I’ll try to get this somewhat right and let evryone tear it apart.

      I consider terrorism as an act of a religious radicalism, perpetuated by a foriegn national. I do not consider the OK City event as such, that was just mass murder.

      With that said, if a foriegn nation blows up a building, as an act based on their religiou BS, then that is an act of terrorism on our soil. It qualifies as crime, not an act of war.

      An act of war would be if another country would attack with their regulated armed forces. Terrorist are pussies, and can’t do that.

      Therefore, if a terrorist kills, he should be subject to the laws of our country, and hung by his balls for a long time before he is hung by his neck. 🙂

      G!

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Amen G! When you have a group of foreign nationals commit a crime on US soil, it is just that – a crime. They should be rounded up and put on trial.

    • I really don’t think these terrorist fit any of the definitions out there- this is a new type of war and a new type of enemy at least to my knowledge and I believe we need to make some clear decisions or rules for how we are supposed to handle any situations that arise.

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    I have a question here and I hope somebody can answer this.

    With the government wanting to take over health care and insurance companies, I have yet to hear what would happen if all insurance companies just up and closed up. Anybody have any answers to that? If it was mentioned before what would happen, I don’t recall seeing anything here about it. I know they won’t, but I guess this is hypothetical, and it’s something I have been thinking about for a while now. What would government do then if they did?

    Would appreciate any input on this from anybody. How about you Flag, you’re pretty knowledgeable in this, maybe you can tell me what you think, but in layman’s terms so I can understand.

    Thank you

    Judy

    • Hi Judy!

      Obama answered that already. He said that Medicare and Medicade would bankrupt the country if government can’t take over the whole thing. Both programs are in government control, so if the whole thing goes under govt. control, our kids will be facing a far worse problem than we supposedly have now.

      We really don’t have a problem, it’s all BS. The bankruptcy BS about Medicare might be real, because it’s known that it will go that way, afterall, the government has proven how good it is a running it! 🙂

      Obama is an asshole. He is using the crisis thing to attack the peoples heads, but all this “sky is falling” crap is old.

      Peace!

      G!

    • I will give it a shot Judy. I think that the scenario that you envision is one that many folks feel is the INTENT of health care reform. If the health insurance companies all are shut down, the federal government will put in place a single government insurance option. With no competition, they will abandon the idea of reducing costs and simply increase taxes in order to pay for it.

      The question is, with only one option, whether the government will also make having coverage mandatory. If they do, I imagine a slow rev up to revolution. If they don’t, I think that the health care industry will begin to operate on a pay as you go system and people will realize that they had the ability to handle health car on their own the whole time, they just had an easier option and took it.

      USW

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Well I want to thank you G and USW for answering me, and it helps me to understand better now what the government wants to do to us. I feel like when it comes to things like this, I really can’t/don’t understand a lot and also feel a little redundant about asking something that I should know the answer to myself.

        But I also find that the government does a lot of double talk that makes it impossible to understand what they’re saying and what the want to do. Gee, without all of you hear to help me with certain things, I think I would be even more confused, and I really appreciate the help and input I get from my questions, as silly as some of them may be. But I’m not a government know it all like some of you here. And I don’t mean a know it all in the way it sounds. I mean it in a way where you people understand it where I don’t.

        Thanks again for your help.

        • Hi Judy (again) 🙂

          We come here for knowledge. I learned that there is no such thing as a dumb question, just a dumb answer. Ask away, I do. I will say that I’m lucky to be apart of what happens here, some darn smart people, and willing to share that knowledge. In the almost a year I’ve been here, there haven’t been too many newbies that attack the group. Rather good folk who share their opinion. Good people, and looking to fix the mess that is befronting all of us.

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi G

            I didn’t say anything about dumb questions, haven’t seen any here yet, Only said I felt redundant about asking certain questions because I feel at my age, I really should know these things.

            You know, I’m not really sure how long I’ve been coming here, but like you , I have learned a great deal from everybody here, and I’m very glad I came to this site. It’s so refreshing here that nobody call s each other names and everybody is always decent to one another and kind and also has respect for one another.

            Now that being said, and before I get started in giving my praises to everybody again, I’m going to call it a night.

            Have a good rest of the night and will see you here I’m sure tomorrow G.

            Good night.

            Judy

  36. I’m doing my part 😉

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/clowardpivenrand.html

    Cloward-Piven-Rand?
    By Gene Schwimmer
    If, as the old saw goes, politics makes strange bedfellows, what kind of bedfellows does the endeavor to restructure our entire society create?

    Very strange bedfellows — very strange bedfellows, indeed.

    Regular visitors to American Thinker are well familiar with the names Cloward (Richard Andrew) and Piven (Frances Fox), along with their so-called Cloward-Piven Strategy. Sundry are the articles on Cloward-Piven adorning the august pages of American Thinker. Zero are the favorable ones.

    …Until now.

    Having examined the Cloward-Piven Strategy, just to assure myself (if not the reader) that I haven’t taken leave of my senses, I am moved to ask: Have we conservatives been too hard on Cloward-Piven? Are we right to oppose the two sociologists and their eponymous strategy? Or is our visceral opposition to their beliefs and goals causing us to miss a “strange bedfellow” hiding in plain sight?

    First, let’s briefly review the strategy, just to make sure we’re all on the same page. The Cloward-Piven Strategy is often — and inaccurately — described as a strategy “to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.” Though that might be the ultimate result, the strategy’s actual, immediate goal is much more modest: to overload all welfare programs, at all levels of government, and thereby force the federal government to guarantee every American a minimum annual income.

    However much it may seem so at first blush, this is not socialism. There is neither a call nor a need for “the people to own the means of production.” Nor does the strategy seek to equalize incomes; it merely seeks to redistribute wealth — which, as astute readers may have noticed, Democrats have managed to do very well under capitalism. And frankly, who is to say that eliminating all of the current welfare programs — their redundancy, their multiple levels of bureaucracy, their inefficiency — and simply handing our, shall we say, less productive citizens a wad of cash and sending them on their way might not be better? Or at least cheaper?

    I’m just sayin’. But what concerns us here today is not Cloward-Piven’s goal, but the means of achieving it, which indeed is to bring down the current system by urging as many qualified recipients as possible to sign up for federal poverty-assistance programs in order to broaden the eligibility requirements. This will make additional people eligible, and these people will then lobby Congress to create new programs.

    So, irrespective of the Cloward-Piven Strategy’s ultimate goal, its intermediate goal is undeniably to bring down the current system. And needless to say, “Treason!” “Hang ’em!” or some polite-society equivalent is the instinctive reaction from conservatives. But if they could restrain themselves and think for a moment, conservatives might realize that Cloward and Piven have some interesting company.

    Cloward and Piven, meet Ayn Rand.

    I have no idea whether Richard Cloward or Frances Piven has read Atlas Shrugged. But if they didn’t, they should, because though no one could differ more than Cloward-Piven and Rand on ends, they are astonishingly in total agreement on means. Recall the basic plot of Atlas Shrugged: John Galt, a disgruntled inventor whose work is appropriated for “the common good,” decides to “stop the motor of the world” by convincing the world’s innovators, inventors, and producers to stop innovating, inventing, and producing. Galt’s theory is that, deprived of these people’s intellect and industry, the state would be forced to supply the wealth that Galt and his ilk do not. As the state has no means to do this, the system would break down, force government to “get out of the way,” and herald the advent of pure capitalism.

    Of course, Atlas Shrugged holds a place of honor on most conservatives’ must-read lists. So let’s be honest: A lot of us would like to bring down the current system, too. So if we do in fact share, at least temporarily, Cloward-Piven’s intermediate goal, should we not at least consider working with, rather than against, them? Why not a Cloward-Piven-Rand Strategy whereby, simultaneously, we convince the innovators, inventors, and producers to stop innovating, inventing, and producing — and they convince every eligible American to apply for every available social program and lobby for government at all levels to create even more? Would our combined efforts not bring down the current system — a goal we both share — even faster?

    Ultimately, the Cloward-Piven crowd’s path and ours would necessarily diverge, to put it mildly. But for the present, while we share a common goal, why not work together, just as America and the Soviet Union fought together in World War II? Later, when the war is the war won, when the common enemy — the current system — is defeated, we can go back to fighting each other.

    And then may the better system prevail.

  37. If you have never read anything by Larken Rose, now is the time to correct that. Read “Please Enslave Me!” and really think about it.

  38. Typo in Law Establishes Mandate to Lock Gun-Toting Train Passengers in Boxes

    By Chad Pergram

    – FOXNews.com

    Because of a typo, President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey

    Harry Houdini made a career escaping from locked boxes. So did David Copperfield and Doug Henning.

    And now, add to that list Amtrak passengers packing heat in their luggage?

    It may sound absurd. But President Obama signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires passengers who carry firearms aboard Amtrak be locked in boxes for their journey.

    It’s a mistake in the law’s wording. But for now, the clerical error is the law of the land.

    Earlier this week, Congress sent the president a massive spending bill that funded dozens of federal departments. Tucked into the transportation section of the legislation are safety requirements for Amtrak customers who carry firearms on board the government-backed train system. The bill Congress passed mandates that passengers with firearms declare they have weapons with them in advance and stow them in locked boxes while on the train.

    The bill text was correct when the House approved the legislation last week. The Senate followed suit Sunday, but somewhere along the line, the language that referred to putting the guns in locked boxes morphed into stuffing “passengers” into locked boxes.

  39. This was on Beck last night, and he claims they have three separate sources.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408318/posts

    White House Threatens to Close Offutt Air Force Base If Nelson Doesn’t Vote for Obamacare

    Posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:07:05 PM by American Dream 246

    Quite an explosive leak! I wonder how this will affect things? It is certainly a thuggish and dangerous thing for Obama to play with National Security over this craptacular idea of socialized medicine. Quite a desperate move.

    According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line. Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.

    Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

    So much for the idea of Obama trying to save jobs and improve the economy!

    Without Nelson’s vote, since all Republicans are still in line to oppose this, Reid is still left with 59 votes. So, some arm twisting is taking place. Nelson doesn’t want this bill to fund abortions so he is now being threatened, and national security along with him. How shameful this would be if Democrats felt shame.

    Ed Morrissey:

    The Obama administration has little left to use for leverage. Why not national security? After all, if we’re going to bring terrorists into Illinois, what does it matter if we put the US Strategic Command on wheels for a few years?

    • D13 comments on it at the end of post #4

      • Naten,

        I was reading that yesterday, thought it interesting, but that was the Texas senator. Last night, Nebraska. Think its a worthy topic.
        Arkansas has several military bases, wonder if we are getting the same threats?

        • LOI,

          Are Texas and Nebraska pushing States Rights under the 10th Ammendment?

          • Texas, yes, Gov. Rick Perry has pisses is some peoples Wheaties. Nebraska, don’t know. Just think if every Dem. Senator stalls, asking where is my $300 million?

            • I think I heard something about Nebraska and States Rights, though I’m not sure. BUT, if both states have been talking up states rights and now the Feds are threatening to close bases, what are the implications when O and Congress have such disregard for the will of the voters? Could it be that O has no intention of changing his/Soros’s plans, and wants to move those military assets so they don’t fall into the hands of the enemy? It also serves as intimidation to those states. Destroying jobs is a great way to get the states attention. Failing that, denying the states any military assests is prudent in a worst case senario. I’ve been hearing about preparation for when the economy collapses. I know this sounds like I’ve veered into conspiracy nut universe but I’m just connecting dots…..

          • Yes…Perry turned down stimulus money, pushing for state’s rights, pushing for the deregulation of insurance monopoly, Senator Hutchinson has postponed her resignation until after the Senate vote on health care, both are pushing for greater security of the Texas/Mexico border…..not only have we pissed in some wheaties…”me thinks we pissed on a parade in Washington”….I am sure we will pay for it in the long run…but, hell, we are an independent bunch down here. AND…we love our guns.

    • Where’s the 19 fact checkers ? Or are they still in Alaska ! This just gets worse and worse.. Can you imagine, if one of Bush’s crew even hinted at this !!

  40. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

    Please read the first several articles posted at this site.

    The first gives great insight into exactly how “peer review” was done and who was doing it. The second is an accusation by the Russians that the IPCC cherry-picked Russian temperature station data in order to purposely exclude stations which did not conform to the hypothesis of “warming”.

    Pretty damning stuff, and great fun to read 🙂

    • Why is Obama going there? Does he want two Copenhagen slap-downs? The footage coming from there is unbelievable.

    • I watched Jesse Ventura’s show, Conspiracy Theory, and they talked about global warming. He produced most of the show before climate gate but they tacked on climate gate at the end. They did a pretty decent job in covering this subject. It was on TruTV. I set my DVR up to record all of the shows.

      • Yeah, it was very good actually.

        He got Lindzen, Dr. Ball (though in the shadows – I’ve met Ball and it was too funny to see his round head and his voice trying to be hiding in the dark – it was probably for ‘dramatic’ effect), etc.

        Maurice is an evil man. He wants to make people get a license to have children, to combat overpopulation.

        But not for him – he has 7 kids. “Freedom for me, but not for you” is his motto.

        Ventura did a good job on 9/11 too.

        I have to admit, I’m surprised – I thought his show would be nothing but ghosts and goblins – but he has done real research and got credible people on his show.

        • I have the 9/11 episode recorded and I’ll watch it tonight.

          Last weeks was on HARRP. It was pretty decent. History channel also did a show on HARRP on Beyond Belief, Fact or Fiction and it was pretty good. Manipulation of weather may not be science fiction.

      • Caught up with this on the internet and just watched the entire episode. Is this TruTV on regular TV? Not familiar with it. Is a weekly program? I see 9/11 was mentioned – what else has he done?

        Was really hoping he was going to confront Al – perhaps he was still in Copenhagen and that confrontation is yet to come.

        • Kathy, I have satellite and it is a separate channel. I think cable would have it. The show is on weekly. I set my DVR up to record all of them. The show is on Wednesday.

    • Peter, good stuff. I was trying to find pictures of N. Pole summer ice melt comparisons and had little luck. NASA did not seem to have any that fit the bill. That is where I came across the N. pole sub photo’s yesterday. Thought they were pretty cool, as in, having big Al explain them away.

  41. LOI,

    Maybe you can give the lady a call and help her out?

    Sen. Lincoln: Congress Can Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance Because Constitution ‘Charges Congress With the Health’ of the People

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58650

    • Have not read that, thanks. I think she was vaguely remembering “general welfare”. I have been attempting to provide her with assistance. Would welcome others to join in.

      Dear Life of Illusion,

      As Democrats get perilously close to the 60 votes that will allow them to shut off debate and ram through a Washington takeover of our health care, Arkansas is becoming a more and more important battleground. In the end, the future of our health care may depend on Senator Blanche Lincoln, and that means it may depend on you. Using a Fayetteville area/zip code will get you past out-of-state filters.

      Please call Senator Lincoln’s office today and tell her to vote NO on all procedural motions to help pass Harry Reid’s new health care bill.

      A self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, Senator Lincoln is on the fence about Harry Reid’s health care bill. During an interview last week, she said that she “needed more information to move forward.” She claims to be waiting for a Congressional Budget Office estimate of the bill’s impact on the deficit, but this decision cannot wait.

      We need to help her decide – and decide to oppose not just the bill, but also the key procedural motions that will shut off debate and pave the way for it to pass.

      Please call Senator Lincoln’s office today and tell her to hold to her fiscal conservative values by voting NO on all procedural motions to help pass Harry Reid’s new health care bill.

      In the end this whole year-long effort to take over our health care may come down to what Sen. Blanche Lincoln decides to do. Please call her today.

      Thank you and thanks for everything you do to protect our prosperity.

      Teresa Oelke
      Arkansas State Director, Americans for Prosperity

      P.S. Please forward this email to everyone you know in Arkansas who cares about the future of our health care freedom. We need all the help we can get!

      http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

      355 Dirksen Senate Office Building
      Washington, DC 20510
      (202) 224-4843
      Fax (202) 228-1371

      912 West Fourth Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      (501) 375-2993
      Fax (501) 375-7064
      Toll Free 1-800-352-9364

      # Office Street Address City State ZIP Phone Fax
      1 Senator Blanche Lincoln > State Offices >
      Dumas Office 101 East Waterman
      Dumas AR 71639 (870) 382-1023 (870) 382-1026

      2 Senator Blanche Lincoln > State Offices > Fayetteville Office Four South College Avenue
      Suite 205 Fayetteville,AR 72701 (479) 251-1224 (479) 251-1410

      3 Senator Blanche Lincoln > State Offices >Jonesboro Office 615 S. Main Suite 315 Jonesboro,AR 72401
      (870) 910-6896 (870) 910-6898

      4 Senator Blanche Lincoln > State Offices > Little Rock Office 912 West Fourth Street Little Rock AR 72201
      (501) 375-2993 (501) 375-7064

      5 Senator Blanche Lincoln > State Offices > Texarkana Office Miller County Courthouse, 400 Laurel Street,
      Suite 101,Texarkana AR 71854 (870) 774-3106 (870) 774-7627

  42. G-Man and Birdman,

    I just received the latest edition of a newsletter that discusses gold. The guy does a pretty hard sell for getting the details of his information. That said, what he discusses for free seems interesting. If you’re interested, let me know. Birdman, I don’t think I have your email. Anyone else who is interested can post your email here or have LOI or USW send it to me and I’ll forward the edition. LOI, you should have it in you inbox.

    • Thanks, will check it out.

    • Long winded fella, but interesting. Have we reached the “tipping point”?
      I think not until health care, stimulusII, cap & trade or other is passed.
      Would be interested in Flag and other opinions?

      After trashing gold for the last eight years while it quietly rose
      from under $300 to
      over $1,100 per ounce, even the mainstream media are waking up to the
      situation:

      …”$2,000 per ounce gold is in the cards,” CBS Marketwatch posits.

      …”Gold will eventually hit $2,000 or $2,500,” Forbes declares.

      …”$8,000 per ounce,” Barron’s is now speculating.

      The reality is that gold is still FAR from taking out its inflation
      adjusted high from 1980,
      which today would be at least $2,400 per ounce.

      But with the U.S. dollar melting down, government deficits and debt
      monetization on the
      order of trillions of dollars, and all eyes turning to the precious
      metals market,
      it’s only a matter of time before the public jumps in with both feet
      and drives the
      price of gold (and other precious metals like silver and platinum) to
      dizzying heights.

      The situation is not complicated, it is stone cold simple: The United
      States has reached
      an epic tipping point toward an inflationary depression. That’s not
      just my assessment
      (though I suddenly have lots of company including some high-profile converts),
      but that of Peter Bernholz of the University of Basel (Switzerland)
      Center for Economics and Business.
      His highly-credible study of the 20 hyperinflations which have occurred around
      the globe since 1980 has chilling implications for all of us right now.

      Bombshell New Study Shows U.S. Has Hit a Classic “Hyperinflationary Threshold”

      Professor Bernholz’s impressive study shows that in all recent cases
      of hyperinflation,
      the afflicted countries were saddled with crippling public/private debts
      (though none were as deeply indebted as the U.S. of A. is right now).
      The second “tipping point” of hyperinflation is when a government’s deficit
      equals 40% or more of its total annual budget.

      You already know that our economy is staggering under the weight of
      unprecedented
      public and private debt. But brace yourself: the other shoe is about to drop.

      The Obama Administration’s own vastly-understated federal budget for
      2009 admits
      that deficit spending for the first time in U.S. history amounts to
      40.1% of the budget.
      (And while America’s unique reserve currency status may stave off the
      inevitable,
      let me add his official 2009 budget is packed with highly-suspicious
      funding assumptions
      and bald-faced gimmicks that hide true spending levels so the tide of
      red-ink is
      probably greater than the hyperinflationary trigger number of 40%.)

      Today’s Inflationary Pressures Dwarf the 1970s
      Gold is Poised to Astonish as the Once-Mighty Dollar Implodes

      But this currency crisis cuts much deeper. By the Federal Reserve
      Board’s own imperfect
      and begrudgingly-given statistics, the feds have printed a whopping
      $2.40 out of thin
      air for every $1.00 that existed when the financial crisis began in 2007.
      That’s a whole lot of newly-minted fiat dollars (and their electronic
      equivalent)

      • I would agree for most parts.

        Hyperinflation? I’m betting not. High Inflation (10-25%)- most probably.

        Of all the 20 hyperinflation studies Bernholz did, none where a highly-industrialized country.

        There has never been hyperinflation in a highly industrialized country that hasn’t first lost a major war.

        If the USA gets hyperinflation, it will be equal to a nuclear war in its destruction.

        • Are we really highly industrialized? I though most of our manufacturing had gone over seas??

          • Yes,

            High Industrialization represents a High Division of Labor and Specialization.

            Pieces and parts for a particular product are manufactured and assembled all over the country is specialty areas.

            When money is destroyed, there is no commerce, no shipping, no pieces, no product. The world as we know it stops. A stopped economy kills people.

            Hyperinflation destroys money.

    • Cyndi P: I asked USW to send you my e-mail address.

    • Send it on to me CP! You have my info.

      G!

  43. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good Morning Everyone

    I saw this on the Drudge report and thought I’d pass it along here. Don’t know if anyone has seen this or not, or if has been posted already.

    Hope all is doing well today.

    Judy

    Completely Reckless, Completely Irresponsible
    from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

    Thursday, December 17, 2009

    ‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

    “Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

    “So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

    “Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

    “The Majority disagrees.

    “Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

    “They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

    “Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

    “Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

    “Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

    “And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

    “And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

    “That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

    “That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

    “So this entire process is essentially a charade.

    “But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

    • The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

    • No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

    • This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

    • We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

    • We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

    “Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

    “No Child Left Behind (2001):

    • 21 session days or 7 weeks.

    • Roll Call votes: 44

    • Number of Amendments offered: 157

    “9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):

    • 19 session days over 7 weeks.

    • Roll Call votes: 20

    • Number of Amendments offered: 30

    “Energy Bill (2002):

    • 21 session days over 8 weeks

    • Number of Roll Call votes: 36

    • Number of Amendments offered: 158

    “This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

    “I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

    ‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

    “And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

    “Here’s what she said in late November:

    ‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

    “The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

    “A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

    “There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

    “And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

    “Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

    “It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”

    • Surely, there is some legal method we can use to kick any nut case out of office that votes yes on a bill that he or she hasn’t even read. If not, there d*#@n well should be.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi V

        I don’t know, but is there any way we can impeach the senate and congress? I’m not sure how many read the 2000 page bill or how far they might have gotten into it, but signing a bill without the American people’s approval should be against the law. But we all know that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

        • Good Morning Judy and V.,

          It seems our elected representatives don’t care about what we want. Worse yet, they seem to have little or no fear of the upcoming election. They MUST know that voters are paying attention and are angry at what is being done, yet our reps continue on. So why do so many seem to not care about the next election? Do they really think all this will blow over? What do they know that we don’t????

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi Cyndi

            I would give anything to be a fly on the wall and listen to all what they have to say.

            As for the upcoming election, you can bet your sweet patooties that Reid’s is on the line here in Nevada. There are a lot if disgruntled people here who want to see him voted out, kicked out, or just pushed out, it doesn’t matter, how, as long as he is out.

            No, they don’t give a hoot about the American people, or what we say, or how we feel about the way they are ruining this country, as long as they get every bill they can think of passed, and at no cost to them apparently, but at a cost to our lives.

            I read this morning, that the joblessness has risen again, but can’t remember how much. I know here in Reno, even the city workers are being cut now, but they can spend $450 million on some stupid sculpture at our expense. Don’t have sh#% going for the city, but as long as they have money to squander away at frivolous crap, that’s all that matters.

            We have a mayor here who thinks he has done wonders for the city, but I can’t see it. Not one thing here for kids to do. They had a place in the bowling stadium, but they took that away from them, so the bowlers have places to go, and things to do when tournaments aren’t going on. We have bowling tournaments 4 to 5 months out of the year, and the rest of the time , it just sits and does not get used. Even the citizens here can’t bowl there. Another waste of taxpayers money.

  44. Judy Sabatini says:

    Health-care bill wouldn’t bring real reform

    By Howard Dean
    Thursday, December 17, 2009; A33

    If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

    Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

    From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.

    To be clear, I’m not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government’s contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents’ health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

    Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers’ salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

    In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

    I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform — which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

  45. I copied this from The Obama File. I don’t know if there is any truth to the article. I was hoping that D13 could comment on any troop movements to California, if he knows of any.

    Obama Prepares For Rebellion

    The European Union Times is reporting that Kremlin position papers presented to Prime Minister Putin today on his upcoming meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen state that the European-US military alliance has authorized an “emergency request” from Barack Obama to utilize American and Canadian NATO troops to put down what is expected to be a “rebellion” after the expected January, 2010 “declaration of bankruptcy” by the State of California.

    According to these reports, Obama’s fears of rebellion are due to the economic health of California (the United States largest State) after the 3rd largest US State, New York, declared a “fiscal emergency” and refused to release to its cities and towns over $750 million due them this past week with the Governor of New York, David Paterson, declaring, “I can’t say this enough: The state has run out of money.”

    New York’s fiscal crisis, however, pales in comparison to California’s, where new economic data points to its expected 5-year budget deficit reaching the staggering amount of over $100 billion which Russian economists warn will result in budget cuts so steep as to create “social chaos” among this States 36 million citizens.

    Reports from the United States are, indeed, confirming the mass movement of military supplies and thousands of Canadian Special Forces Troops to California from the Canadian Forces Base of Petawawa to join their American military counterparts, with “secondary” reports stating that at least 1,000 tanks are massing there too.

    Russian Military Analysts are further warning in this report that Obama has decided to implement the feared RAND Corporation (one of the most powerful research arms of the US Military-Industrial-Homeland Security Complex) police state “blueprint” tilted “Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Creating U.S. Capabilities” that has been modeled on the Nazi German secret police forces organization Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) meant to “control and demoralize” any opposition to the state.

    Even worse for these American people is the legalization process currently embedded in their new health care legislation which will see everyone of them becoming virtual slaves of their government, and as warned about by the Fox News Service in their report titled “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of Obama’s Latest Big Brother Plan”

    Continue reading here . . . Shaky
    Stuff
    12/17/09
    Keep The Change

    Boo Reed sings, Obama, you can “Keep the Change” (02:41)

    • Would not copy correctly.

    • Hi Birdman!

      Not sure what to think of all this. While it is hard to believe that any foriegn armies would be asked to do this, it would not surprise me. If Cali goes down, others will soon follow, but not to the extent. I also think that if it does happen, it would be a big mistake, as POTUS would show his hand and allow the other states to get organized. Succession would be the talk of the times at that point, with Texas probably going first.

      Just some thoughts to ponder. 🙂

      G!

      • Hi G-Man. Hope things are well with you.

        We live in fearful times. I have never been so concerned as I am now.

        Nothing surprises me any more. Obama is saying if the healthcare bill does not pass the government will go bankrupt. More scare tactics. If it passes it’s another burden and will lead to bankruptcy.

        Do you think Obama now recognizes that it will not pass and when the country goes bankrupt he will then say, “See, I warned you this would happen.”

        • I’m good!

          If the country goes bankrupt, I doubt Obama will be saying anything, because he will leave the country with is tail between his legs, knowing he won’t just be hanging from a Christmas tree as an ornament. 👿

          G!

    • Bottom Line says:

      It’s coming.

      Ready?

      • Actually I am ready. Dad and I have been preparing since early spring. Our food stock is well set up, alternate heat and power, and enough natural resources to thrive on.

        Are You?

      • That’s depressing BL 😦

    • hi all

      This is also posted at ResistNet.com with extra commentary. My son-in-law is a marine at K-bay, Hawaii. He was informed yesterday that his unit is now on stand-by in case of a national emergency. What’s going on? Fasten your seat belts!

      • Thanks for posting this info Anita! This is strange, but could verify the Cailifornia bankruptcy and impending problems. This is bothersome. Keep us posted of any updates if you can.

        G!

      • Hi Anita

        I looked around at ResistNet and couldn’t find anything about K-bay Hawaii. Can you tell me where to find it?

        • Hey Cindi,

          Forgive me but i dont even know how to post a link. I did go back to ResistNet to find the article and noticed it was pushed way down behind other posts. The article was the same as what Birdman posted. They did have a video of a train carrying many many Canadian military vehicles into California.My daughter informed me about my son-in-law’s unit status by phone. I tried to find info on the MCBH (Marine Corp Base Hawaii) website but it wasn’t helpful. Whatever! But I don’t like it. I’ve been anticipating their coming home for the holidays- this better not interfere! Sorry about my computer skills but hope this helps. I’ve been watching this site from the beginning and I like your style. Go Girl!

          • Sorry. Make that c”Y”ndi

          • Thanks Anita.

            So you like my style, eh? Me too. I like to make ’em work for it, LOL!

            😉

            • Just to add some more punch to the possibility:

              http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57228

              • Hi G-man,

                Good job on the homework. Scary stuff. Its cool that we in N America have each other’s backs but since I don’t trust Oboy….I smell something fishy. No new updates from my kids. I’ll stay on it. Peace

              • I’ve got feelers out all over. Flag has said in the past that if Cali goes, many will follow, so I think this is something to follow close. PEACE to you and your family 🙂

                G!

              • Sneaky bastards. I wonder if the Canadians will honor the committment. Would they really tolerate having their soldiers fighting American civilians? American civilians aren’t known for crossing the border and becoming terrorists. What would be the reaction of Canadian soldiers? Would they fire on American civlians? Would American soldiers fire on American civilians?

              • going to bottom of page, too squishy

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Just in case anyone has missed that the US and Canadian military and security forces have been doing many joint operations in 2009 ramping up to the 2010 Winter Olympics being held in Vancouver BC during the month of February.

  46. On with the awards! 🙂

    The winner of the “Flaming Idiot Politician Who Makes Women Look Bad Award” goes to (drumroll please) Blanch Lincoln!
    For making one of the stupidest statements on Constitutional language in recent times.

    http://www.thefoxnation.com/blanche-lincoln/2009/12/17/blanche-lincoln-constitution-says-i-can-force-you-buy-health-insurance

    😆

    G!

    • For the truest form of “I was an Idiot when I backed Obama, and now I regret it Award” Goes too Keith “Bathtub Boy” Olberman for this statement just last night:

      On tonight’s Countdown, Olbermann vowed to break the law and go to jail if ObamaCare requires him to buy private-sector health care insurance. Keith made his macho boast in the course of his melodramatic Special Comment this evening.

      KEITH OLBERMANN: Health care reform that benefits the industry at the cost of the people is intolerable and there are no moral constructs in which it can be supported. And if still the bill, and this heinous mandate become law, there is yet further reaction required. I call on all those whose conscience urges them to fight to use the only weapon that will left to us if this bill as currently constituted becomes law. We must not buy federally-mandated insurance, if this cheesy counterfeit of reform is all we can buy. No single payer? No sale. No public option? No sale. No Medicare buy-in? No sale.

      I am one of the self-insured, albeit by choice. And I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health-care reform. Pass this at your peril, senators. And sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a law-breaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must

      You should have been jailed years ago Keith, but being a flaming moron with a mouth is not against the law yet!

      😈

    • Damnitall G, we still haven’t gotten over Clinton being from here. There have been others just as bad, this is a timing issue. I think Pelosi mumbled the same thing, and Landrieu also said she has lawyers on her staff to answer questions like that.

      • I emailed the Countdown show a short while ago, HEHE. If I get a response, I’ll post it! 🙂

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi guys

        I have to say this, and I’m sure I’m going to get some flack for it, but I don’t care, I’m about to burst if I don’t.

        I notice we didn’t have nearly the trouble when GW was in office,, yes, I know he wasn’t the greatest either, but I know we were a lot safer when he was in, and we didn’t have all these crazy bills I don’t think, that he wanted to pass, and he didn’t spend anywhere near what Obama has done in just his first year alone, and he didn’t want to take over everything or take over our lives the way this one wants to. GW wasn’t a dictator the way I see Obama.

        I’ve come to the conclusion that everybody is afraid of him, afraid of telling him go F@#$ himself, and what they really think of him. He might be the president, but he’s still human, not the messiah that everybody thinks he is, and that if you say anything to him, he just might turn them into stone or something. Somebody out there has got to have the guts to tell him what he is doing, is not only ruining this country, but ruining the people’s lives as well.

        I am just sick at heart as the rest of you in what’s happening and how this country is going to be for our kids, their kids, and even their kids. They are going to be like mind numbing robots and not have any clue as how to get out from underneath these thumb screws. I see nothing but robots going around day to day with the sounds of Obama in their heads listening over and over and over telling them what a great person he is and what a great thing he did for the people and what a great thing he did for this country.

        There, with that said, go ahead and let me have it with both barrels, but I was only saying what was on my mind now for a while, and I just could keep quiet any longer.

        • Judy,

          Today I award you the “I know Obama is an asshole Award” 🙂

          You can trade this award for Mathius points, but you have to name the next winner!

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Hi G

            Thanks for the award, but what do you mean I can trade this award for Mathius points? I don’t quite understand.

            Oh Great, you mean I have more than the mom responsibility here now, and I have to come up with the next winner? Gee, thanks a lot, I think.

            I just had to say what I did, like I said, I just couldn’t keep quiet any longer. Every single day, I hear another stupid thing they want to come up with, and I have had it up to here—————, that’s my to here sign.

            Don’t know if you saw my post to Cyndi earlier about what I said about the mayor here in Reno and how much they spent on some stupid sculpture, and when I read that this morning, I just about had a cow. It really pissed me off, especially when the people here can’t find work, or they are not doing anything for this city, or state for that matter. I have yet to see all the improvements and jobs that good ole Harry claimed he said he did. It just put a crimp in my craw.

            Outside of that, hope you’re doing well for the most part.

            • Yes Judy, you now have to pass your award to a deserving member of SUFA.

              It’s best that you didn’t trade for Mathius points at this time, based on earier posts it may not be a good idea.

              You’ll have to read them to understand. I’m sure Bottom Line would accept a donation of Mathius points if you choose!

              I’m doing good! 😀

              G!

  47. Judy Sabatini says:

    The liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
    We agree and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
    **********************

    America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
    **********************

    Q: Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama Value Meal?
    A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
    **********************

    Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
    A: A fund raiser.
    **********************

    Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
    A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
    The other is for housing prisoners.
    **********************

    Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and It

    started to sink, who would be saved? ….

    A: America !
    **********************

    If Nancy Pelosi has her face lifted one more time she’ll have a beard!
    **********************

    Q: What’s the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
    A: Bo has papers.

  48. v. Holland says:
  49. Judy Sabatini says:

    G

    But, there are times I don’t have time to be here all day and read posts, I do have other things to do. I try and read as much as possible, but there are some really long, long posts here sometimes, and by the time I get through reading them or some of the links people put up, there are 40 more posts, and I just ain’t got that time. Maybe I’ll give it away as a Christmas present to somebody, how’s that sound? Let them deal with it. Just Kidding.

    I take it as an honor of being awarded this from you. Oh, I get it now, you got it from somebody, and now you’re passing it to me, right?

    • You can take all the time you want. There is no time limit on passing on the “I Know Obama Is An Asshole Award”.

      So whenever you feel the desire, pass it on.

      G!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Well, I hope I don’t let you or anybody here down, and I certainly hope I can remember. Hey CRS come in me when ever it feels like it. I couldn’t remember what I did with the Christmas lights for the tree last year, or where I put them. SO you might have to remind me every once in awhile, okay.

  50. Judy Sabatini says:

    Anybody here wonder what happened to good ole VP. I haven’t heard anything from or about him in a long time. You think maybe Obama gave him a job far, far away? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! I wonder!

    • v. Holland says:

      With all this talk about a national emergency and troops being put on alert-maybe he’s already in his luxury bunker somewhere.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Makes you wonder if they know something we don’t.

        • My thoughts exactly……. 😦

          • I’m sure they know lots of things we don’t know, I’m just wondering if they have any idea how much more dangerous people are, when they move from angry to scared.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              They don’t have a clue I bet. Probably think we’re just going to sit idly by and do nothing.

            • You’re right V, angry to scared can be VERY bad. The Gov probably thinks it can handle anything that comes. I don’t the powers that be are too concerned about armed citizens. Think about the military hardware being used in the ME. What if they decide to use it on US citizens within the US borders? Folks with light weapons wouldn’t stand a chance. Maybe that’s why the pols aren’t worried about what the citizens want.

              • I hope we never have to find out just know I am starting to feel like a momma who needs to protect her babies.

              • Yeah, I know how your feel. My daughter is literally thousands of miles away. She attends Old Miss. I’ve tried to warn her about what seems to be coming but I don’t want to freak her out, assuming of couse, she doesn’t write me off as a nutjob like most everyone else has.

              • He HE-my daughter will tell me -don’t start I don’t wanna discuss politics but I will hear her and her friends talking about different issues and I’m pleased to hear most of them ranting against the stuff going on. So I know she hears me, even if she thinks I get too intense when I talk about whats going on.

              • My daughter lives in Costa Rica and recently moved from one town to a different town and now has cable TV and can get FOX News. She was so excited!

              • I have a friend who is look for a new country. She’s thinking about Costa Rica. She was there on vacation a few years ago and loved it. Why is your daughter there? I take it she likes it?

              • Cyndi we need Americans like you who believe in liberty and freedom to stay here and help stop our country from being ruined.

  51. Judy Sabatini says:

    Democratic Sen. Al Franken took the unusual step Thursday of shutting down Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor.

    Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, currently is the target of liberal wrath over his opposition to a government-run insurance plan in the health care bill.

    Franken was presiding over the Senate Thursday afternoon as Lieberman spoke about amendments he planned to offer to the bill. Lieberman asked for an additional moment to finish — a routine request — but Franken refused to grant the time.

    “In my capacity as the senator from Minnesota, I object,” Franken said.

    “Really?” said Lieberman. “OK.”

    Lieberman then said he’d submit the rest of his statement in writing.

    Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona came to his friend Lieberman’s defense, saying he’d never seen such a thing occur.

    “I must say that I don’t know what’s happening here in this body but I think it’s wrong,” McCain said on the floor.

    Franken’s spokeswoman, Jess McIntosh, said that the Minnesota senator wouldn’t allow Lieberman to continue because time limits were being enforced by Senate leaders rushing to finish a defense spending bill and get to the health bill.

  52. Judy Sabatini says:

    How true.

    Of all the surprises of President Obama’s first year, the biggest is his continuing tin ear for the mood of the country. He often appears clueless about what Americans want.

    Almost from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office, the man who smashed the Clinton machine and won an electoral landslide over John McCain seemed to lose his touch with the people who put him there.

    Some days, many days, he doesn’t look like he cares that big chunks of the country, left, right and center, are giving up on him.

    Voters by a large margin have said for months they don’t want the health care overhaul he’s pushing, so he pushes harder. They want less spending and debt, so he doubles down on pork, bailouts, handouts and taxes.

    They thought he would deliver bipartisanship, and he gives his hard-left allies the keys to the kingdom.

    They worry about terrorism, so he wants to close Gitmo and move the worst of the worst to the homeland. With Ground Zero still a mess, he gives the 9/11 plotters civilian trials in New York.
    His approval ratings are speeding downhill and some 60 percent say the country is on the wrong track. He responds by giving himself a “good solid B-plus” for his first year.

    And he says Wall Street bankers “don’t get it.”

    It comes as no surprise, of course, that our young president has a very, very high opinion of himself. But it is nonetheless shocking he remains so brazenly self-righteous in the face of growing public discontent.

    A damn-the-torpedoes style of leadership would be welcome if he were an optimist brandishing an inclusive, sunny-side up vision. He’s not. He’s too often testy, churlish and downright whiny.

    His vision is little more than a string of gauzy utopian platitudes glued together with fear, as when he told fellow Dems yesterday that the flawed health-bill represented “the last chance” for reform.

    The last chance? Forever?

    His charge that bankers have an obligation “to help rebuild the economy” by making more and presumably riskier loans boggles the mind. Low standards are the hair of the dog that led to liar loans and other housing disasters. By all means, let’s do it again.

    When something goes wrong, it’s not his fault. “Fat-cat bankers,” “greedy” insurance companies, doctors who do amputations just for the money, special interests, the media — the media! — have all taken their turns being blamed for what he hasn’t fixed.

    The buck doesn’t stop on his desk!

    If all other scapegoats fail, there’s always George W. Bush. Pressed during last Sunday’s “60 Minutes” interview on his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Obama shared his pain and slandered Bush — all to distinguish his troop surge from his predecessor’s.

    “One of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war,” Obama said. “There was a tendency to say, ‘We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise.’ When, in fact, this is a tough business.”

    So even when he reaches the same conclusion as Bush, pursues the same enemy, relies on the same commanders and the same Defense secretary, it’s different.

    Why? Because he says so.

  53. Judy Sabatini says:

  54. She’s Back!!!

    Monica’s back – says Clinton lied

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30745.html

    With all the other heavy duty stuff hitting us these days, this may provide some much needed comic relief!

  55. Judy Sabatini says:

    I am going to say goodnight to all, and will se you all here tomorrow.

    Have a great night

    Judy

  56. Judy Sabatini says:

    “I come in peace, I didn’t bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.” -Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders

  57. “Mother won’t be charged in newborn baby’s death
    By Angela Hatcher
    WSLS-10
    Published: December 15, 2009
    » 20 Comments | Post a Comment
    3
    votesBuzz up!

    A loophole in state law is preventing Campbell County investigators from charging a woman they say killed her newborn baby.

    Deputies were called to a home in the 1200 block of Lone Jack Road in Rustburg about 11 a.m. Friday. The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor.

    When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1 a.m., about 10 hours earlier. Investigators said the baby was already dead when deputies got there.

    Investigators told WSLS the baby’s airway was blocked. They said the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators said because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

    “In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,“ said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

    The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson said they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

    Emerson said there is a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.

    The baby’s grandmother was home and was the one who called 911. Police said she will not be charged because the baby was born in the middle of the night and the grandmother did not know until late morning. Investigators said the baby’s father was upset when he showed up at the home after deputies.

    “He was very upset. I think the grandparents were upset. I believe everyone was upset, except for the person who should have been upset, the mother,” said Emerson.

    Emerson said the woman knew she was pregnant and had received prenatal care. He said the baby was full-term, due Tuesday. The medical examiner says the baby was born healthy. An autopsy is being performed. The baby’s body will then be released to the family.”

    I just don’t know what to say-This woman is going to get away with murder and obviously it has happened before and our lawmakers said:” Emerson said they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.”

  58. Thanks V. You’re only the second person who has ever said that to me. By far the larger number of comments were words to the effect of get the fkcu out of my country, asshole. I support the cause but I think its too late. Too many Americans are buying what O is selling. If/when the shooting starts, they’ll side with O. You watch. The next 18 months or so will be very telling. I really hope America as we’ve known will exist in the future. I’m just not counting on it.

    • v. Holland says:

      I remain hopeful, I don’t believe the American spirit is dead but only time will tell. Although I don’t see any war type revolution, maybe some riots in the streets when people really start hurting. As far as the other, might I suggest that you may be hanging out with the wrong people. Reminds me of a song I think is cute-hope you like it-it always makes me smile.

      http://www.forums.webrats.com/video-91204-better-class-of-losers.php

      • Good Morning V,

        I’m with you. I have a friend who is certain that we are in the end times. I continue to tell him to give me time- I’ll talk us out of it. I think part of the problem is this machine we’re on. Too Much Info. How do we go back to the days when Archie Bunker or Fonzi were considered radical? Those were the days.

        • The End Times, I see that as a definite possibility but I suspect every generation before me has felt the same way. 🙂

          As far as too much information, I’m not sure that’s the problem but I do think 24/7 news media coverage has turned our media into more of an entertainment business. Remember the old saying “The squeaky wheel gets the oil” it seems to apply to the type of news that is covered today-it’s always centered around the loudest and most extreme on both sides.

      • Thanks V, but I can’t usually get videos. This lump of coral in the middle of the ocean has dial up only (at least for non work related stuff).

        I think O will use riots as an excuse to really clamp down and consolidate his power. All he needs is an excuse. I’m sure he’s looking for it now…..

        • v. Holland says:

          He might but then again if he does-that play may very well backfire on him and really wake up the sleeping giant.

          • I don’t know. If someone isn’t awake by now, its because they’re in a coma! I think O could actually pull it off. He and his have been preparing for this since the 1960s. Not even half of Americans are only just now starting to smell the coffee…..

            • v. Holland says:

              We will have to hope and pray for the best and do whatever we can to slow the government down while we try to wake people up. Have a good weekend, I’m out of here for awhile.

  59. Another one bites the dust….

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/debt-disaster-fears-rumble-from-athens-to-london-2009-12-16

    By Polya Lesova, MarketWatch
    FRANKFURT (MarketWatch) — Rumors of a debt disaster are swirling around Europe, from Athens to Madrid and all the way to London.

    Investors have rushed to sell Greek bonds since the newly elected government of George Papandreou made a startling revelation: the deficit will soar to over 12% of gross domestic product this year, well above previous official projections.

    Greece’s predicament has escalated concerns about contagion in other European countries whose finances are in poor shape. Just this month, the ratings of Greece have been cut both by Fitch Ratings, and, late Wednesday, by Standard & Poor’s, and major agencies have warned Spain and Portugal of possible cuts.

    The market reaction has been swift, and brutal. The euro has dropped below the key $1.50 level. Credit-default swaps on Greek government debt — essentially, bets that Greece will default — have ballooned.

  60. CP, At the early stages, yes, the armed forces will defend themselves, and rightfully so. It’s going to be innercity chaos if it happens. Because I live in a poor, innercity type area, I’ve made plans to leave. I can be out of the state in 30 minutes. It’s the cities that will have to deal with the full force, not the rural areas. It will most likely be contained within the cities.

    G!

    • I dread the day. Obama will go down in history for that one if it happens. Wasn’t the last president who had troops fire on civlians a Democrat? Johnson wasn’t it?

      So what’s your signal to move out? How will you know when to go?

      • Remember Kent St., under Nixon I believe.

        I don’t have an exact event that will send me off, but, one thing is troops starting to show up would be one, the next would be riots, which would lead to troops showing up. Mostly, I’ll rely on gut feeling, it’s worked well for me.

        • Kent State and Nixion sounds right. I was still kinda young back then.

          So what’s your gut telling you now? Mine’s been in a knot for awhile. Whenever the opportuntiy arises, I tell people to listen to their gut.

          • The old gut says, do what I’ve been doing for the last 10 months. Prepare and be ready. I have a short list of things to put in the truck as most is already there. My goal is to outrun Marshal Law, get to my location while I can.

            G!

            • That sounds about right. I’ve done pretty much all I can do, though my situation is completely different from yours as I’m overseas. Still, I’m nervous of the whole thing. If things got bad enough I imagine we’d be cutoff for awhile, especially if the whole country finds itself under martial law. I don’t imagine day to day business would change though I can’t be sure. Being associated with a military base, I could start asking around but that would probably bring the wrong kind of attention and all that goes with it. Its hardly worth the trouble as there’s nothing I can do about anything. I do worry for my daughter. That’s the big one for me.

              • Your far safer than anyone here. All you can do is try to tell your daughter what you feel. Knowledge is gold! Dismissal is a death sentence. I’ve always felt that even if I don’t think something will happen, it’s always best to be prepared. Even minor prep is better than none.

                Your lucky where your at, safe and sound, just don’t leave. Stay on that island, you’ll be better in the long run.

                G!

              • Thanks, G.

  61. I’m a huge fan of Ayn Rand’s work, and the objectivist philosophy. Free markets, and free will lead to growth and prosperity. More government and regulation leads to less growth and prosperity.

  62. Superb publish, couldn’t agree additional

Trackbacks

  1. […] of the Year” Bernanke NICE DEB   ObamaCare on the Precipice STAND UP FOR AMERICA  Tuesday Open Mic WEASEL ZIPPERS   Michael Moore Threatens to Boycott Every All-You-Can-Eat buffet in Connecticut […]

%d bloggers like this: