Tuesday Night Open Mic for June 15, 2010

As I begin writing this introduction to the open mic for tonight, I am watching the Celtics versus the Lakers, and hoping that I can will my boys in green to the win and another NBA chamionship. By the time I post this to the site, we will know whether they were able to seal the deal or whether the Lakers managed to stop them and force a game 7. The open mic topics for tonight have a lot of questions for all of you. We are discussing Hydrogen Powered cars, North Korea’s threats against the United Nations, the Democrats chances of retaining 59 Senate seats, and the inability of today’s higher education institutions to prepare graduates to effectively adapt to the modern working world. The Hydrogen vehicle stuff is one where I am relying on some of you science minded folks to weigh in with your thoughts. Obviously, it is open mic, so feel free to fire away with topics of your own as well!

Update: My Celtics could not have looked worse. It started with our starting center straining a knee (and now improbable to play game 7), but was overall just a crappy effort from the Celtics and a phenomenal effort from the Lakers. Final score of Lakers by 22. So we go to game 7 on Thursday night. Send your prayers to the gods that my Celtics can pull it out. We do not like losing to Los Angeles.


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Can the Hydrogen Highway Exist?

    Sitting alongside what was once the last couple miles of Route 66, pumps of petrol are in full use, but one stands alone, and for most of the time we’ve been here, goes unused. This pump looks the same from afar, but as you move closer, the blue writing sticks out from the familiar Shell red and yellow logo.

    What makes this pump different is compressed Hydrogen and what could be the future along the mother road for American drivers. Chevrolet, Honda, Chrysler and most other car manufacturers believe that by 2015, car production could be ramped-up to make Hydrogen viable as a fuel alternative and a possible answer to get America off of fossil fuel and the dependence on foreign oil.

    According to Shad Balch, the Advanced Technology Product Spokesman for General Motors, “Right now, we’ve put more than 100 fuel cell Chevy vehicles on the road to demonstrate that the technology is real, that it’s not a science project, that we can use this sort of application hopefully that will spur the investment into the infrastructure.”

    Read the rest of the article here: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/15/can-the-hydrogen-highway-exist/

    I am interested in the tech folks and the opinion that you all have of this developing technology. Is hydrogen a viable fuel source for the future? Is it more efficient? Is it cleaner? Is there an abundance of it so that we would not have to rely on any other country?

    Further, is the concept of hydrogen fueled vehicles a safe alternative? Would hydrogen storage be easier or harder than gasoline as it exists? More safe or less safe for storage, or in the case of an accident that ruptures a tank?

    As a more overreaching question, how many feel that the left in America are so opposed to oil (mainly because the right is not opposed to oil) that they are willing to hype up any and every single possible alternative to using oil as a means of power or energy? It seems that no matter what the alternative is, the left appears to love it and I rarely see them offer any type of down side to the alternative fuels, when there clearly must be a down side. Interestingly, despite the fact that the environmentalists espouse the value of every alternative energy source, none of them has been embraced as a path forward. For some reason, the industries that would stand to make the most money by doing so have thus far refused to take on the daunting task of making it happen.

    • I admittedly do not know very much about these things, but I do know that they are EXTREMELY expensive! That cost, I think, will either kill them or deny them to the average car buyer and that would effectively put privately owned vehicles into the hands of the very rich only.

    • Is hydrogen a viable fuel source for the future?

      Could be, safe storage is the main issue.

      Is it more efficient?

      With Hydrogen you can burn it using a normal combustion engine or use it in a fuel cell to generate electricity which in turn powers the motor for the vehicle. Compared to the current infrastructure we have setup for petroleum it would be terribly expensive to setup the same network for hydrogen cars.

      Is it cleaner?

      Depending how you generate the Hydrogen, Yes and YESSSSS.

      Is there an abundance of it so that we would not have to rely on any other country?


      As for the left being enthusiastic about alternative energy sources, I think it is much better to be like that than curling into a ball with our fingers in our ears chanting “Cheap oil will last forever, cheap oil will last forever”. The main disadvantage for all new possible sources of energy for cars is that everything we have is geared up for oil, switching to anything else is going to be very painful.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Right now, the main process for producing hydrogen gas industrially is as follows:

        Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways, but economically the most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas.[73] At high temperatures (1000–1400 K, °C;700–1100 °C or 1,300–2,000 °F), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2.

        CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2

        How do we get temperatures high enough to make this reaction happen? Burning fossil fuels. What happens when CO is emitted into the air? It reacts with sunlight and O2 molecules to form CO2 and an Oxygen radical. The Oxygen radical then reacts with another O2 molecule to form O3, which is Ozone. Ground level ozone is a main component of smog and in the lower atmosphere is a human health threat.

        So right now, the main industrial process to form H2 gas involves emitting large amounts of what ends up being CO2 and Ozone into the atmosphere. In addition we have to burn a lot of fossil fuels (yielding more CO2 emissions) to get a high enough temperature to get the reaction to go.

        It sounds (to me) like even though the emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are simply water vapor, the emissions produced in the production of the H2 needed to fuel the hydrogen fuel cells might well be a net INCREASE in atmospheric CO2.

        If it turns out that mass-producing H2 gas emits less CO2 than 100,000,000 conventional combustion-engine cars, and we can get 100,000,000 H2 fueled cars on the road, then we might come out ahead. However, if producing that much H2 emits MORE CO2 than we would have from 100,000,000 combustion engine cars, then it obviously would not even be worth the effort.

        Also, the efficiency of a fuel cell depends on the load. A very light-weight vehicle with no frills whatsoever would be fairly efficient. A full-sized SUV with AC, power windows, power door locks, AM/FM/CD, cell phone charger, etc. etc. is going to be terribly inefficient and require a LOT of hydrogen to fuel it.

        The best chance of this saving ANY CO2 emission whatsoever whould be if we all went to “Smart-Car” sized cars with no radio, no AC, and manual-crank windows, fueled by hydrogen fuel-cell technology. Big vehicles with all the bells and whistles would probably produce more net CO2 emissions than a regular SUV, simply because of the amount of CO2 prodcued in the production of all of the hydrogen needed to fuel them.

        • I think the idea would be to have a small hydrogen generator at home, power stations (well Coal and Nuclear ones) waste lots of power at night so that would be an ideal time to generate some Hydrogen. Get a renewable source such as a wind turbine or some solar panels and your laughing.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Wind turbines and solar panels cause a net INCREASE in CO2 emissions because of the backup power needed from conventional power generation when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

            Having solar panels on every home and a windmill in every backyard is highly impractical. Also, where do people living in apartments get their hydrogen from?

            Production of large wind turbines and large solar arrays involves vast use of energy, as well as vast use of hydrocarbon-based materials.

            Studies in Europe and America show that when wind and solar power accounts for about 3 to 5% of the total power used, there is a net REDUCTION in CO2 emissions, which is great.

            However, once wind/solar generation hits anything exceeding 5% of total power generation, there is actually an INCREASE in CO2 emissions, compared to if no windmills or solar panels were used at all.

            So, if we wish to actually reduce CO2 emissions using the technology currently available, wind/solar power generation should be kept below 5% of the total, or using it defeats the purpose.

            • Wait on, that 5% thing makes no sense, true wind power does not generate close to what we need but as long as those blades are turning it is paying back whatever energy it took to create them.

              The future of our energy needs will not rest on one solution it will be a culmination of technologies. The sooner we can learn to exploit them more efficiently the better.

              • A friend of mine – a neighbor – has a wind generator. Installed it last year. I asked him what it cost, and the bill on the thing was $14,000.00(the windmill and generator itself) + $6,000.00(for the concrete footing for the thing) + $5,000.00(for the contractor to install it). Total cost of $25,000.00 + tax!?! This man spent twenty five grand to get a total of maybe $50.00 deduction on his electric bill – but only on the months WHEN the wind blows enough! My friend is a very healthy 70+YO and he will not likely live long enough to reap a profit from his investment.

                Nope, not worth the price you pay . . . . .

                • If all of us had such a short sighted view nothing would get done.

                • Bob,

                  Economics is not short sighted.

                  It makes no sense to spend money wastefully. Spending money wastefully is VERY short sighted.

                  Now, people who chose, freely, to do so do so on their own value. Good for them.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:
          • naten53 says:

            Actually coal plants do not waste that much power at night. Power plants know down to the hour how much power they are outputting. They know that there are peaks of power usage in the morning when everyone is up and getting ready for work and then it goes down a little and peaks in the evening when everyone gets home, then falls down to the low point overnight.

            Power plants know that if they put in x amount of coal they will get y amount of power in z amount of time.

            I will cite myself as a reference because I work in the power industry.

            • My point being that they cant just switch the things off, they must be producing more energy than is required at the time.

              • Power plants can never be producing more power than is needed (Kirchhoff’s Current Law). Current into the grid (generated) must equal current out of the grid (used). If there was more power being produced than what is needed, where is it going?

                Power plants scale back their power production during non peak hours. It is true, that some plants become less efficient as they deviate from their design output, but it’s not a huge amount.

                • naten53 says:

                  Well power is lost through electrical resistance of the wire, but I do know that factories work out better rates with utilities durring night hours so that combined with scaleing back the amount of fuel, they can greatly reduce the amount of electricity they lose over the night.


                • DaveS is exactly correct.

                  In all power grids, there are stations that provide “BASE LOAD” – that is the constant (and typically, unchanging) consumption of electricity. This load is typically provided by steam turbine plants from coal or nuclear. Turbines do not like to be accelerated or decelerated and operate optimally at a constant speed. It also takes a lot of time to speed up or slow down a turbine – the power is not “instant on or instant off”.

                  Additionally, there are power plants that provide VARIABLE LOAD. These are typically Natural gas or oil burning plants. They are huge “car engines” in their design with a “gas pedal” – and like a car engine are near instant on/off. As power is demanded above base load, these guys step on the gas. As the load decreases these guys step off the gas.

                  Things like solar and wind are not suitable for variable load component – and they are not suitable for base load either for the same reason – unpredictable power. Replacing base load generators with wind/solar actually consumes more oil because the increase in variability of power requires more diesel/gas generators!!

    • I think hydrogen fuel cells are a viable technology, but as with all tech advances, need some time to become cost effective. In terms of safety, storing compressed hydrogen is asking for trouble, but with current nanotechnology, it is possible to make the gas inert while in storage. Once again, the cost effectiveness is not quite there yet, but I am hopeful.

      One thing I noticed about the speech of the President’s last night is that he wants to make green energy the cheap energy for our country. I find it infuriating that he could present this idea in this way. The only way to make green energy the cheap energy is to impose such taxes and regulations as to make carbon energy exorbitantly too expensive. The green energy that he would like to take over is not yet capable of producing enough energy to sate our demands. The tax revenue generated on fossil fuels would go to developing the technology. In other words, we will greatly increase the cost of EVERYTHING (gas, electricity, plastics, not to mention everything that has to be transported… EVERYTHING) in order to fund green energy research, while the technology does not exist to replace carbon energy! During a recession, while our economy teeters on the brink of complete disaster…

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @JB – I’m always flummoxed by the notion that should something become cost prohibitive to use (oil) industry would continue to use it anyway – I guess I have more faith in technology than I should?

        • The idea is that when the need presents itself, we will develop new energy sources. I want new energy sources. I want clean energy and an end to fossil fuel dependence. I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t other than the oil companies.

          My problem is that we’re leaping blindfolded off a cliff, hoping that there is a platform within reach.

          When we tax the hell out of carbon fuels and destroy those jobs/industries, what happens if we can’t get a new technology running in time? The price of energy will continue going up! Our economy will be in shambles if not bankrupt!

          I would like to see the technology in place before we drop a nuke on carbon fuels.

          What we’re talking about is not a new energy source that will make oil cost prohibitive, we’re talking about the government MAKING oil cost prohibitive before there is a viable alternative energy source. Wind, solar, tidal, etc are all great energy sources, but they cannot sustain our needs right now.

          Let’s build the platform before we jump off the cliff.

    • naten53 says:

      As for safety, as long as they can make a fuel cell vehicle survive a rear end collision without blowing up, then there is no more risk then new gasoline cars.

    • Is hydrogen a viable fuel source for the future?

      Yes and no. There is nothing wrong with using hydrogen to replace gasoline. Burning hydrogen releases water vapor. The problem is where to get the hydrogen, which usually is from water. They use electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. It is not efficient on the whole. More electricity is used than can be produced by burning the hydrogen, giving you a net energy loss. The main problem in the US is that you are going to use coal power plants to convert water into a more usable form of energy.

      So the real question come back to how do we produce our electricity.

      • texaschem says:

        LOI stated:”So the real question come back to how do we produce our electricity?”


        • TC,

          Well, …*sigh*…. not that either.

          There are very few Uranium deposits.

          If one does an global energy calculation, there is only about 50 years worth of Uranium if one replaced all human energy sources.

          Now, that replacement wouldn’t happen of course, so there are more supplies available, but it does indicate that as a long term solution, it really is NOT that long term – it is actually very short term.

          Thorium reactors may help (100x more of that stuff then Uranium), but there is no commercially run Thorium reactor in the world – it is still “Science” and not quite past “Engineering” yet.

          • BF, what about breeder reactors? I have heard that if we take our spent fuel rods and run them through a breeder reactor it will essentially render them reusable. Is that true? And if so why are we not doing it?

            • G.A. Rowe,

              I understand your question but here are some small corrections.

              “Reprocessing” is what you are speaking about.

              “Breeder” reactors take useless U238 and turns it into useful U235. U238 is not fissionable – that is, though radioactive, does not create a sustainable nuclear pile. U235 IS fissionable.

              99.25% of Uranium is the U238, that useless stuff. So “Breeders” are used to create the U235. Part of the process is capable of creating Plutonium too – which is why the US appears frothing around Iran’s breeder reactors.

              PS: Breeder reactors are also used to turn Thorium into U235…in labs today but maybe commercially tomorrow.

              “Reprocessing” – when ~5% of the nuclear fuel is consumed, the waste products start accumulating and interfering with the predictable fission process. The fuel is then removed and replaced with new pellets.

              The old pellets are still 95% U235 – but the waste product are highly radioactive “Dirty Daughters” – one being Plutonium.

              Reprocessing takes out the Dirty Daughters and returns clean U235 for use again.

              But it also removes the Plutonium.

              Pres. Carter feared that the US nuke plants were unsecured and this Plutonium could be stolen and used to make a bomb. So he banned Reprocessing.

              So 95% of usable U238 is buried with dangerous byproducts to prevent the removal of Plutonium.

              Yes, G.A. – among the most dumbest ideas that the government came up with….

    • I have to leave for work soon, so I will make this short. H2 is the fuel of the future and always will be.

      Any technology that takes much more than a decade to become economically viable is not viable especially if it needs subsidies to exist. Fuel cells have been around and used in space for decades. H2 does not occur in nature in free form. It must be liberated using substantial energy. The energy used can be a source of polution so unless it is generated by solar, wind, or waves it will add to the CO2 “problem”. On combustion in a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine, it does create only water vapor. Internal combustion engines may still generate NOx because of the natural aspiration and high combustion temperatures. H2 flames are invisible as most of the radiation is in the UV. It does not create soot like hydrocarbons (HC’s) hence the characteristic yellow/orange blackbody emissions are is not present.

      Refineries now generate large amounts of H2 to add to heavy hydrocarbons to make them into gasoline. The process is endothermic. It is called catalytic H2 reforming. They pass methane (natural gas) and air through tubes packed with catalyst. This breaks the methane down to H2 and CO or CO2. The operating temperature of the furnace is 1475°F. It takes a lot of energy to create the H2. There is always the fear that a tube will plug, burn through and blow up the furnace.

      Off to work now, but glad I no longer have to read temperatures in a H2 furnace.

    • In my humble opinion, Hydrogen Cells; as well as other alternative fuel sources will have to be developed further before they become viable resourses of energy. It would be nice if they can, and I would be one of the first to want to use such sources.

      But the Federal Government needs to wait to kill, murder, and destroy our oil and coal industries in this country until these other “clean” energy sources are viable.

      Right at this time though, “they ain’t!”

      Obama and the liberal Econuts are putting the cart before the horse. the only ones they are hurting are the U.S. citizens.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Let me clarify something here for Bob and others. I believe that methods of efficient, large-scale hydrogen generation will be discovered, especially when there is sufficient demand for hydrogen. I also believe that once this happens, we will use hydrogen to fuel and power all sorts of things, and our net CO2 emissions will go WAY DOWN.

      I am ALL FOR the use of hydrogen as a fuel, provided it can be generated on a large enough scale in an efficient way. I think that it is going to be one of the main fuels in the future, and I hope that it happens in my lifetime.

      • I have seen several articles on the development of home hydrogen refueling stations. My understanding is that economically it will be more expensive, using electricity to convert natural gas or water into another form.

        California did an experiment with electric cars several years ago, and it seemed successful in urban area’s, but was killed.
        People were protesting when GM repoed the cars, which were only offered thru leases, no purchase option.


    • Ok, this is an area I have done a ton of research on 🙂

      Safe storage is an over-hyped issue. Yes, H2 is volitile, but it is less dangerous than gasoline due to the way it burns and due to the fact that it is an extremely light gas. Leaks go up very quickly, and concentrations are reduced rapidly. Once concentrations are low enough, danger levels evaporate. Gasoline is volitile as well, and gasoline vapor in the presence of a similar spark has a similar effect to hyrogen, it may be a slightly longer reaction, but it actually does more damage in testing. The fact that H2 would be pressurized is the only additional risk added versus a gas tank.

      H2 combustion presents some issues. In a new engine with stainless steel or aluminum or some other new material construction would be fine, but converted vehicles have massive rust issues, their longevity is severely reduced. This is a problem of the cost of replacing engines in vehicles across the country. Additionally, as Peter mentioned, most vehicles would burn too much H2 to be efficient, or even to be a net gain on pollution output.

      The key will be smart care construction where all aspects of the vehicle are lighter. This may not be possible with a combustion style propulsion. Electric propulsion from hydrogen cell batteries would be more viable. If we look at the totals in such a case we could be dropping a vehicle’s weight by as much as 60%, making the electric motors more viable. Standard batteries for regulating load levels would be incorporated to adjust for the H-cell batteries characteristics under load.

      This would not work for all vehicles and applications, larger drive systems would be needed. It may still be that electric propulsion is possible, but a higher powered generator would be required to avoid massive sized H-cell batteries from being required.

      H2 is, again as Peter mentioned, pulled from hydrocarbons. It could be pulled from ethanols and other sugar based materials, but we know what that can do to food prices. H2O is a potential source, but the energy to liberate that hydrogen is massive, and is not likely to have a net gain in emissions. Use of fossil fuel hydrocarbons is fine, but it does not eliminate the need for oil.

      Solar and wind are making advancements, especially solar. Panels are cheaper by far than even a few years ago, and they last longer. Output used to show significant degredation within 2 years, now panels last much longer. They may be able to be part of our total energy production, but they will not replace more than a part of it. It could be a way to liberate H2, but it would not be efficient with current liberation techniques.

      Essentially, H2 should be looked at as an energy storage means. Its energy release versus the energy required to liberate it is pretty decent if liberation is done efficently, possibly making it a superior battery once materials and construction come down. I would say the only way to have a major net drop in emmissions and fossil fuel usage would be to use Nulcear energy to liberate hydrogen. Massive Nuclear construction would also, of course, replace standard electrical production in the country.

      Hydrogen, in the end, is only the answer to energy if we can find a way to control a fusion process.

    • LOI and gang:

      First, hydrogen is NOT made from water (sorry, LOI). It is made from HYDROcarbons. Making it out of water is a massive energy cost. Making it out of “oil” is a massive energy gain.

      CH4 = methane. Note: what is attached to all that carbon? 🙂

      Second, the problem with hydrogen is storage. The darn stuff is the most corrosive element in the Universe. In liquid form, it approaches infinite viscosity – it will flow UP out of a jar and then down to the floor…..it is just nasty. This is why all these hydrogen “fuel cells” are being invented. A fuel cell binds hydrogen to some other element whose bonds are weak. A catalyst breaks the bond, release hydrogen, that is then burned. The cell and its catalyst is then “refueled” with the hydrogen and agent, and the process repeats.

      Obviously, one of the best fuel cells is CH4, methane. Both the carbon AND the hydrogen can be used to fuel the engine – but since everyone is on some mental psychosis about CO2, methane is ignored.

      Thirdly, it has a terrible VOLUME to Energy ratio. It has a huge WEIGHT to Energy ratio. But cars have a limit on VOLUME more than they have on WEIGHT.

      Fact: The primary stage of Saturn 5 rocket is fueled by Liquid Oxygen and KEROSENE (not liquid Hydrogen) because there is more energy per volume of Kerosene then hydrogen.

      Hydrogen as a fuel source probably in a no-go for any midterm. Waayyyy too many problems and defects in energy calculations. It will remain merely a “peculiar toy”

      • Flag,

        Why you pickin’ on me? “hydrogen is NOT made from water”
        I thought hydrogen was made from….hydrogen? It can be extracted from water, agree not the best way to go. From memory, the green dream was to get the hydrogen from water and eliminate fossil fuels.


        CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2 (tnks Peter)

        I will admit you and Peter have me outclassed on this rocket science. I do question your statement, “Making it out of “oil” is a massive energy gain.” I know there is more energy in a gallon of gas than in a bolt of lightning. How does converting oil into hydrogen “gain” you energy? Would the oil in AV gas, diesel or gasoline not yield more energy than the hydrogen?

        An article I read years ago showed a home hydrogen fuel station, that would produce enough fuel for about 100 miles each night, think it said it would cost about $20K for the hydrogen from water processor. Have not seen one on EBay yet.

        • LOI,

          The bonds which hold Hydrogen to Carbon are weak and take less energy to break then recovered by binding Hydrogen to Oxygen. Thus, a “net” gain in energy.

          However, burning CH4 directly provides a superior energy density then breaking CH4 and just burning the Hydrogen.

          But burning CH4 creates CO2, which some people think is a poison.

          Re: Home units.

          Many people get confused between Science and Engineering

          Science can say “this can be done”

          Engineering figures out how.

          Science says cracking water for hydrogen can be done.

          The Engineers have run into serious problems – such as containment. Fact: Hydrogen corrodes GLASS!

          There exists no know long-term containment of hydrogen. It binds with anything – literally – anything. It peels away the interiors of any containment vessel.

          The only known way to store hydrogen for a long term is to cause it to bind (hopefully, weakly) with another element and store that. But that costs energy to break the bond.

          Anyway…. don’t hold out a hope for native hydrogen systems – too many engineering issues with a minor (if any) gain in energy density.

          There are real reasons why oil dominates the energy systems of man.

          • That’s more like my old Flagster.

            I understand the science/engineering issue. I do not see this as being practical today. Tomorrow, will they come up with a buckeyball
            or something? Could be.

            I totally agree that fossil fuels are the dominant energy form, and economics is the reason for that. The only way to change that is to shift reality, as the government does with subsidies. Wind, solar and even nuclear are not cost effective, except for government falsely altering the equation.

            • LOI,

              Re; Wind solar nuke…

              Nope, no subsidies can solve the problem.

              The problem, LOI, is energy density. You get more useful “work” out of a pound of oil than any other fuel source except nuclear.

              Problem with nuclear: it isn’t very mobile. It is very hard to deliver energy to THERE from HERE.

              Thus, it is economics. There is no replacement for the combination of extreme mobility PLUS extreme energy density like hydrocarbons. It is an unbeatable combination.

              Any other choice will be a worse solution for one reason or another.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Actually, if you have about $8000.00 you can buy a hydrogen generator that liberates hydrogen from deionized water from most good scientific supply companies.

          The drawbacks are, you have to plug it into a wall socket (thus, it uses electricity) and you have to replace the fairly expensive catalyst relatively often. Also, the unit only produces a maximum of 500cc of hydrogen per minute (about 30 litres of hydrogen in an hour) if it is constantly on.

          This is not a lot of hydrogen production for the costs involved (electricity, deionized water, catalyst, etc). Also, the useful life of these units is so far only about 5 years before you have to replace the entire unit.

          They are great for a lab using gas chromatographs with flame-ioniztion detectors, where each detector in the lab only uses about 40cc of H2 per minute (so you can run about 10-12 instruments off of one hydrogen generator), but for fueling a vehicle, this would be darned inefficient.

          • USWeapon says:

            a hydrogen generator that liberates hydrogen from deionized water

            So the generator is a defender of freedom! I liberator! I support the generator’s cause of liberating hydrogen.

    • Bama Dad says:

      British Columbia in Canada going green with 20 hydrogen powered buses at $4.5 million apiece. This is a good example of government solving a problem and saying damn the cost.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    North Korea warns that military forces will respond if UN condemns it for ship sinking

    North Korea is warning that its military forces will respond if the U.N. Security Council questions or condemns the country over the sinking of a South Korean navy ship — an act it vehemently denies.

    North Korea’s U.N. Ambassador Sin Son Ho told a news conference Tuesday there is “a touch-and-go situation that war may break out at any time” because of South Korean accusations that the North torpedoed the ship and killed 46 sailors.

    Sin accused South Korea and the United States of cooking up the accusation against the North and demanded that a military investigation team from Pyongyang be permitted to go to the site of the sinking, which the South has refused to allow.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/14/security-council-urges-koreas-refrain-acts-escalate-tensions/

    I find this to be an interesting threat. If the United Nations even questions the sinking of the South Korean ship, then the North Korean military forces will be used to “respond”. I am not sure what “response” they are going to make. Attack the United Nations? Attack South Korea because of a United Nations condemnation or investigation?

    That crazy little bastard in North Korea is very close to losing all of his marbles, I am afraid. I warned several times over the last year and a half at SUFA that North Korea had the potential to do a lot of harm to that part of the world’s stability. I do believe that they sank the South Korean ship. The evidence certainly points to that being the case. However, I do realize that there is a remote possibility that evidence was planted to faked. But I don’t see that as the case, mostly because they did not need a false reason to condemn North Korea.

    The question is, what do we do with this threat? We obviously have roughly 40, 000 soldiers in South Korea. If he attacks US installations in the South, are we in a situation where we have no choice to start yet another conflict in the world to deal with? What if they attack the South but not US installations? Are we then committed to act since we have basically been their personal bodyguard for so long?

    I don’t like this situation at all. North Korea is desperate. There is little doubt about that. They are not willing to accept the conditions that make sense for them to begin recovering. They are a people lost in a dictatorship. And that desperate regime will act out radically as it begins its death throes. We should watch this with caution and begin figuring out what we can and cannot support in terms of a US response should he begin lashing out. But I am sure that this is all nothing but a rational response to the US hegemonic powers being flexed in Asia. So perhaps The little fruitcake is completely justified in his threats.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “But I am sure that this is all nothing but a rational response to the US hegemonic powers being flexed in Asia. So perhaps The little fruitcake is completely justified in his threats.”

      A little fodder this morning? 😉

      Later, another long day working here.

    • Mathius says:

      I need to be clear about this:

      America. Cannot. Fight. Everyone’s. Wars.


      N. Korea wants to take over S. Korea? At some point, S. Korea is going to have to man up and stop hiding behind Uncle Sam.

      As for threats of reprisals against a UN resolution? Screw ’em. Let them attack and see what happens.

      I swear to god, it’s as if someone read 1984 and decided to try to put it into practice and this is what happened.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Empty threats (I think). They’re more likely to blow a gasket if they lose the World Cup.

      • Mathius says:

        I wonder well team USA would do if the players were motivated with the possibility of execution for losing?

    • Let ’em threaten. I believe that’s all it is. And if it’s not; well, this ain’t 1950. I think South Korea would mop the floor with them with OR (preferably) without the U.S.’s help.

    • I’m with Ray.

      Empty threat.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Democrats’ Chances of Retaining 59 Senate Seats Improve

    We’ve been talking about the midterms since inauguration. And in the months to come you will continue to hear about 2010 as a Republican year, and how President Obama’s agenda is on the verge of a catastrophic derailment. But over the last few weeks, the political landscape has started to shift in ways that may completely upend the conventional wisdom.

    Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight has, not surprisingly, done an excellent job of rating Senate races using a simulation that games out all the possible election night outcomes and predicts their likelihood of occurring. At the end of April, Silver’s simulation had Democrats retaining at least 59 seats only about 11 percent of the time.

    Not great odds, I’ll admit. But a number of things have happened since that forecast that make the possibility of Democrats ending up with 59 seats a lot more likely.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/democrats-chances-of-reta_b_611900.html

    I found the article that that I have linked to here to be interesting to read. The article basically looked specifically at each of the different Senate contests and offers some commentary on the status of each. The presentation is decidedly Democratic, but that does not take away from the article.

    What I was most suprised and disappointed by was the situation in Nevada. I do not know a lot about Sharron Angle. The article claims that she, ” is opposed to Social Security, the Department of Education, and the sale of alcohol, among many, many other things.” Are all of those things true? She is opposed to the sale of alcohol? I understand the thinking behind each of those positions, and they appear on the surface to be decidedly Libertarian. But I don’t believe that those positions are capable of beating a sitting incumbent with the name recognition and power of the sitting Senate Majority Leader.

    The article, overall, acknowledges that the Democrats holding on to 59 seats in the Senate is a daunting task, and one that is not likely. But he does believe that the Democrats are going to maintain the majority in the Senate. I was never under the belief that the Senate was going to switch over to a Republican majority easily, if at all. But it appears that the fervor that was once the Tea Party has died down considerably over the last 6 months.

    The anti-incumbent fervor still seems alive, but it doesn’t appear to be any stronger than it was two years ago. In other words, the folks who dislike all incumbents are not changing their mind, but it doesn’t appear that those who don’t regularly fall into that camp are becoming staunch supporters. It would instead appear that they get fired up for a short time and then go back to sleep until the next giant piece of legislation pisses them off.

    So what does everyone else here think? 6 months ago many believed that change was going to sweep through the Congressional halls with the 2010 elections. Now it doesn’t appear as clear cut. Is this further evidence that the American public wants to be led, and will remain quiet so long as they get their bread and circuses?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I think its still too early to tell – voter moods shift so easily. Much as it makes me cringe – Sarah Palin has shown great success in marshaling support for candidates she favors – plus her new book will be creating buzz in November and the Democrats in general seem stuck in their own funk regarding the Gulf Oil Mess. If the right strategy people get together I think we’ll see less than 59 seats retained.

      What folks are also not counting on is what Harry Reid may try and slam dunk through in the next few months – if he assumes that they MAY lose seats, he may be more inclined to up the ante on controversial legislation – for his own skin he may not give a shit if he thinks he can easily win his own race – all the while leaving his colleagues more at risk in their own races,

    • I still say all the ASSCLOWNS in Congress are shaking in their shoes. I think the healthcare issue may have sealed all their fates. The thing is that things get talked to death and the folks are tired of all the doom & gloom scenarios and are just biding their time until November. Minds are made up. Change is coming.

      Personally I have 6 immediate family members in the 18-25 age range. In my conversations with them I find that even at their young ages they are still realizing how crazy Congress has become and they are dumbfounded as to how to get us out of trouble. I think I have suceeded in getting across the “us vs them” as opposed to R vs D mentality. I have decided to give them all the task of gathering 20 people each to register to vote and then to actually vote in the midterms. Not only to just vote but to NOT vote for any incumbent and to study up on all available candidates and decide on the best candidate to vote for weather its D or R or I.

      I imagine it will be a slow summer but come September things will heat up big time again. This time Hope & Change will mean something totally different.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      This article talks about Sharon Angle if your interested. Right now the polls show she has an 11 point lead over Harry Reid.


  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    U.S. ‘On A Collision Course With The Future’ In Terms Of Projected Demand For Educated Workers

    A landmark report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce forecasts an uneven relationship between colleges and the job market. Although more future jobs will require advanced education, colleges are not doing enough to prepare their students for the projected workforce.

    The colleges that most students attend “need to streamline their programs, so they emphasize employability,” said Anthony P. Carnevale, director of the Georgetown center.

    Carnevale acknowledged that such a shift would accept “a dual system” in which a select few receive an “academic” college education and most students receive a college education that is career preparation. “We are all offended by tracking,” he said. But the reality, Carnevale said, is that the current system doesn’t do a good job with the career-oriented track, in part by letting many of the colleges on that track “aspire to be Harvard.” He said that educators have a choice: “to be loyal to the purity of your ideas and refuse to build a selective dual system, or make people better off.”

    According to the report, 23 percent of all occupations will require a bachelor’s degree by 2018. In 1973, that figure was nine percent. However, employers’ educational expectations may level off in the future, with less of a demand for post-bachelor’s degrees.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/us-on-a-collision-course_n_612359.html

    Another extremely interesting article. As someone who has consistently worked to further his education throughout his entire adult life (and who is getting ready to seek yet another degree!), I have always touted the importance of an education in the workforce. Whatever advantage you can gain over all the other applicants out there is good. Plus there is the added bonus of simply learning more stuff.

    What I have often felt, however, is that the world of academic education was one that failed to prepare you for the real world of work. Kids come out of college with false expectations and drastically diverse levels of work ethic. Many feel that the fact that they have finished a degree somehow entitles them to something. This is obviously an incorrect assumption. I have often felt that this was bred by the “intellectual elite” attitude of college facilitators, who happen to be the only profession in the world where entitlement is a perk of the job (tenure…. a bullshit concept).

    On one hand I find this article somewhat inspiring. That they are finally understanding how woefully unprepared college graduates are for the work world is a great thing. That they are actually discussing it and talking about how they can change that is even better. However, what is disappointing to me is that they are not willing to realize that there is no longer a place for the intellectual elite type of education. They instead argue that there must be a dual path taken. I disagree. I think that the aspiration to be “like Harvard” is ridiculous. I don’t dispute the level of intelligence and knowledge of the staff of the Ivy League schools. But I do dispute whether the kids graduating from those schools are better than those graduating from state schools throughout the country.

    • Bottom Line says:

      USW – “Whatever advantage you can gain over all the other applicants out there is good. Plus there is the added bonus of simply learning more stuff.”

      BL – Learning more stuff is the primary value of a legitimate formal education. The added bonus is whatever advantage you can gain over all the other applicants out there.

      Learning is Fun

      Teaching is a Reward

      Knowledge is Power

    • Morning!

      I’ve been hearing news reports of shortages of blue collar workers in Western Pa. I’m waiting on a study as to why, but their are plenty of open positions in the blue collar area that remain un filled. Also, speaking with a manager just yesterday, 4 out of 5 applicants that interview well enough to get drug tested, fail the test. They use hair testing, which can detect as far back as 90 days or more. Makes one go HMMM!


      • Bottom Line says:

        Sup G,

        I have to share a story with you.

        I once landed a job that didn’t start for 2 weeks after the interveiw(job A). The next day I found another one that required a urine test(job B).

        So, I passed the urine test and started immediately on job B. I worked a week and a half and had impressed them with my good work ethic. They were quite pleased with my performance. Then I went to the office and quit two days before job A started. I told them that it was because they drug tested and that I didn’t agree with them controlling my personal life. The real reason was that job A paid more.

        Another thing I have done on a couple of occasions is to go interveiw for a job that I know I don’t really want, pass a urine test and then demand that I get paid for a minimum of 168 hrs per week. I tell them that I have no problem staying sober, but if they want to control me 24/7, that they are going to have to pay me for it. It’s hella funny to see the look on their face. What’s hard is keeping a straight face. I did it just for the entertainment value. It’s worth the two hours of my time if I have nothing better to do.


    • naten53 says:

      Aren’t they trying to make higher education a right too? 23% of jobs require a higher education is a lot vs 9% but I would like to see the percentage of people out of high school going to college. I wonder if it is near the 23% or not.

      • naten53 says:

        I found this site from the US Census that estimates the numbers from 2004.


        It doesn’t give percentages so I did the math. Total out of all people in the US, 23% have a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher. An additional 33% have either some college, vocational, or associates degree.

        And so you don’t have to do the math, here are the rest of the percentages other then age. (bachelors or higher followed by some college vocational or associates)

        Total 23%, 33%
        -Men 23%, 32%
        -Women 22%, 34%

        White – Non Hispanic 25%, 34%
        – Men 27%, 33%
        – Women 25%, 35%

        Black 14%, 36%
        -Men 13%, 33%
        -Women 14%, 38%

        Hispanic (any race) 8%, 24%
        -Men 8%, 23%
        -Women 8% 26%

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – you said

      “Kids come out of college with false expectations and drastically diverse levels of work ethic. Many feel that the fact that they have finished a degree somehow entitles them to something. This is obviously an incorrect assumption. I have often felt that this was bred by the “intellectual elite” attitude of college facilitators, who happen to be the only profession in the world where entitlement is a perk of the job”

      I agree and disagree with you. Kids do come out of college with incredibly false expectations and a general unwillingness to work hard at progression – many expect reward to follow limited bursts of activity or accomplishment – little focus is placed on consistency of results over time.

      I disagree that this is bred by college “facilitators” (what the hell is a “facilitator”? Is that the new term for teachers/professors?). This is bred by parents who do shitty jobs of raising kids – who spend 18 years never saying “no” and over-rewarding even the most mundane of positive behaviors. I’m more than happy to say that after 6+ years of post secondary education I have had professors that run the gamut – from those who didn’t really give a shit who I learned or how – to those who worked me hard and I had to earn my score.

    • http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/keeping_up_with_the_university.html

      Keeping Up with the University of Stupid
      By Mary Grabar
      Not many people will see Arkansas as a fortress against the barbarism that is threatening to bring this nation down. This kind of barbarism is often displayed by college students — and not with old-fashioned Animal House hijinks, but by Obama zombies who celebrated in front of the White House by tauntingly singing the old Beatles “Good-bye” song and waving the Soviet flag. Today’s college students have also graduated to high-level anti-Semitism, inquisitions about fellow students’ attitudes on such things as gay marriage, and a belief in confiscating private property to redistribute wealth. All this is done after childhoods spent being pampered and flattered while being put into little groups to discuss such problems as global warming — after watching a former vice president narrate a film about the coming environmental apocalypse.

      Very few people knew that the University of Arkansas was a holdout, maintaining hearty general education requirements for the past fifty years. ACTA (American Council of Trustees and Alumni) recently awarded the university a rare A on its report card on general education requirements. It praised the university for a healthy 66-hour general education requirement that included math, science, foreign languages, literature, and philosophy.

      ACTA is not a fashionable group in academic circles. They provide donors and trustees information about what goes on behind the ivy-covered walls, where faculty, indoctrinated by the 1960s radicals, devise classes, determine requirements, and plot to keep out critics.

      In May, ACTA president Anne Neal wrote two letters to the trustees and an editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette deploring the dumbing down of the curriculum.

      • What the Feds need to do is get out of the Education Business. Like everything else they touch they are ruining Education.

        They have done this mostly by not teaching the real truth and instead teaching their Socialist Utopia Bulldookey. And also the Presidents put their cronies in the Education Secretary position who don’t know jack about REAL education if it bit them on the ass.

        We SHOULD eradicate the Dept. of Education alltogether. Of course, like all beauracracies the Govt. starts, that won’t happen. They will continue will new initiatives that don’t work and then piss and moan how their ideas weren’t implemented right.

        • I’m with you there. But we know it will not happen. they like the teachers union’s and the votes that brings. They reward the teachers with our money. Stossel said take a look at the administration parking lots at a school to see where your money is going.

          Also useful for mass indoctrination of the liberal cause.

    • College education is worthless. Save your money and get a real job.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I once went to an interveiw with a councelor for one of those tech shcools. She gave me a tour of the facility and all sorts of student loan information as well as decriptions of the types of jobs I would be qualified for.

        Towards the end of the interveiw I asked her one simple question:

        For $37,000, am I going to learn how to troubleshoot and replace a circuit board, or am I actually going to learn how to design a circuit board?

        Her answer:

        Well, we DID have a student that built an AM/FM radio once.

        I inquired no further.

  5. Mathius says:

    Re Lakers:

    We’re just toying with you.. deep breaths.. it’ll all be over soon and my guys will go home with their umpteenth championship. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂


  6. Ray Hawkins says:

    Study: Most city youth deemed unacceptable for military service: Undereducated, unfit, have criminal records

    Up to 90 percent of young adults in Philadelphia can’t join the military because they’re undereducated, too physically unfit or have serious criminal records, a recent study found. The study, conducted by the nonprofit Mission: Readiness, said that the percentage of 17 to 24-year-olds ineligible for miltary service was worse here than the estimated 75 percent who are unfit nationwide. District Attorney Seth Williams and others said at a news conference yesterday that funding for early-learning programs would be a good way of battling the problem. “There’s a direct relationship between the lack of education, the lack of economic opportunity and too many young people feeling they have lives of hopelessness, frustration and despair,” Williams said.

    Retired Lt. Gen. Dennis Benchoff, who teaches math part-time at the Harrisburg Area Community College, said programs that support pre-kindergarten children put them on track to graduate high school and become “productive citizens.”

    “Anybody who drops out of school shows that they handle a tough problem by running away,” Benchoff said.

    Recruits must have a high-school diploma, pass a physical-fitness test and have no a criminal record. Amy Dawson Taggart, national director of the nonprofit that conducted the study, stresed that the military routinely makes its recruitment goals. But she noted that in recent years recruiters were experiencing “more challenges in meeting the goals and had to give out much more waivers” because too few candidates met the requirements. Gov. Rendell has proposed a 1 percent cut to Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts and the Head Start Supplement, two early-childhood programs that serve 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families. The cut represents a reduction to $85.9 million for the 2010-2011 budget year from last year’s $86.4 million. Rendell spokesman Gary Tuma said in an interview that the governor started Pre-K Counts and had to make cuts to balance the budget. It’s unfair “to criticize [Rendell] now, during a nationwide economic situation, for something he put in place,” Tuma said. Stephen Doster, state director for Mission: Readiness, said that there was no doubt that Rendell supported the early-learning programs.

    “We’re not really here to make a big deal about 1 percent, but Gov. Rendell did cut it by 1 percent,” Doster said. “We’re looking for [early education programs] to be level-funded at the same amount as last year so that no kids are cut out of the programs.”


    I find this utterly disappointing – while I will thank and praise all here who have served – I do not imagine that the bar is set so ridiculously high to make it impossible to join the military.

    Should I be proud that in the birthplace of our country we’re raising nothing but fat, stupid criminals that aren’t qualified to defend that same country? WTF!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Not sure why article double posted – USW – can you clean that if possible?

      • USWeapon says:

        Done…. Good article by the way. I will offer some thoughts as soon as I find a moment.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          USW – I could not believe my eyes when I read this – Philadelphia is a such a damn cesspool when it comes to education, responsibility and accountability – the next “greatest generation” is clearly not going to be populated by punks from Philadelphia. There are so few good and decent neighborhoods left where good hard work is valued. Some neighborhoods are making a comeback – but rest assured that those kids are not being sent to the public school system here.

  7. Mathius says:

    Open mic night is a good time for this:


    hahaha, he’s an old fart..

    • Happy Birthday Buck! You can come out to play now- you’ve been hiding long enough 🙂

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Thanks Mathius! (and Anita!)

      As I’ve said – I’m always watching…watching and waiting.

      Unfortuntely I am under a ton of files and deadlines. I have to type very slowly and quietly to avoid an avalanche…

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Happy Birthday Buck, and wishing you a very good day, hope you get everything you want.



  8. texaschem says:


    “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

    That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV’s “Round Table Show” in January, on which he said that “he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.”

    Obama allegedly said this in the context of reassuring Gheit that he would soon deal with Israel:

    He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare) [sic], that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.

    Could this be true? Even if Gheit’s claim isn’t true, or was misreported, every country in the free world must be cognizant of the catastrophic sea change that has taken place in the leadership of the free world — as witnessed by events over the past year. Barack Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law).

    And now, if what Gheit says is true, we know why.

    The alleged exchange between Obama and Gheit would almost certainly have happened in early January 2010, when Gheit was in Washington, D.C. regarding “Mideast peace talks.”

    On Thursday, January 7, 2010, the Associated Press reported that “Clinton and Mitchell [were] scheduled to meet” with Gheit on Friday, January 8, 2010: see ABC news here.

    On Friday, January 8, 2010, Hillary Clinton and Gheit spoke with each other. The U.S. Department of State has provided video before the meeting: see the Department of State here.

    On Saturday, January 9, 2010, NPR spoke with Gheit about his visit: see NPR.org.

    This is a devastating claim, and yet no media outlet is covering it. Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.

    It became all too clear after his election how proud Obama was of his Muslim name, background, and family. He made this plain when he gave his very first interview to Muslim media and boasted of these things. He suddenly became proud of the very things that were verboten to speak of during the campaign. That was the level of deceit and obfuscation.

    If Gheit’s reported claim is true, then Obama is a baldfaced liar. But why? Why lie if you have nothing to hide?

    Of course, if Obama believes himself a Muslim, then his prior behavior constituted taqiya — deception or lies to advance Islam. This he performed brilliantly during his election: He lied with brazen contempt. And now his Islamic Jew-hatred is made painfully clear in his stunning rebuke of Israel. In Israel Today, political analyst Aviel Schneider exposes some of the further implications of Gheit’s claim:

    That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.

    “Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

    Is it any wonder that Obama’s counterterror adviser speaks Arabic, calls Jerusalem “Al-Quds,” and calls jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam”?

    We know that Gheit met with Obama in April 2010 in D.C. — check out White House.gov, which lists Gheit as one of the attendees of a “Nuclear Security Summit” at that time. And they met more than once. Gheit had a private meeting with Obama in May 2009.

    Worse yet, Gheit just last month called Israel “the enemy.” This after Israel gave them the Sinai (which Israel had won in a defensive war and defended through another one) with all its oil in return for “peace.”

    How plausible is Gheit’s reported claim about Obama? Let’s review Obama’s track record:

    March 2009: Obama declares the “war on terror” is over, despite a dramatic increase in jihad war ops.
    March 2009: he floats the idea that he will talk to violent, genocidal Hamas.
    March 2009: he demands that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration and insists that they be recruited.
    April 2009: Obama tells Europe to admit Islamic Turkey into the EU, much to the consternation of the Europeans.
    April 2009: Obama demands that non-Muslims respect Islam (despite our differences) in a speech in Turkey.
    April 2009: Obama says in a speech from Turkey, “We are not a Christian nation.”
    April 2009: Dalia Mogahed, the first hijab-clad senior adviser to Obama on Muslim affairs, says in an interview with terrorist- and jihad-supporting Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi’s website, “Many have claimed that terrorists have ‘hijacked Islam.’ I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What the terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances.”
    April 2009: Obama lays groundwork for a partnership with Hamas.
    May 2009: Obama promises to offer his “personal commitment” to Muslims.
    May 2009: Obama calls America “one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet.”
    June 2009: Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent global jihadist group whose sole objective is a universal caliphate, to his speech to the ummah (Muslim community) in Cairo.
    June 2009: Obama makes a stunning speech to the Muslim world from Al Azhar University in Cairo. It defies explanation.
    July 2009: Obama reaches out to the violent jihadists of Hezb’allah.
    July 2009: Obama creates a new office at the State Department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting directly to Hillary Clinton.
    July 2009: The State Department Welcomes Hamas mouthpiece Al-Quds TV to D.C. to filmpPropaganda.
    Obama promises to close GITMO.
    Obama is rebuked when plans are revealed for CIA prosecutions for 911 interrogations: Seven Ex-chiefs of CIA Oppose Case Review: ALL Sign letter to Stop CIA Persecutions.
    In July 2009, Obama sanctions the brutal crackdown of those marching for freedom in Iran and sides with the mullahcracy. He stands silent about the Iranian regime’s mass executions, mass rape, and murder.
    July 2009: Obama plans to slash the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
    September 2009: Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton on Obama at the U.N.: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making…I have to say I was very shaken by this speech.”
    October 2009: Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund.
    November 2009, Fort Hood Jihad Coverup: Obama Urges Congress To Put Off Fort Hood Probe, Warns Against Turning Tragedy Into “Political Theater”
    November 2009: Obama offers the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar, and Nuristan provinces, in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
    November 2009: Obama reaches out to bloodthirsty jihadis in the Philippines.
    On Thanksgiving eve, Obama issues a special Hajj message to the world’s Muslims.
    December 2009: Obama’s “Non-Religious” White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids.
    February 2010: Obama names a Hafiz to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. “And as a hafiz of the Koran, [Hussain] is a respected member of the American Muslim community,” Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the Arabic world for someone who has memorized the Islamic holy book.
    February 2010: Obama cuts U.S. space program, orders NASA to work with Muslim countries
    February 2010: Covering up for jihadists in the White House.
    Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, Involved in Obama Passport Breach
    March 2010: Obama Obsession with Islam: Calls “entrepreneurship summit” with Muslims.
    April 2010: Libyan President Gaddafi Praises Obama: “Barakeh Obama is friend”; “He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported…”
    May 2010: Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.”
    May 2010: White House Pro-Terrorism John Brennan Speechifies in Arabic, Equates Terrorists with Shoplifters, Lawmakers Call for his Firing.
    June 2010: Obama equivocates on the jihad warship convoy (affectionately named a “flotilla” by the media): Obama “Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life”
    June 2010: Obama administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at U.N.
    And earlier this week, Obama became the first president to host a press conference with the American flag nowhere in sight.

    Ouch. What a disgrace.

    Now: will the lapdog media make Obama address Gheit’s claim?

    The American people deserve answers. But whether or not what Gheit reportedly says is true, Obama’s pro-jihad track record is clear.

    • I heard that Obama once told my friends third cousins Aunties room mates brother reporter friend that he is in fact the love child of Hitler and Stalin (who was actually a circus bearded lady before his rise as communist leader). He also claimed that he intends to eat every single child in America!!!!!

      Why does Obama not answer this allegation? I want answers damnit!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • texaschem says:

        Go jump in a lake Bob.

        If you click the link I posted to the original article you can see every dated statement in the article is linked to prove its legitimacy.Your rose colored glasses wont allow you to see past your divine love for your master ehh?Or perhaps is it just that you deem yourself to have an intelligent elitist attitude and couldn’t possibly believe anyone that changed their name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama could possibly be biased towards Islamic doctrine?
        Did you drink the red or blue kool-aid this morning while kneeling and praying to your Obama savior?

        I would pick an easier target to attempt to belittle next time Bob.There are hundreds of juicy targets over at the HuffPo!

        • Hahahahahaha dont worry I really dont need to belittle you, you manage that all by yourself, Kool Aid – Check, Obama = Savior – Check, Barack HUSSEIN Obama – Check, ELITIST – Check. You guys really need something different for your responses. The real kicker is I dont particularly like the guy.

          • texaschem says:

            Actually his full name is Mubarack Hussein Obama-(Check)if you really want to get it correct there pardner!

    • Bob, you are seriously blind. Even if all TC has put forth is untrue, and TC, I’m not saying by a damn sight it is, that muslim lovingbastard has already proven to all but the most blind that he is trying his best to destroy, or as he calls it, “transform” America.

      Well I gots news for you Obama and your Socialist loving cronies. We don’t NEED transforming thank you very much.

      • Sure ya do.

        Adding, loving Muslims is not a bad thing. He wants what is best for them as well as what is best for you. And in many ways, the two are linked. He sees that, but all you can see is “he loves Muslims. Muslims are terrorists. Therefore Obama is anti-American.”


        • Don’t at all feel he loves ME. He has an ability to ridicule those of us who do not agree with him. I have a friend who thinks he is very funny. I do not think he is funny. I feel he is a divider who quite frankly likes ridiculing those who disagree with him.

      • that muslim lovingbastard

        When you say things like this it shows a high level of ignorance and bigotry. Do you wish to continue down this path or do you wish to be taken seriously when participating in a discussion?

        • texaschem says:

          We folk from the southron states tend to get emotional about certain issues Bob.It may be a little difficult for you to understand since you’re from France originally?Hrmm…or was it England or Canada?If I remember correctly it was England.

          Just curious but what was your reaction to the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment parding through Luton yesterday after their tour of duty in Iraq?Did you just love how Englands Muslims welcomed them home?

          • texaschem says:
          • Yes us foreigners have trouble understanding emotions being robots and all.

            They are entitled to their opinions, if they wish to protest so be it.
            Also there was plenty of news articles about it, I try to avoid reading anything from that worthless Nazi supporting rag aka The Daily Mail.

            • Let just say one thing to you Bob. Those soldiers went where their country sent them. Just as ours do. For a Muslim to preach that kind of hate is absolutely disgusting.

              The problem is, they are allowed to say and protest anything they want. But let YOUR countrymen do the same and it’s on like Donkey Kong.

              We had a Kid from our community get killed in Irag by an IED. A “alledged” religious group put up flyers all over town saying they were going to protest at his FUNERAL!

              Well, before his funeral they realized what a serious error they were fixing to make. They were warned by someone that this wasn’t California or New York they were coming to. This was downhome country Georgia. If they tried to do what they threatened. Some of them probably would have at the very LEAST recieved a severe beating. Most likely, knowing his family, some of them would have died.

              When it comes to our young people going to a foriegn land and dying for their country, NO, those assholes are NOT entitled to their opinion. Not unless they are ready for the consequences of their Stupid Assed Actions.

              • I dont see a protest as a problem, it helps prompt discussion and makes us evaluate our positions no matter how distasteful the protest is. Those soldiers are trying to defend that right. How come me coming from a socialist liberal country understands that better than you? You should be happy that church is able to do the protest at the funeral and them practicing the right to free speech.

                • TexasChem says:

                  So Bob,

                  You deem it acceptabl behavior to protest while impinging upon others rights to conduct a religious ceremony in peace?
                  Sounds hypocritical to me.

                  Might I suggest jumping off the politically correct bandwagon sir?

                  You Europeans are so accustomed to being led like common farm animals that you have forgotten what it is to think for yourselves.Well, that and the fact that since you allowed the fox entry into the henhouse you have also become accustomed to being the hunted prey with no will to defend yourselves.

                  • Why oh why do I have to explain the importance of freedom of speech to an American and especially on this site, have you read your constitution? Again we must allow people to voice their opinions no matter how distasteful we may find them. It is not hypocritical, you either believe in freedom of speech or you dont, whats it going to be Texaschem?

                    I dont know where the farm animal crap is about especially coming from someone who wishes to curtail peoples rights because he personally does not agree with their views. Also using “You Europeans” shows a huge knowledge gap, Europe is composed of many different countries all with different viewpoints and cultures. I suggest you get educated, travel the world a bit and see things for yourself without relying on the media telling you what to think and do.

        • Really Bob. Ignorance? Bigotry? Are freaking Kidding? Whether you take me serious or not does not concern me. Obama has shown time and time again his feelings toward muslims. He has also shown his feelings about the United States and it’s people.

          Am I bigoted against ALL muslims? NO I am not bigoted against any race what so ever. It just bothers me that most muslims seem to at least tacitly support their Terrorist brethren. If they don’t, why then I apologize to them. Am I bigoted against muslim terrorists who kill even their own people to teach us how much they hate us? Oh HELL YES!

          You know Bob-o, I realize that you being from a Socialized Country where a lot of the people there are Liberal to the core makes you blind to certain realities of the world. But Dayum son. Pull your head out of your anus every now and then and look around you. Your European Union isn’t collapsing for nothing.

          And all the muslims moving into Europe and insisting on following THEIR Laws instead of the laws of the Nation they move into doesn’t concern you at all? Well it don’t matter to me. It’s your Country after all.

          As far as Ignorant goes. I look to be a hell of a lot smarter than you. As least I don’t have blinders on.

          • Esom, would you just quit beating around the bush and tell us what you think! Good to see you back…

          • How many muslims have you spoken to Esom, how many live in your community, how many do you work with, how many do you talk with on a daily basis? How many have you heard say they support the terrorists? You claim I have blinders on, geez.

            Having lived in the US, Canada, England, France, Germany and stayed in the UAE and China please go on trying to lecture me on the “realities of the world”. Have you even been out of your own country? Could you even define socialism?

            I apologise for not eating up everything Americanthinker writes like you do, also please dont claim intellectual superiority over someone having called Obama a muslim lovingbastard just a few moments before, it does not help your case.

            • 1. I don’t read American Thinker.

              2. I could care less about anyone else’s opinion on Obama. Or Muslims. Or European Union members such as England.

              3. I am NOT a bigot nor a racist. And it sort of irritates me when someone claims I am. You do not know me.

              4. I have no problem with someone voicing their opinion OR exercising their right to Freedom of Speech, which, as you said is granted to them ubder the Constitution. However. When they stupidly choose to exercise that right at a soldier’s funeral, they had best be prepared for the soldier’s family and friends to exercise their right to bust their freakin’ heads in when they do so. You Bob, and others like you, seem to think that under the good ole Constitution, it is your right to do anything you please, no matter who it offends. And actually you are right. But it is also my right to not have to listen to some ignorant moron spew hateful disguting garbage while taps are sounding over a brave man’s grave.

              I sir, am a patriot. I am an American. You are not. So do not presume that because, like ALL people everywhere, I get pissed off when morons open their stupid mouths. Even if it IS their right to do so.

              And oh yes. By the way. When I called Obama a muslim loving bastard, I was only going by the history he has shown since becoming President. After all. Are you prepared to deny that he has gone to Their lands and “Apologized” for America to them on several occasions? For that matter, I guess I can’t look any worse if I call him a Chavez loving bastard too. And how about a Union loving bastard. Shoot, I could go on all day.

              The point you seem to be missing is that I am an American. If I want to call the President of my country anything at all, including a worthless son-of-a-bitch. That is my right under the Constitution, as you have yourself stated. I did not vote for him, but I did vote. So it is my right and, as I see it, my duty to piss and moan when he turns out not only to be like every other bastard politician we have, but actually worse than most.

              If this doesn’t explain my position, I give up. I guess we are just two countries, separated by a common language. 😉

              • Its funny how you think I care about Obama in the slightest, he is a politician much like the politician he replaced and much like the politician who will follow him. My issue is you using the word muslim as a derogatory term, having several close friends who follow the Islam faith it offends me.

                “You Bob, and others like you, seem to think that under the good ole Constitution, it is your right to do anything you please, no matter who it offends”.

                Errrr its not my constitution, its yours. As a self proclaimed patriot should you not have similar views? Are you not supposed to follow the constitution, has it not been venerated as a holy document by some of your fellow Americans? Should you not be grateful that Westboro Baptist Church can say what they like and you can say what you like? If you dont want to listen to them, move or protest against them, the family does not have the right to “bust their freakin’ heads in”, I suggest you read through your constitution again if you think they do.
                Dont try to paint me in a bad light because I pointed out your rights and the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church in your constitution.

              • There are two things I hate: People who blindly hate other cultures, and the Dutch.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I think Obama claims to be all things to all people. He claims to be a Christian to the Americans, because he knows that there is no way America would elect a Muslim to the office of President this soon after 9/11.

      He claims to be a Muslim when he is talking to Muslims, because his father was a Muslim, thus making his claim believeable, and making it seem that he is “on their side” when he is negotiating with them.

      My personal opinion is that the only deity ACTUALLY worshipped by Obama is OBAMA, and that because of this he is constantly willing to shape-shift into whatever his audience wants him to be. His only desire is to please the target audience and get adulation and adoration from them.

      Pure and simple, he is a megalomaniac.

      • I think megalomania is a prerequisite for running for POTUS.

        You must be 35 years old, a natural citizen of the US, lived in the US for the previous 8 years, and be a megalomaniac.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          This is most likely a good summary of the requirements, yes.

          • Also, you must be either a Republican or Democrat. Third party candidates need not apply.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              With the possible exception of really strange megalomaniacs like H. Ross Perot LOL!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Great job TexasChem – posting an American Thinker opinion piece that quotes the likes of Pamela Geller (oh f-bomb – she also wrote the American Not-Much-of-a-Thinker piece – lemme go find a Keith Olbermann screed where Keith Olbermann relentlessly quotes Keith Olbermann) – a complete crock of fantastical shit. There are no devastating claims there – just loosely connected data points spun up to spin you up. 😉

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I usually find Pamela Gellar to think through what she is saying pretty thoroughly, not be particularly insulting, and she actually seems to have ideas.

        As such, the comparison to Keith Olbermann fails. He doesn’t seem to think through what he is saying, is very insulting, and doesn’t seem to have any ideas of his own.

        I realize that this is just my opinion, and that yours does differ.

        I am also not saying that I agree with Pamela Gellar all the time. I certainly don’t. Some of the stuff she writes is wrong in my opinion. However, even when she is wrong she seems to at least attempt to think through what she is saying and not go out of her way to intentionally scream, yell, and insult anyone and everyone who disagrees.

        If you think that the comparison to Olbermann is apt, hey, that’s cool. I just don’t happen to agree.

        • texaschem says:

          You have to excuse Ray, he is doing his typical thing.Turning a blind eye to substantial evidence just because it negates his version of reality.This makes him uncomfortable you see, so he responds emotionally without actually researching the material and comprehending what it implies…

        • I too read Gellar regularly and have found some of her insights spot on.

    • “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.” Hearsay. He once told me in confidence that he is a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater.

      whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law). Bulldookey, sir. Utter bulldookey. He has clarified (correctly) that Islam is not inherently evil or violent but that evil and violent men have hijacked it. But I defy you to show me one instance of where

      March 2009: he floats the idea that he will talk to violent, genocidal Hamas. So what? Shooting at them doesn’t seem to be working. Bombing them is just making more radicals out of the families of those we accidentally injure and kill. GASP! Talk to your enemies? Blasphemy, I say.

      he demands that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration and insists that they be recruited. (A) It’s his administration and he can stock it as he sees fit, so demand seems to be a loaded term. (B) So what? They Muslims are under-represented and they may have important insights into a region and religion that are of vital interest to the Untied States.

      Obama says in a speech from Turkey, “We are not a Christian nation.” WE AREN’T A CHRISTIAN NATION! We are a secular nation. See Amendment #1. We have no official religion, ergo, we are not a Christian nation. He didn’t say “we aren’t a Christian nation, we’re a Muslim nation.” That I could understand getting upset about. Everyone got bend out of shape over this – IT’S TRUE. DEAL WITH IT.

      “Many have claimed that terrorists have ‘hijacked Islam.’ I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What the terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances.” What’s wrong with this? It seems thoughtful and generally correct to me. There are a billion practicing Muslims. If all of Islam had been taken over by terrorists, we wouldn’t stand a chance.

      Obama calls America “one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet.” In terms of population, this is factually true. I can see where people get uppity since he also said we are not a Christian nation. Consider context before your head implodes. Nobody is arguing the quantity or influence of Christians in the US, so when he says we are not a Christian nation, he is saying we are not officially a Christian nation. Likewise, nobody contends that Muslims outnumber or out-influence Christians in the US, so when he says we are one of the largest Muslim nations, he is just saying that we have more Muslims. Critical thinking can do wonders when it’s used.

      Obama creates a new office at the State Department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting directly to Hillary Clinton. So? Shouldn’t we be reaching out to the worldwide Muslim community? Hasn’t anyone ever read How to win friends and influence people?

      Obama promises to close GITMO. So we should keep open the prison where we hold people indefinitely without trial? Remember Count of Monte Christo? Dantes proclaims hi innocence and the warden says something to the effect of “You well may be. Château d’If isn’t about innocence or guilt – it’s where they keep the prisoner they’re ashamed of.”

      Obama plans to slash the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Why do we need enough weapons to destroy the world 100 times over? Surely once is enough.

      Obama reaches out to bloodthirsty jihadis in the Philippines. I don’t know anything about this, but I don’t think reaching out to your enemies is necessarily a bad idea. I do think, however, that calling them ‘bloodthirsty’ is overloading the emotional rhetoric so that we can never come eye to eye and resolve underlying issues peacefully. If your enemy isn’t a man, but a crazed “bloodthirsty jihadi”, then you are justified in butchering him like an animal. If he’s a man, you can reach out and find a better solution.

      “And as a hafiz of the Koran[…] So? Within the Muslim community, this is high mark of pride. It is no different than referring to a man as Dr. or Sir or lord, or, for that matter, Rabbi or Mr. President. Why should the President deny a man an honorific that he has justly earned just because he, himself, is not a member of the culture in which that honorific has much value.

      Obama Obsession with Islam: Calls “entrepreneurship summit” with Muslims. Maybe he understands that a successful, mainstreamed people don’t blow themselves up for their religious beliefs?

      Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.” IT IS! But it isn’t being used correctly. Islam calls for jihad (literally “holy war”) but intends for it to be used internally against your unholy or immoral tenancies and as a literal war only in the strictest sense of self-defense.

      Obama “Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life” So? He frequently expresses a deep regret over any loss of life. He has been very clear that he holds all life to be sacred and mourns any death.

      Obama administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at U.N. GASP! Context, please. Sometimes, Israel does the wrong thing. Sometimes they need resolutions against them. Supporting an anti-Israeli resolution is not the same thing as not supporting Israel.

      Obama became the first president to host a press conference with the American flag nowhere in sight. GASP! And where’s his flag lapel pin? I don’t see his pin. It must be proof that he secretly hates America.

      Ouch. What a disgrace. Sod off.

      Now: will the lapdog media make Obama address Gheit’s claim? No. Because he has been asked dozens of times in dozens of ways already if he is Muslim. His answer has been clear, so what can be gained by making him repeat himself. By the way, the media has been pretty harsh on him in many ways. Also adding, the right needs to pick one – either they can blast him for attending a radical church or they can blast him for being a secret Muslim, but they can’t have it both ways.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.” IT IS! But it isn’t being used correctly. Islam calls for jihad (literally “holy war”) but intends for it to be used internally against your unholy or immoral tenancies and as a literal war only in the strictest sense of self-defense.”

        Yes Mathius, but when you call it a legitimate tenet of Islam WITHOUT CLEARLY STATING that the current interpretation of Jihad is completely WRONG, you are legitimizing the current form of Jihad, NOT the proper form. I do not recall the counterterrorism adviser saying “Jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam, but the current use of Jihad is completely illegitimate.” That was NOT the quote.

        “Obama “Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life” So? He frequently expresses a deep regret over any loss of life. He has been very clear that he holds all life to be sacred and mourns any death.”

        Obama often CLAIMS deep regret, anger, sadness, and lots of other emotions. However, if you watch his DELIVERY, no matter what emotion he is CLAIMING to possess, the delivery is always with a completely flat expression, completely monotone voice, and no actual display of emotion whatsoever.

        In short, he FEIGNS the “appropriate” emotional response, but he has no more real emotion than an automaton. He does not care about anything or anyone else other than himself and the public perception of him. As a result, he attempts to act and react in the same way a normal person does, but to any reasonable observer it just comes off as a terrible acting job.

        • “Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.” IT IS! But it isn’t being used correctly. Islam calls for jihad (literally “holy war”) but intends for it to be used internally against your unholy or immoral tenancies and as a literal war only in the strictest sense of self-defense.”

          Yes Mathius, but when you call it a legitimate tenet of Islam WITHOUT CLEARLY STATING that the current interpretation of Jihad is completely WRONG, you are legitimizing the current form of Jihad, NOT the proper form. I do not recall the counterterrorism adviser saying “Jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam, but the current use of Jihad is completely illegitimate.” That was NOT the quote.

          What is the full quote/context?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            I suppose I will go look it up, and I would suggest you do the same if you really want to know the full quote/context. Google is your friend!

            My point is, that if you are going to say that Jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam (which it is), then you should CLARIFY (as you did) what Jihad actually is, and how it is supposed to be used, and why it is legitimate.

            I am 99.999999% sure that Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor made NO SUCH CLARIFICATION.

            • “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.


              I’d say that’s perfectly clear. Jihad is a legitimate holy struggle, but what they’re doing is not legitimate or holy and thus not Jihad.

              Your thoughts?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                If that is the direct quote, I think he did an excellent job of not only describing what Jihad is, but clarifying that the terrorist version of “Jihad” is not holy or legitimate.

                I find that quote to be perfectly acceptable.

                • If that is the direct quote I tracked it back from TC’s link and the source is Fox (not particularly friendly to the President). I feel comfortable saying that that is the direct quote.

                  Given this, would you agree with me that, at least on this one item, the makers of TC’s list are deliberately taking things out of context to give the impression of radical Islamic tenancies of Obama and his advisers where (again, at least in this example) none exists?

                  Adding, shame on Fox for the misleading headline.

                  • texaschem says:

                    Did you read the full article and understand the mans tone in regards to Islam?This is not a game of symantecs. The meaning of the article is quite clear.Why would you mislead the public by not using the word jihad using the definition our enemies are using?Ridiculous!

                    • Mathius says:

                      Because they are using the term incorrectly to lend themselves the cover of a religious war for what is, in reality, a political, economic, and social war.

                      Our enemies sometimes refer to themselves as “freedom-fighters.” Does that mean we should blindly accept their terminology and let them use the mantle of freedom as their own?

                      And, “Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism — that the United States is somehow at war against Islam,” Brennan said.

                      I agree entirely. These criminals wish to cloak themselves in Islam and claim their war as holy. If were bow to their terminology, we tacitly accept that they speak for Islam, that we are at war with Islam, and they they are holy and just. I concede none of these.

                      I have immense respect for Brennan after reading that article.

                      You say: “The meaning of the article is quite clear.” We are obviously reaching different conclusions here. What do you find clear about it?

        • In short, he FEIGNS the “appropriate” emotional response, but he has no more real emotion than an automaton. He does not care about anything or anyone else other than himself and the public perception of him. As a result, he attempts to act and react in the same way a normal person does, but to any reasonable observer it just comes off as a terrible acting job.

          This is actually true. (the part of being fairly emotionless, not the bit about him only caring about himself). Though, personally, I like this. I prefer a cool, dispassionate leader. I want my leaders led by their intellectual mind, not their reptile brains. Getting mad never helped anyone make better decisions.

          I actually can relate to this somewhat. I do not have big emotional highs or lows. I do not get excited (except possibly about new Apple products). I do not get depressed. I do not get angry. I do not get very happy (except on rare occasions). I have the most frustrating job in the world and I don’t get particularly frustrated over it. People often mistake this for being uncaring or unfeeling or robotic. It is simply not the case. Emilius frequently gets upset that I don’t have strong reactions to things, but I can’t help it – it’s just not the way I’m wired.

          I can easily imagine that, when I’m President, people will be say the exact same things about me as they do about President Obama.

          • when I’m President

            Hide Me

            I think Dread Pirate has a better chance!


          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            “Getting mad never helped anyone make better decisions.”

            This is not actually the case. I would agree that IN GENERAL, anger closes off possible paths of thinking that would normally be explored, and thus it GENERALLY results in poorer decisions.

            However, sometimes the emotion and adrenaline of anger is needed to overcome a mental block and come up with a good solution to a problem.

            I would agree with you that a majority of the time, anger hampers thinking more than helping.

            I am wired a lot like you. Don’t get too high or too low, and don’t show much outward reaction to things. However, I find it a highly desireable attribute in a LEADERSHIP FIGURE that they at least genuinely display the appropriate emotion under the approprtiate circumstances, and they actually mean it. That’s just me 🙂

      • texaschem says:

        Get your foot out of your mouth Mathius and go research the stated items before lambasting in a tirade.

        • Any particular item in that list draw your ire? Pick one, any one, and I’ll research and debate it with you. I don’t have time to do them all.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      And for the $1,000 question (redeemable in Mathius points only – please see Mathius for conversion ratio) — even if Obama is a Muslim, why does it matter!?

      It may matter in why he would cover this up – which would say tons about religious tolerance in this country. But in the scheme of things, why would it matter if we had a Muslim President?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Wouldn’t matter in the slightest.

      • Honesty. We should be able to expect some level of that when we hire, or in this case, elect individuals.

      • texaschem says:


        In a previous post we noted that this guy Barack Hussein Obama has more skeletons in the closet than a house of horrors, and spoke of a radical Muslim named Khalid Al-Mansour that helped Barack Obama gain acceptance into Harvard Law. However, if you think that Barack Hussein Obama financed his education like most people do – with student loans, you’re wrong. Obama used his community organizing ties to raise funds to finance his expensive legal education and had a “good fairy” (no not the kind you’re thinking, the money kind) to help him do it. One can’t help but wonder if there was a sinister agenda behind the help. Judith A. Klinghoffer explains at Political Mavens:

        I have always assumed that Barack Hussein Obama paid for his law school in the manner most students do, by taking out loans. Not so, reports Kenneth R. Timmerman. In his autobiography he describes the qualms he had about leaving “his people” to go to Harvard and better himself. Apparently he did more than that. He used his community organizing ties to raise funds to finance his expensive legal education. His good fairy was a Muslim radical named Dr. Khalid al Mansour. A lawyer with close ties to Saudi princes. As they were not sure Obama can get in on his own merits, Mansour got Percy Sutton to write letters to all his Harvard buddies.

        In other words, he financed his education in the same manner he financed his house, with a little help from his unsavory friends who also happened to be Muslims.

        But why are they so “helpful?” Is he groomed for something very “special?”

        More …

        Our take home message here is a two-fold question: What does this say about Barack Obama’s character and judgment, and what, if anything, does Obama having so many Muslim connections in his life have to do with his “first and foremost” allegiance to the United States of America? As Grant Swank points out at American Conservative Daily, Barack Obama wrote in his book, “Audacity of Hope”:

        “In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans … have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging,” he laments. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

        And we can be absolutely sure that whoever is in the White House, “something “ugly” will occur to offend the nation’s “Arab and Pakistani Americans”–in other words, Muslims” – and whose side will Obama then take?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Oh, Barack Obama is clearly lacking in both character and judgement, irrespective of whatever religion he is claiming to belong to on any particular day to any particular person.

          He is devoid of character, judgement, personality, honesty, conscience, and very nearly devoid of humanity. The guy is essentially a robot without the 1st and 2nd laws installed in his positronic brain.

          • Peter, you said it better in a few sentrces than I could if I had written a book. So I say, DITTO.

          • Mathius says:

            A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

            But if he doesn’t have the First or Second Laws, then it should produce an internal error when he tries to reference them in light of the third law. This should cause a system crash.

            And if he crashes, then BidenBot become President… ::shudder::

            • I hate to say this Mathius. But I agree with YOU 100% 😉

              We don’t in any way want Biden to become President. Nothing Obama has done so far would come close to that disaster.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        Buck the Wala said
        June 16, 2010 at 11:45 am
        And for the $1,000 question (redeemable in Mathius points only – please see Mathius for conversion ratio) — even if Obama is a Muslim, why does it matter!?

        The reason it would matter is if he said that he wasn’t…but I don’t know what he has said about his religion, and I don’t care. But, I do think it matters if it is a lie, keep in mind I am not saying he did lie, just pointing out why it would matter.

        So, um, can I have my Mathius points–I am up to 110 right now and would love to up my total in hopes of a cushy cabinet position when he is President..:)

        • Mathius says:

          One Mathius point is pegged against one atom of gold.

          So, doing some math… $1,000 in Mathius points is:

          25,476,190,476,200,000,000,000 Mathius Points. (assuming $1,200/oz gold)

          • Displaced Okie says:

            The actual amount of points is not important, What IS important is–Would that be enough to for me to trade back into to be named Director of the Dr. Pepper deparment?
            of course once you’re president you may consider DP contraband, then I would settle for head of the Dr. Pepper Destruction Board (shudder) where I am to dispose of said drink by consuming all remaining Dr. Pepper–Until I am caught bootlegging it to D13’s Raptor Ranch..:)

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sorry, no points for you this time Okie — Yes, it would say a lot about honesty (or lack thereof), but this would lead to the question of why did Obama lie on this and what does this say about our country and religious tolerance.

          My question relates only to what would it matter if we had a Muslim President.

          So far Peter is in line for the points — ‘wouldn’t matter in the slightest’

          • USWeapon says:

            I am not after the points, but I agree with Peter. I personally could give two handfuls of crap what deity the President worships. It doesn’t affect my beliefs one way or the other.

            Agreed that if he is lying then it points to an underlying level of bigotry that he believes Americans have (and he may be correct). It would also, however, point to a fantastic level of deception from a man who is entrusted with running our country.

          • Displaced Okie says:

            Well, see I only answered the question of why it would matter–it would have been much easier to answer why it didn’t….C’mon that should be worth the points–I mean me as the Dr. Pepper Czar, think about it, man?

            oh, and Happy B-day!

    • Islamaphobia goes viral.

      • Mathius says:


      • texaschem says:

        Yeah BF were all just paranoid ehh…nothing to see here…move along…pfft.

        I have a question for you Black Flag.

        What is the significance of the name Cordoba house for the super mosque being planned at ground zero?The religion of the sword perhaps sharpening its blade against the religion of love?


        • TC:

          Religion of Love? Where?

          • Mathius says:

            I think Christianity is the “religion of love”. You forget that Christianity is good and Islam is evil – how many times must I remind you?

            The Religion of Love would never, for example, approve, sponsor and pay for armies to invade foreign countries. Nor would it, for example, capture members of other religions and force them to “convert.” Nor would it ever, for example, execute heretics. These things are the sole purview of evil Islam.

          • texaschem says:

            When I was a kid of 13 years I had a Catahoula Cur hog dog.I loved that dog.Really I loved him to death.Best bay dog I ever owned.One night he got tore up by a huge boar.He was so badly tore up I had to put him down cause he got gutted.

            Point of the story is you can love something and still be bound by natural law to kill it.

            • If all religions evaporated off of the Earth, man would finally realize the fullest extent of his spirituality.

              “God has no religion” – Gandhi.

              • texaschem says:

                If all people CORRECTLY understood all religions idealogical doctrines and beliefs then mankind would finally realize the potential to extend their reality of spirituality.

                The antidote to frustration is a calm faith, not in your own cleverness, or in hard toil, but in God’s guidance.- Norman Vincent Peale

                Love is patient,love is kind, Love does not insist on its own way. Love bears all things, believes all things, Hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.- I Corinthians 13:4-8

      • Mathius says:

        Flag, you’re the undisputed king of arguing semantics. What is your take on my above argument with TC?

        TC’s post: “May 2010: Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.””

        Original article (including original quote) here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/print

        • Mathius,

          In fear of missing the argument, can you re-post the particular text? You have quite a few arguments above… 🙂

          • Mathius says:

            TC: Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.” [this as part of a list of “evidence” that Obama has a secret radical Muslim agenda]

            Me: IT IS! But it isn’t being used correctly. Islam calls for jihad (literally “holy war”) but intends for it to be used internally against your unholy or immoral tenancies and as a literal war only in the strictest sense of self-defense.
            PeterB: My point is, that if you are going to say that Jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam (which it is), then you should CLARIFY (as you did) what Jihad actually is, and how it is supposed to be used, and why it is legitimate.

            I am 99.999999% sure that Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor made NO SUCH CLARIFICATION.

            Me: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.


            I’d say that’s perfectly clear. Jihad is a legitimate holy struggle, but what they’re doing is not legitimate or holy and thus not Jihad.

            TC: Did you read the full article and understand the mans tone in regards to Islam?This is not a game of symantecs. The meaning of the article is quite clear.Why would you mislead the public by not using the word jihad using the definition our enemies are using?Ridiculous!

            Me: Because they are using the term incorrectly to lend themselves the cover of a religious war for what is, in reality, a political, economic, and social war.

            Our enemies sometimes refer to themselves as “freedom-fighters.” Does that mean we should blindly accept their terminology and let them use the mantle of freedom as their own?

            And, “Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism — that the United States is somehow at war against Islam,” Brennan said.

            I agree entirely. These criminals wish to cloak themselves in Islam and claim their war as holy. If were bow to their terminology, we tacitly accept that they speak for Islam, that we are at war with Islam, and they they are holy and just. I concede none of these.

            I have immense respect for Brennan after reading that article.

            You [TC] say: “The meaning of the article is quite clear.” We are obviously reaching different conclusions here. What do you find clear about it?

            • Mathius,

              I would agree with your arguments and of Brennan. I would suggest that he is honestly trying to understand his enemy in terms that will allow effective counter tactics to be deployed.

              Misunderstanding your enemy is probably the #1 cause of losing your battle with him.

              • texaschem says:

                Brennan is a shill plain and simple.To defend your idealogical view of Islam you defend him.It’s quite obvious his intentions to go along with Obamas agenda of de-villaifying Islamic terrorism.Cut and dry.End of arguement.

              • Mathius says:

                Agreed (though some might say it’s actually #2, behind having inferior forces). But the question, I think is actually more to the root assertion by TexasChem.

                Do the statements made by Brennan indicate in any way the presence of a secret radical Muslim agenda of the Obama administration, or does it suggest in some way poor judgment on the part of Obama for appointing an individual who would hold these views?

                • Mathius,

                  Hmm, I think it is #1 – too many examples of small forces defeating larger ones by better tactics (thus, better understanding) of their enemy.

                  Do the statements made by Brennan indicate in any way the presence of a secret radical Muslim agenda of the Obama administration,


                  First of all, it was US Strategy to radicalize Islam as a weapon against the Soviets.

                  It makes sense to reverse this strategy when the weapon is turned against you.

                  or does it suggest in some way poor judgment on the part of Obama for appointing an individual who would hold these views?

                  Appointing a man who appears to be working hard in creating and (perhaps) deploying rational solutions to a problem is usually a “good thing”.

                  • USWeapon says:

                    First of all, it was US Strategy to radicalize Islam as a weapon against the Soviets.

                    Fits with your mantra of blaming every single bad thing in the world on the US, which is laughable. But I would like to see your sources that the radicalization of Islam was a US creation. Not saying it isn’t, but I have never heard such a thing before, and we all know your bias.

                  • USWEp

                    “Osama bin Laden and his Afghan religious supporters were American allies throughout the 1980s and received our money and training and were heralded as the Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters.’

                    In the book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Dr. Robert A. Pape’s research shows that suicide terrorism is a strategic response to occupation by foreign armies, plain and simple.

                    Roger Morris, writing in the Asia Times, argues that as early as 1973-74, the CIA began offering covert backing to radical Islamist rebels in Afghanistan premised on the claim that the right-wing, authoritarian government headed by Mohammed Daoud Khan might prove a likely instrument of Soviet military aggression in South Asia.

                    U.S. secret backing of the Islamist rebels ceased following an abortive uprising in 1975.

                    One of the CIA’s longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants.[87] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

                    With US and other funding, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents.

                    The early foundations of al-Qaida were built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.[102] Some of the Afghan-trained “freedom fighters” were later involved in terrorist acts against the U.S., the very government that had given them support in the early days of their organization, to change U.S. policy in the Middle East.

                    Following the Palestinian election in 2006 in which Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament, the U.S. backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and the West Bank which was successful in removing Hamas from power in the West Bank.[141] The Asia Times Online reports that article that since at least January 2006, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah group (which won the Palestinian presidential election, 2005) in order to overthrow the Hamas government elected in the Palestinian legislative election, 2006.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Yeah, it is unfortunate that most of us are taught from an early age to fear, distrust, and even hate religions which are not “ours”, and then on top of that we are shown images of people who are members of those “other” religions doing bizzare, horrible, and truly terrifying things, but we are only shown these things through the lens of those who wish to show them to us.

        Such practice ensures that any religion that is not “ours” is highly likely to be treated with derision and hatred.

        Of course, “their” religion does pretty much the same thing in most cases, so most of them fear, distrust, and hate us as well.

        Religion has been the single-most distructive force in the universe since its inception in my opinion, and Christianity is far from the only “guilty” religion, at least in my opinion.

        • Displaced Okie says:

          I would disagree, but only slightly. I believe that Authoritarianism is the single most destructive force and religion is/has been the greatest tool that the authoritarians use. Seeing as that most religions don’t teach violence, but have been or are being perverted by those who seek control.


          • Mathius says:

            Any time you have people in a situation where one person (or group of people) can issue unquestionable edicts referencing divine authority, you have a recipe for trouble.

            • Displaced Okie says:

              I think that perfectly illustrates my point of how religion is used as tool by those who seek to control others

            • The only time one can have Unquestionable edits is when one has a theocracy, which the Christian religion is not-it is a personal relationship with the Lord-I interpret his word through the Bible with his guidance-I do not follow blindly with any man’s interpretation-if other people do-it is their weakness -not the word of God-Man is the problem-not religion. If anything a religion that is based on freedom of choice is a deterrent to mans ability to justify any avenue that justifies his chosen behavior.

      • USWep and Peter,

        Peter, sorry sir. Islamic radicalism is a very recent creation – an overflow catalyst to US and others machinations to incite local resistance to occupiers.

        The list: note, none predate the 1980’s. It all started with the US funding in Afghanistan and it exploded like mushrooms.

        The list:
        Jaish-e-Mohammed (Pakistan) was formed in 1994 to free Kashmir.

        ashkar-e-Taiba (Pakistan) was formed in 1990 to battle India.

        Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen (Bangladesh) was formed sometime in 1998 to fight internally.

        Al-Qaeda (Afghanastan) late 1980s to fight Soviets.

        “Caucasus Caliphate Jihad” 1990 to fight Russians in Chechnya.

        Turkish Hezbollah 1980s believed to be in response to the Kurdistan Workers Party

        the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda affiliate;
        Al-Faruq Brigades,
        Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna;
        the Mujahideen of the Victorious Sect
        the Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq
        the Jihad Brigades/Cell
        Muslim Youth and Army of Mohammed

        …all created post Iraq invasion.

        Fatah al-Islam (Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon). November 2006

        Hezbollah (Lebanon) formed 1982 after Israel invasion of Lebanon.

        Hamas, 1987.

        Islamic Jihad (Palestinian) 1983

        The Armed Islamic Group, (Algeria) 1992

        Abu Sayyaf Group (Philippines) early 1990s

        • texaschem says:

          Oh boy! Soon as I get some time I’m gonna bash you with a fence post, post of my own!

          Care to research a bit more?Or perhaps just tell everyone what you already know or shall I in a few minutes?

        • USWeapon says:

          Thanks for the info BF. I was aware of most of what you posted although there is a little bit of spin there.

          What I am interested in is your opinion of what my “perception” of your statement was. What I perceived was that you are implying that radical islam was the creation of the US. It appears that the radical Islamist mindset has been used as a tool, but I am not sure it is a thing that the US created. It appears that the radical mindset in Islam (and nearly every other religion) has been around for centuries and used as a tool. We are simply the latest to manipulate that radical anger to our advantage. That is quite different from the US “creating it”.

          • USWep,


            Radical (fill in blank) exists everywhere.

            Radical Islam had mostly been …well, radicalized….and very marginalized. It didn’t attract much of a following.

            The massive funding plus geopolitical machinations gave it some sort of “legitimacy”.

            Now, it has achieved a form of self-perpetuation.

            The more attempts of “stomping” it out, the more sparks that set off more fires.

            The increase in hostility ends up “proving the radicals” right about the intentions of the West. Thus, the core theory of 4th Generational Warfare – asymmetrical responses

            • USWeapon says:

              Thanks for that clarification. I can agree with what you have offered here at this point. I do believe that our meddling has created an environment where recruitment and justification for their actions have become much easier. This contributes to my belief that we need to stop attempting to control the world. Stay at home and protect ourselves from legitimate aggression, rather than proactively attacking potential threats.

              • texaschem says:

                I agree wholeheartedly with you USW.
                Bring our boys home.
                Secure our borders.
                Immigration reform—AS IN more strict guidelines for admittance; including being able to adapt to OUR society and culture as a requirement not an option.

            • texaschem says:

              There is no moderate Islam and there is no radical Islam.There is just Islam and it is the same now as it was in the 7th century.Sharia law has not changed one bit and I’ll be dead damned if I see it used in the courts of America as it is begininng to be used in the European court systems.This is America.Tis a pity most Americans forget about or don’t even know the last verse of the Star Spangled Banner!

              O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
              Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
              Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
              Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
              Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
              And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
              And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
              O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          The PLO was founded in 1964.

  9. from American Thinker

    The President’s Oil Reserves Lie
    By Chad Stafko
    Tuesday night, following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill. In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation’s dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence.

    During his speech, the President made a statement that was blatantly false. The President noted, “We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserve. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”

    We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. In fact, it is due to the President’s party of extreme environmentalists that BP had to drill some 40 miles from the coastline in deep waters to extract oil. Imagine if this oil leak had happened in the shallow waters off of the East Coast or even, dare we say it, in the pristine ANWR region. How much easier it would have been to cap the leak and clean up the oil.

    Consider our nation’s vast oil reserve resources that are currently unavailable for use due to government ownership of the land or outright bans on drilling in certain areas.

    According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries. That’s three-hundred years, Mr. President. We are not running out of oil reserves, it’s just that those oil reserves have been declared off limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left. This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation’s needed oil.

    Note the following statement from the article:

    “…untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.”

    Think about that. The nations that currently hold us hostage by their massive oil production actually have far less reserves than our own nation. Put another way, some of the very nations in which we are dependent upon oil are also the same nations that help to sponsor worldwide terrorism. Were we to extract our own oil, it would make our nation and the world a safer place. But, isn’t a spotted owl more important than the safety of the world?

    Among the areas the article mentions are the oil shale located underneath land in Colorado, Wyoming, and in Utah. These lands are federally protected, but they alone could provide about 200 years worth of oil for the nation. Others mentioned include oil reserves located under Montana and some reserves located on protected lands in Texas, California, Utah, and Kentucky.

    In fact, our own government has acknowledged the vast oil resources available to us. In an April 2008 study conducted by the United States Geological Survey, the group began its press release with the following, “North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.”

    The report acknowledges that the available oil reserves could be much larger, but the 3.0 to 4.3 billion figure represents oil recoverable right now with today’s technology. In fact, there may more than 100 billion barrels eventually recoverable with continued developments in the technology necessary to extract the oil.

    Then there is the most famous government-blocked area of oil reserves, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuges (ANWR). With 10 billion barrels available, ANWR is the most accessible of the major untapped oil reserve locations in the United States and claims are that this oil could be extracted in a way that would have minimal negative environmental impact.

    Yet, with all of these resources, here we sit, importing oil at a feverish pace and a significant portion of it from our enemies and those who support terrorist organizations around the world. And, here we sit watching oil float towards our shores through unnecessary deep-water drilling when we could be drilling on dry land.

    Yes, the President is correct when he calls for the need to use more alternative energy sources. Some of these may, in the long-term, actually be more efficient than the use of oil and be more readily accessible. However, until then we would be wise to tap our God-given resources in the safest of areas first before we go drilling more than a mile beneath the ocean for the same fuel that is available on dry land.

    Therefore, if we’re tossing all the blame towards BP for this catastrophic oil spill then we’re ignoring other perpetrators. The reason BP and other oil companies are drilling 40+ miles off the shoreline and more than a mile deep is because of the stranglehold that environmentalists have held on politicians and their resulting energy policies for decades.

    Let’s use some common sense. Drill first on land, then in water. It’s really not that difficult.

    • texaschem says:

      Logical reasoning leads one to conclude some other motive for our government not tapping those reserves.You would think our government officials would see the benefits in terms of jobs, energy independence from the middle east, and the economic growth of GDP as somewhat important!

      • I wonder about the motive of our government. Supposedly the Dutch and others have offered some of the most advanced oil clean-up ships for use in the gulf, but cannot get their calls returned. Would Obama deliberately hinder help, to allow the spill to grow into an even larger disaster?

        • texaschem says:

          I read something in reference to the ships not being manned by union members being the reason why.Guess he deems it more important to keep his union member votes than to “plug the hole!”


        • Cyndi P says:

          I believe the motive is to use this spill as a means to put the final nail in the coffin of the American economy and middle class. I find the timing of this spill as equally suspicious as the market crash of 17 September 2007. This guy’s luck has amazing timing!

          Hope and Change kiddies!

        • Well, what did his distinguished Oval Office speech lead right into last night? The push for his Cap & Trade program. Can’t really get things cleaned up too fast when his agenda needs this crisis to linger for awhile.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I would rather have a small oil-derrick in my backyard than a 10-story high windmill with enormous wind-vanes… lol.

      • texaschem says:

        I’ve worked in the oilfields when I was younger and the environmental mess the tree huggers claim happens is absolutely not true.The companies take extra measures to return the fields as close to the same state they were in before drilling.

        Wish I had a derrick in my backyard too!I would be recieving some very nice checks! 🙂

    • Thank you LOI. Someone finally said it. What it is, is a game of slieght of hand. That’s whay they are using this spill in the gulf to try and get their Cap and Trade bill through again. And most are to focused on the gulf to notice.

      And this isn’t the first time This Administation has done this.

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I think this is worthy of reading and discussion. Note that the author of this piece is black (or “african-american” or whatever other description suits your particular needs to satisfy yourself that you are labelling people “properly”).

    At any rate, he is bordering on Libertarian (a good thing in my opinion), but his analysis is very interesting I think.

  11. texaschem says:

    Alan Gottlieb Inside The UN To Protect US Gun Rights

    CCRKBA’s Alan Gottlieb is a Non-Government Organization (NGO) delegate to the UN with a mission: KILL ANY SMALL ARMS TREATY LANGUAGE THAT INFRINGES ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF AMERICANS.

    On June 14-18 Alan is New York at the UN BMS-4 Small Arms and Light Weapons meeting to discuss the final details of the Small Arms and Light Weapons Treaty. The treaty is not yet written and it is imperative that US gun rights and the Second Amendment be protected from international regulation.

    Alan’s wife Julianne H. Versnel, in her international efforts to defend gun rights, is also participating and is scheduled to testify at the UN on gun control issues relating to the women of the world.

    Alan will directly defend in committee all attempts by Obama, Hillary and UN delegates from around the world to end run the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century – that is 2.6 million per year even when they have the small arms to defend themselves. How many more would have died unable to fight back if we had the UN Small Arms Treaty?

    The UN’s solution: Take guns from patriot freedom fighters leaving them defenseless against notorious totalitarian regimes. The UN cannot protect the people of the world from tyrannical governments such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone all of which support the UN Gun Ban Treaty.

    If this UN Treaty were in place in 1776 there would be no United States and we would still be part of the British Empire. Why does Obama want it now? Why take gun rights away from US citizens and leave us powerless?


    The UN says guns used by insurgents in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. But not all insurgencies are “bad.” To ban providing guns to freedom fighters in totalitarian countries is like arguing that people do not have the right to defend themselves.

    Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and President Obama have said the U.S. will commit to and sign the UN Small Arms Treaty that will set the stage for foreign gun control laws in the U.S.

    Obama is not telling the truth and continues to say “I’m not going to take your guns away” and “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear… I think people can take me at my word.” Yeah right and the government has the Gulf Oil Spill under control.

    Obama continues to work to keep the UN Treaty cloaked in secrecy, so that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. Take action now, do not wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a UN treaty that:

    – Prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.
    – Prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership.
    – Requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

    This has happened in other countries, and is happening now!

    Hillary Clinton and her anti-constitution cronies are partnering up with the anti-Second Amendment collaborators of the United Nations to pass “The Small Arms Treaty.” If this treaty is passed YOUR firearms rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated. “The Small Arms Treaty” is being touted by liberal gun-grabbers as a treaty that will help fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime rings.” The treaty is merely a facade to seize control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens.

    UN To Confiscate and Destroy “Unauthorized” Small Arms

    The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday, law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain a firearm. It is unfathomable that regular citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to protect us from. “The Small Arms Treaty” will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified “unauthorized.” What exactly classifies a firearm as “unauthorized” is up to the liberal gun-haters. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. Clinton, Obama and their anti-liberty commission are also calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.


    Conact Jeanne Shaheen and Judd Gregg here.

    The globalist gun agenda ultimately seeks to take away not only your individual liberties, but also more importantly, your complete autonomy. Obama, Hillary and the United Nations conspirators believe that every single American is not capable of making their own decisions so they want to make them for us. Just like Obamacare, again big bureaucrats want to take away your right to live freely without the government breathing down your neck.

    Now is the time to take action. We can’t afford to lose this battle. This treaty has to be ratified in the Senate. It ONLY takes 67 members of the Senate to ratify and pass this unconstitutional treaty. NOW it is time to speak out against “The Small Arms Treaty.”

    Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU’RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!

    CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS

    • Tex,

      Been following this myself. Based on previous record, neither of my senators is likely to support this. Unlike healthcare, this absolutely would cost them their jobs.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I don’t agree with Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman very often at all, but their assessment of Obama’s Oval Office speech is spot-on in my opinion.

    • And they seem to be weening themselves from the Kool-Aid. Kinda just like James Carville-“WE’RE DYING DOWN HERE MAN!

    • texaschem says:

      Hrmm… seems like Obama is about to become the fall guy sooner than I expected.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Producing the Birth Certficate should finish him off. Hillary, now’s the time! LOL!

    • Looks to me like folks are beginning to see that Obama is no different from any other Politician. And worse than most.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Peter – they didn’t go far enough – I was a little bewildered that Joe Scarborough was trying to pump it as a potential Kennedy-esque moment. Bottom line is the speech was garbage as was his leadership skills with respect to this issue. They knew there were egregious things happening at the regulatory level more than a year ago and consciously elected not to do anything. So keep blaming BP while you wash your hands of this.

  13. SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

    With everyone’s permission I would like to go somewhat off topic here.

    Over the past year and change, I have been amazed at the pure raw smarts expressed by all of you out there. USW has, in my opinion been able to come up with blog that attracts some pretty bright folks.

    I also note that as you talk about yourselves, there is a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences out there. Physics, chemistry, engineering, retail, wholesale, national security, several varities of engineering, the law and education are all covered.

    I would like to run the following past all of you. It is a possible solution to the oil spilling into the Gulf. Build an immense concrete cassion about 30 by 50 by 15 feet. At the top of the cassions there should be three 10 inch valves. The cassion could be lowered into place or fitted with a propulsion system to guide it into place over the blow out. Two of the three valves can be left open to prevent the cassion from being “blown over” by the pressure of the spilling oil. The third is left closed but connected to a pipe to the surface.

    My theory is that the cassion itself, modeled after the Mulberry cassions used at Normandy on D-Day would be heavy enough to self-seal itself into the muck. Even if it is not heavy enough for a permanent seal, additional weights could be added later.

    As sooon as it is in place, the two open valves can be closed and the third, connected to a tanker or another retrieval device can be opened. Then, pipes can be connected to the other valves. With three ten inch valves running on full open there should be no spillage. The three valves then give you the opportunity to shut them, one at a time, to change tankers in and out.

    If I am right about the weight issue or adding weights, then theoretically, all three valves could be shut down and the cassion would remain in place sealing the leak.

    The President was right about one thing last night. This has to be treated like a war. Unfortunately guys like Henry Kaiser are not around anymore who could pull the above together in a weeks time.

    Part two, if this has any merit at all, how does it get to someone who could do something about implementing it?

    • SK,

      The weight is not an issue, nor the anchoring.

      My (limited) understanding is the breach is in the ground as well at the well head.

      Further, at 5,000 ft + the water pressure is creating the devil-in-the-details and derailing a lot of solutions. The water temperature is super-cold, but the water pressure prevents ice. But as soon as the pressure is released even slightly, huge ice crystals begin to form, plugging up the piping.

      …though I am surprised at the lack of any contingency for this problem. Deep ocean drilling is not a new thing – yet, this particular (and rare but probable) accident had no contingency in place, not even in theory????

      But, this is not even close to my area of expertise so… (shrug)

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        OK, but keep thinking. The leak cam shows it spewing from the drillpipe, the other rumors I sort of treat like Osama Bin Laden’s dialysis.

        If we build a large enough cassion, we can cover the immediate area. The pipe is apparently being eroded by the volumne of oil and its pressure. There is the theoretical possibility of a lot more than a blow out. The whole damn Gulf could wind up being the Labrea Tar pit.

        The ice crystals have to be explained further. Also, what is the temperature of the oil itself? Does there have to be some kind of heater? If the cassion comes equipped with a purge system like the ballasts on a sub, can we purge all the water and then close it as it fills with oil which, I assume should not freeze.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        One other big problem at the temperature and pressure involved down there is that methane hydrates form and crystallize when the system is significantly disturbed. These are worse than water crystals (ice) because methane hydrates can explode if the concentration becomes high enough. This is thought to be a contributing factor in the original blowout as they were running a temporary shutdown procedure on the well.

        It is important to note that it blew out during a temporary shutdown procedure and NOT in the normal course of drilling/collecting oil.

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          So, is there a way to prevent this from happening?

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          If the cassion covers the entire breach area and continues to allow the leak to vent at the current rate through the three valves (or more if necessary)can they valves be slowly turned down or redirected to a pipeline without causing a problem?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            It might work (in fact it has a better shot than most things they have tried so far), but the problem is, NONE of this stuff has EVER been tried at this depth.

            I don’t care whether you are in the arctic cirle, or in the hottest part of the Gulf of Mexico. At that depth, the water is DAMN COLD, and the pressure is ridiculously high.

            Solutions which would work EASILY in 500 feet of water can fail due to completely unexpected things happening in 5000+ feet of water.

            Drilling ON shore is by far the safest way to get oil. Drilling in 250-500ft of water is still pretty safe. Drilling in water a mile deep is risky.

            • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

              Agreed about the drilling on land or close in. So, I guess the environmentalists can take full blame for this one. They seem to have their heads up their asses big time.

              Son clued me into the site below which talks about the erosion going on from the sand in the oil. This thing is at 12,000 PSI!


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      By the way, this is “open mic night”… how can ANYTHING possibly be “off-topic”???


      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        Just don’t want to interrupt thought processes unnecessarily. Every now and then I just pop an idea and love to run it past people who know more about it than me.

    • Where is Wasabi when we need him?

      • I’m still here.

        Hey, I’m just the ROV guy. One benefit of the Environmentalist Wackos forcing deep water drilling, is that you need ROV’s to do inspection and intervention. Unfortunately the Moratorium is putting a lot of ROV’s on the sidelines and will cause layoffs.

        There are engineers who have a lot more letters after their names than an ex-Navy guy who doesn’t mind going offshore for 3 or 4 weeks. The cap has to vent so the pressure doesn’t build up to the point where it blows the cap off. This is why you see oil flowing when you look at the ROV footage.

        Hydrostatic pressure is related to water depth and gravity, and is calculated at 0.443PSI/Ft. The water pressure at a depth of 5000 ft is approximately 2215PSI. I can’t imagine the ares in square inches, but the pressure is high.

        IMHO I believe the best possible minds are working on this problem. What makes me angry is that not enough was done to keep the oil away from the beaches. It’s like tar balls mean we can’t have oil anymore.

        I agree that alternative energy sources are needed, however they can’t immediately replace fossil fuels. Our world runs on oil. We needed more refineries 30 years ago, but NIMBY applies here.

        It looks like this is part of the big plan, more unemployed people depending on govt for compensation. Slavery for lack of a better word.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          How do you feel about the Caisson idea? It obviously can be built to whatever spec you want. The estimate by the oildrum.com people is the oil is gushing at about 12,000psi.
          Initially the caisson would not restrict the flow at all and just allow it to pass through. After being put in place it can slowly control the leak.

          The best possible minds may be working on it but I wonder how many came up with the meld of the Mulberry concrete caissons from Normandy along with the caissons used by Roebling to build the footings for the Brooklyn Bridge. Remember, these are the guys who couldn’t figure how to stop frozen foam from falling off the LOX tanks on the shuttle.(hint, the nylon netting used to wrap your Christmas tree)

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:


    I believe to some extent that BF’s assertion regarding radicalization of Islam being a US strategy is actually correct.

    The United States intentionally heavily funded Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban during the Soviet/Afghan war.

    However, Muslim terrorist organizations DO PREDATE this war. It is my belief that all of the money and arms supplied to these groups by the US during the Soviet/Afghan war made a lot of these groups much stronger. In addition, because they now had alot of money and weapons, and they succeeded in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, this gave them a lot of LEGITIMACY in many Muslim countries. Before the early 1980s, many Muslim terrorist organizations existed, but they did not have the money, weapons, power, influence or legitimacy that they suddenly acquired after being heavily funded by the United States and driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

  15. USW:

    I’ve been resisting this all day but I gotta do it.

    Flashback –Dateline ’89– Celtics v Pistons first round–Sound familiar?

    Of course the Bad Boys kicked some ass but…those were the days: Bird, McHale, Ainge, Paxon and my favorite Robert “The Chief” Parish. I had great respect for all of them and I’ve been pulling for the Celtics this time too.

    Go Celtics!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Was Bill Walton on that team also?

    • USWeapon says:

      Anita, are you drawing comparisons to the 89 playoffs when Detroit swept us in round one or the 88 playoffs when they beat us 4-2 in the Eastern Conference Finals. The only reason I was confused was because that 89 first round sweep didn’t have Larry Bird. He only played 6 games that year because of the bad back. 88 was his last real year.

      And the difference will be that the Celtics are going to win game 7 in LA, just like they did many years ago with Hondo!

      This will be the 5th game 7 in an NBA finals against LA for Boston. How awesome is that for a rivalry!?

      • Yes, I’m recalling the bad back now that you remind me. Those were the days though. The Celtic-Lakers rivalry is similar to the Piston/Bulls rivalry back then. But once the Bulls kicked our butts they never looked back.

        Regardless, It’s going to be tough for the Celtics in LA. For the record I do like Kobe but I can’t stand Phil Jackson….grrr..he coached the Bulls back when…

      • Totally awesome. I grew up with the Yankees (Mickey Mantle et. al.). Everyone wanted to beat them. The Lakers are the same way, a lot of people want to beat them because, if you can beat them you are truly a champion. Kobe is definitely the greatest right now, but I must be a good Yankee and support the Celtics. I live in Louisiana, so Glen Davis is my guy. Hell, we won a Super Bowl so anything is possible. My apologies to Lakers fans but Celtics by 5 points in OT.

    • Mathius says:

      See #5.

  16. USWeapon says:

    Cop punches girl in Seattle. Community is up in arms. I watched the video, I understand the cops position. At what point do people say “well that dumbass shouldn’t have been shoving a cop!” ? I will be interested in hearing everyone’s opinions.


    • I saw this too and was wondering about BF’s position on it. I, too, am on the cop’s side

    • USWep,

      I guess she’s lucky he didn’t shoot her…. (snarly response)

      We’ll not get into a discussion about “jay walking” law ….

      …we’ll just assume, for the sake of the argument, the woman did something worthy of being accosted by a LEO.

      One has to look around the officer.

      Unlike the “Mexican” incident, this officer was surrounded. It appears he is alone. The attitude of the bystanders is unknown, and adds significant risk to the officer – he could be attacked easily from behind.

      The “perp” is hostile. The second woman, who was constrained by a civilian, broke free by striking the man who was holding her back. She obviously is out of control to the degree another man is unable to hold her away from escalation.

      Officer now has two (obviously not weak either) women aggressively reacting to him. He is having trouble with one. He does not know who else will engage. He is alone.

      I think answering with a punch to break up her attack can be justified. But he also failed to control the situation by not dealing with prep#1 in a timely basis.

      He did a lot better than others on YouTube (ie: no taser and no shooting)

      • OK, BF you’ve restored my faith in you a little bit. Nicely analyzed!

      • USWeapon says:

        Agreed for the most part. I imagine that you and I would agree completely on the ridiculousness of a law around crossing the street. I think that your assessment of the video is accurate. He managed to only use minimal force to attempt to control the situation. The only thing I might not agree with in what you said is that he failed to control perp #1 on a timely basis. One aspect of that not mentioned is that he may have not been able to get a good grip on the situation early BECAUSE of the gotcha video culture we live in. He knows everyone around is watching. He knows there are videos being shot. So he may have started out not being as forceful as needed simply because he feared backlash. Once someone got physical, he felt it OK to respond with some sort of force. I am not saying that is the case, but it is something to consider. I know how easy it is for things to get out of control when you are attempting to do your job in a politically correct environment instead of the most effective way.

        • USWep,

          Your comment about being video’d may have restrained his reaction to perp #1 – which is thankful – he should be very restrained…. at least initially.

          I believe that in similar situations Dad started out polite and gentle, but I also belief perp #1 would have been in an arm lock in about 10 seconds the moment she gave him that “shove” and “jerk” (early in the video).

          But I sense the environment was quite unpredictable. It was a “white boy picking on a black woman” while surrounded by “black men”.

          I’d guess if some yelled some racial comment about it, it may have gone quite badly.

          I went to an open-air “party” once (in a foreign country where I was the racial minority) and I was the only white guy. It was heavily populated by drunk black 20’year old punks. Nothing happened, probably because I was wise enough not to stay.

          If that is how I felt, and no one was fighting, I’d expect the cop may have felt that a bit too.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      All I can say is, he’s lucky that gal didn’t grab his gun from behind, when she was behind him, otherwise it could have ended up tragically with somebody getting shot/killed.

    • Black Order says:

      That piece of bacon had no right to tell her how to walk.

      They had every right to resist being kidnapped.

      • I would tend to agree – if she gets hit by a car, she’ll learn a lesson and maybe teach by example others as well.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        What are you talking about, being kidnapped? WHO?

        • Black Order says:

          The young woman dressed in black was minding her own business when she was ordered by the man with a gun to come over to his automibile. He told her that she would have to surrender her money because he didn’t agree with her route of travel.

          NATURALLY, she didn’t agree with his robbery, got mouthy, and proceeded to avoid him by walking away.

          The man with a gun then tried to kidnap her. When he did, her cousin(dressed in pink) assisted with her escape.

          The man with a gun assaulted and kidnapped both of them, then put them in a dungeon.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            How do you know she was minding her own business? The video didn’t show that. And, it didn’t show both of them being put in the dungeon as you call it.

            • Black Order says:

              I don’t KNOW that she was minding her own business, but from what I have read in all of the articles ALL OVER THE INTERNET, she was just trying to cross the street when the attempted robbery occured.

              I’ve also read that both women were taken to and put in a room made of concrete and steel bars.


              Dungeon – A dungeon is a room or cell in which prisoners are held, especially underground.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I know what a dungeon is , thought you were talking about being put in the back of the car. Maybe you can put a link up here about the article, because I didn’t hear, see, or read anything about it, except for what USW put up.

                • Black Order says:


                  From: NYDailyNews.com

                  …The incident began when an unnamed police officer spotted a teen jaywalking across Martin Luther King Jr. Way South around 3:10 p.m., according to a report on the Seattle Police Department Web site.

                  As he approached the 18-year-old male, the officer witnessed four females do the same thing at the same spot on the road, about 15 feet from a pedestrian crosswalk.

                  “The officer instructed the females to step over to his vehicle,” officials said. “They were verbally antagonistic.”

                  When one of them, a 19-year-old, began to walk away, the officer approached her and escorted her back.

                  “The female subject began to tense up her arm and pull away from the officer while yelling at him,” police said.

                  The two argued, and the officer attempted to cuff her. That is when, according to officials, another of the teens interceded.

                  “The second female subject placed her hands on the officer’s arm, causing the officer to believe she was attempting to physically affect the first subject’s escape,” police said.

                  A crowd had gathered around the officer by that time, and one witness captured much of the altercation on video.

                  As the officer and the 17-year-old struggled, the teen can be seen pushing the officer, who then responds by punching her in the face…

                • Black Order says:


                  …The confrontation began after Walsh spotted a man jaywalking – the American term for not crossing a road at a pedestrian crossing or junction controlled by lights – and went to speak to him.

                  According to the police report a group of four girls were also spotted doing the same and the officer called them over to his patrol car.

                  The women became verbally abusive and started to walk away ignoring the Walsh’s instructions to remain where they stood.

                  When he tried to stop the teen two of them began grappling with him.

                  As the 17-year-old, wearing a pink top, tried to push away Walsh, he lashed out with his fist.
                  Other officers who had answered a call for help arrived on the scene and handcuffed the 19-year-old….

      • TexasChem says:


        Jaywalking laws do serve a purpose.
        The laws keep pedestrians from being hit by a car.They keep cars from swerving into other cars or other people.This is why we have crosswalks at intersections.How would you feel if you were walking down the sidewalk with your mom,dad,brother,sister,your own child,well, whomever and someone tried to cross a busy street and a car swerved to miss them up onto the sidewalk and killed your family member?All it takes is a little common sense to figure this out.Think about it.You will get it eventually.Watch the video I posted below to learn more…

        • Black Order says:

          TC – “Jaywalking laws do serve a purpose.”

          BO – Indeed they do. They serve to collect money for the state.

          TC – “The laws keep pedestrians from being hit by a car.They keep cars from swerving into other cars or other people.”

          BO – So there aren’t pedestrian related car accidents where there are anti-jay-walking laws?

          The place where the incident took place was near a college campus. The school had requested police assistance because they were concerned for students’ safety while crossing the busy street.

          If it was about safety, then why didn’t the bacon turn on his lights, put on his safety vest, and direct traffic to help people across the street?

          Should there be cops standing in front of elementary schools arresting and ticketing children?

        • What is a bacon?

          None of my business but personally I liked your original name of Bottom Line 🙂 it seemed to fit your personality. It made a statement.

          • Bacon = pigs = cops…at least that’s what it used to be back when BO was a

            piglet 🙂 I liked BL better too. BO sounds smelly..eeeewww ! His Sweetums

            won’t appreciate that either!

            • That’s funny, didn’t think abou
              t the initials in this situation-I remember the first time I saw someone use the initial’s BO for the president-thought it was a low blow before I realize it was his initials.

              • How you doing tonight Anita? I unfortunately still do not have an AC-my AC man didn’t make it to the store before it closed today, so I must do without air conditioning for one more night

                • Tisk tisk V. I toldja you should have made a road trip. It’s still nice and cool here tonight.

                  I’m also doing great having seen my son graduate 6th grade tonight. WooHoo..I was worried. Been suffering about this kid for 6 months.

                  • Well, congratulations on your son-I personally would have told you not to worry. Love takes children a long way. Wish I could have made the trip, but love for my babies kept me home. Started refilling my pool today was a lot of fun watching them run to the bottom of the pool to enjoy the water, did a little wading myself. Am seriously considering sleeping outside tonight. I suspect it is just a mind thing but I find expecting my A.C to be fixed tonight has made me miss it a lot more.

                    • Ha! You must be desperate to be wading in COLD water. I’ve been fortunate. The house next to me has changed hands 3 times in the last 7 years. The previous 2 owners were both heating and cooling guys…so I have connections 🙂

                    • Glad to hear you have connections but unless they have the part on had those connections will not help you. 🙂

            • Cyndi P says:

              That’s right, Girl! Sweetums like her men smelling sexy and clean, not icky-poo-poo stinky

          • What did I miss? How do you know BO was BL?

            • He was talking about changing it a few days ago. If I remember correctly-it was between Black Order and Black Core-then BF said he thought Black Order was better because of something to do with chaos. 🙂

        • I never understood why jaywalking laws existed when I lived in the states. Growing up in England I was taught to look both ways before crossing a road and if I saw a car I would not cross said road until it passed. Its not a complicated process and much better than being told where and when I can cross a road.

          • For their own good. People must be required to walk where safe, wear seat belts, etc… And revenue, a ticket means income for the local government.

          • Displaced Okie says:

            It would be easy to say it is for revenue generation by the city, but hardly any money is generated by jay walking fines–red light cameras are a different story. Anyway, jay walking laws have more to do with determing fault and liability in accidents involving pedestrians than anything else.


    • TexasChem says:

      Well this video pretty much sums it up for me.If I can get it to post in frame.

  17. OMG…A poster a RedState is jokingly suggesting another Clinton/Gore campaign. Hillary/Tipper that is 🙂

    Doing the Job Media Won’t: Fact-checking Obama’s Gulf Spill Address
    By Lachlan Markay
    Wed, 06/16/2010 – 17:12 ET

    Plenty of prominent media figures were upset with President Obama over his substandard address to the nation last night . While most are distraught, none seem to be doing what should be the essential journalistic task of the day: pointing out all of the factual misstatements the president made.

    So, in absence of a serious attempt at fact-checking from the legacy media, let us undertake some of our own.

    In all, the president misrepresented the federal government’s–and especially his cabinet’s–role in creating the conditions that led to the spill, the state of the nation’s oil reserves, and his own administration’s involvement with BP. Futhermore, his transition from discussing the Gulf spill to advocating “clean energy” legislation was a huge logical leap, and one that necessarily misrepresents the problems the nation faces with regard to energy.

    The latter was perhaps the president’s most subtle sleight of hand. He claimed the Gulf spill is “the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.”

    Now, if the president had stated the spill is a reminder that the nation needs to get off of oil–that disasters like this are an unfortunate, if rare consequence of harvesting crude oil–he would have had a point. But that is not what he said. He claimed the disaster underscores the need for “clean” energy, which presumably does not include coal, the dirtiest of them all. But the Gulf spill has no bearing on coal energy.

    Also intended to promote the “clean energy” cause was Obama’s misleading statement that “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America.” In fact, as the Heritage Foundation notes, China “will account for nearly 45% of oil demand growth in the next five years, receives 70% of its energy from coal already, and is projected to nearly triple coal capacity by 2030.”

    Say what you will about clean energy or coal, but the president’s advocacy of his own energy agenda despite the facts was unseemly and based on a fallacious argument.

    Moving forward, Obama also misrepresented the state of the oil industry itself. He claimed that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”

    “This howler,” writes John Hinderaker at Power Line, “is a favorite canard of Democratic politicians”:

    As is so often the case, they are relying on the public’s ignorance. Most people don’t realize that in the U.S., oil isn’t counted as part of our “reserves” unless it is legally available for drilling. Thus, ANWR, to take one of many examples, isn’t counted toward the total “reserves.” The U.S. government could cause our reserves to skyrocket overnight by opening new areas, on land and in shallow water, to drilling. But the U.S. is the only country in the world that has deliberately chosen not to develop its own energy resources. No one else is that dumb.

    So the reason oil companies drill a mile beneath the water is not that there are not ample supplies of crude in other parts of the United States, but rather that the federal government does not permit drilling in so many of those areas.

    According to Kiplinger Magazine (by way of the American Thinker), “untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.”

    The misdeeds of the oil industry were, of course, a frequent refrain in the president’s speech. But he also misrepresented that industry’s culpability by claiming “time and again, the path forward [to further regulation] has been blocked…by oil industry lobbyists.”

    What the president conveniently neglected to mention, however, was that BP has been an advocate of most of his energy agenda. As the Examiner’s Tim Carney reminds us:

    BP “has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels…

    BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

    Though the company left USCAP, it did not stop lobbying for cap and trade, and later “signed off” on Senate cap and trade legislation as well as explicitly lobbied for a higher gas tax. So Obama’s insistence the oil industry has opposed relevant regulations tooth and nail is less than accurate.

    While Obama was placing as much unearned blame at industry’s feet as possible, he was also sidestepping his own administration’s complicity in the crisis. He stated towards the beginning of his speech:

    A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe –- that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.

    That obviously was not the case in the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why.

    Well, perhaps he should ask his cabinet members–you know, the ones he just put in charge of the new commission investigating the incident. On March 31 in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base, he told the nation that Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and climate czar Carol Browner had assured him that additional Gulf Coast drilling would be safe.

    But the president of course did not put the blame at their feet. In fact, as Byron York noted:

    [I]n this moment of crisis, Obama is relying on the same team that earlier gave him “the assurance that [offshore drilling] would be absolutely safe” — advice that he now openly says was wrong. And what is the “green team” telling him now? That it is impossible to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf. Politico’s Mike Allen channels West Wing thought this way: The Gulf gusher is a battle we can’t win. So we had to make this tragedy about something bigger than the liveshot of spewing oil. So having surrendered on the challenge of stopping the oil, Obama tried to redirect the public’s attention away from the spill and onto the political debate over a cap-and-trade bill. The short version of the strategy: Give up and change the subject. Like everything else Obama has tried so far in the Gulf crisis, it won’t work.


    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/06/16/doing-job-media-wont-do-fact-checking-obamas-gulf-spill-address#ixzz0r7dr1CbY

  19. If this doesn’t scare you…….

    Who is it on SUFA that doesn’t like us to call public schools indoctrination?


    • I’m not sure what that means “I’m an Obama Scholar”, but it’s a very small part in an otherwise innocuous motivational rally.

      I can be anything I want to be.. anything.. doctor.. lawyer.. judge.. President.. if my mind can conceive it.. I will be motivated..

      Obama was a tremendous scholar.. if nothing else, his academic career is commendable. As such, and within those narrow bounds, to say that one is an Obama Scholar could simply mean that one is an exceptional, intelligent and hard working student. I would be very interested to know if they had had any discussion of being an Obama Scholar beforehand that might define it as such instead of what people on the right tend to infer.

      That said, I am generally against this particular chant though I don’t see anything too wrong with it either.

      Finally, I do not agree that schools are indoctrination centers. There is no indication in this video (brief as it is) that they are advocating for Obama’s politics rather than him as a role model, especially considering the racial makeup of the students.

      • If this response is not tongue-in-cheek, you’re in so deep a debate isn’t even worth my time.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Sometimes you are dense beyond reason.

        If they wanted to be MOTIVATED, they could have chanted “I am a scholar”.

        If they wanted to be INDOCTRINATED, they would have been chanting “I am an OBAMA scholar”, which is precisely what they were chanting.

        Schools in Germany in the mid-1930s had eerie similarities to this.

        • Mathius says:

          The chants that you are referencing were something along the lines of “I am a Nazi youth”. Note that “youth” is a far broader term than “scholar.” Being an Obama scholar implies, at least to me, that they are emulating his, you know, scholastic attributes.

          I can see it from both sides and, as I said, I generally disapprove of any sort of leader chants. But the fact is there that he is admirable in his academic capacity, if nothing else, and the chant specifically references academia.

          I need more information before I will pass judgment. But you and Kathy have already made up your minds. You both probably made up your mind a while ago.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            The question you must ask yourself is how would you have felt if the kids were chanting “I am a Nixon scholar” back in 1972 (Yes, I know you are too young to actually know all that much about Nixon, but he was a Republican, and quite the intelligent slimebag).

            I do not think it is appropriate to be using the name of ANY CURRENT SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE US in such a chant.

            Now, if they wanted to chant that they were Jefferson Scholars or Madison Scholars, and they had actually studied the works of those HISTORICAL figures, then I would at least be sort of ok with that.

            The thing that you don’t seem to get, is REGARDLESS of the party affiliation of the current sitting president, kids chanting his name in such a way is an attempt to create a cult of personality among the youth.

            It has nothing to do with what party Obama belongs to. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that worship of a current leader by the youth of a country is demonstrably dangerous.

          • “Note that ‘youth’ is a far broader term than ‘scholar.'”

            … do you really think there is noticeable a difference because they are referencing academia? That is a load of crap and you know it. What does Obama have to do with education? What had he done that other presidents have not? Has he really advanced education that much that he gets this chant? BULL!

            Note: I said difference BECAUSE, I withhold judgement on whether it is the same.

          • Black Order says:

  20. TexasChem said

    There is no moderate Islam and there is no radical Islam. There is just Islam and it is the same now as it was in the 7th century. Hogwash, sir. Just as there Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews, so too are there moderate and lunatic Muslims. I have known more than a few moderate Muslims. You persist in painting 1.2 billion people with a single unflattering brush and it bespeaks impressive and willful ignorance on your part.

    Sharia law has not changed one bit and I’ll be dead damned if I see it used in the courts of America as it is begininng [sic] to be used in the European court systems. This is America. Yes it is America and we are a SECULAR nation. Give me the name of one single solitary politician of legitimate clout who is advocating for Sharia law. And, I swear to god, if you name Obama, I’m going to demand a full and direct quote from a legitimate and reputable news source.

    As a side note, I don’t see people screaming so loudly when evangelicals try to make the Ten Commandments the law of the US. Why is it ok to want to force everyone to be bound by Christian Law, but Muslim Law is abhorrent?

    And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.” Muslims believe in the same god you to. Real Muslims (not the crazed lunatics who are attempting to hijack the religion) consider Christians to be their brethren. In fact, they refer to Christians and Jews as “People of The Book”. They trust in God as well.


    • I agree with Mathius!

      The root and core difference between these religions is so small, an alien would think fighting about it would be wholly irrational.

      Jews believe the Coming of the Savior hasn’t happened yet. Thus, they ignore the Nazarene and Mohammad.

      Christians believe the First Coming happened and are waiting for the Second. Thus, they appear to accept the Nazarene, but ignore Mohammad.

      Muslims believe the First Coming was merely another prophet announcing the Real First Coming who is Mohammad.

      the Jews say “it hasn’t happened yet”,
      Christians “it happened and it will happen again”
      and Muslims “it all happened and there ain’t no more coming”.

      • Black Flag Said:

        the Jews say “it hasn’t happened yet”,
        Christians “it happened and it will happen again”
        and Muslims “it all happened and there ain’t no more coming”.


        Jews: Need to be “perfected” by accepting the lord and savior Jesus Christ.
        Christians: All set and good to go.
        Muslims: Filthy terrorist heathen blasphemers. All evil and hopeless – should be put down like rabid dogs.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          More importantly, John Cougar Mellencamp said, “Nothing matters, and what if it did?”

    • TexasChem says:

      Mathius stated:”Give me the name of one single solitary politician of legitimate clout who is advocating for Sharia law.”

      TC:Ok here is ONE, would you like another?Larry Shaw

      NC: CAIR’s state senator Larry Shaw won’t seek re-election

      North Carolina state senator Larry Shaw, who doubles as chairman for Hamas-linked CAIR, is reportedly not seeking re-election. via Larry Shaw latest senator to hang up his boots – News – NewsObserver.com.

      Sen. Larry Shaw, a Cumberland County Democrat, announced Thursday that he will not seek re-election this year. Shaw has served in the Senate’s 21st District since 1995.

      “My public service duty has been fulfilled and now the torch of community servitude must be passed on,” Shaw said in a written statement. “Now more than ever, Cumberland County needs an individual with an executive mind-set to harness the resources necessary to allow it to continue to develop into a competitive region of the state.”

      Shaw’s departure is the latest in a wave of longtime senators announcing their retirements. Tony Rand, the former majority leader, resigned his seat representing a Cumberland County district at the end of last year.

      Will Shaw be spending more of his time on Islamic endeavors in his role as CAIR chairman?

      As has been ignored by both media and blogs, Larry Shaw mentored a convert to Islam who was recruited to Pakistan by Osama bin Laden’s one-time mentor, also known as the ‘godfather of jihad’ – Abdullah Azzam.

      His pupil graduated to become director of a North Carolina chapter of the Muslim American Society, where she chose to be spokesperson for the ringleader in a major North Carolina Islamic terrorism case.

      CAIR chairman Larry Shaw’s district covers Fort Bragg – home of the 82nd Airborne. Yet one of CAIR’s own advisors and a frequent CAIR guest speaker, Zaid Shakir, has stated that it is OK for Muslims to attack Fort Bragg. Shaw remains silent about his CAIR colleague and appears at events with Shakir.

      Mathius stated:” I have known more than a few moderate Muslims.”

      TC:That is good to know that you have a background in being multi-cultural.I also have a few friends that are EX-Muslim and are Christian now.Ask your Muslim friends what the penalty is for leaving Islam.Apostasy.BlackFlag is probably making squeamish faces right about now I would venture to say!

      Mathius stated:”They trust in God as well.”

      TC:Yup, they will even yell out how great God is as they saw your head off.And Yet, BF says there be no difference between the three abrahamic religions.PFFT.

      Mathius stated:”As a side note, I don’t see people screaming so loudly when evangelicals try to make the Ten Commandments the law of the US. Why is it ok to want to force everyone to be bound by Christian Law, but Muslim Law is abhorrent?”

      TC:You can answer that question for yourself by simply researching Sharia Law and comparing it to the ten commandments for yourself Mathius.You would definitely never have to ask that question again.

  21. Bama dad says:

    Here is an interview for you BF. James Rogers is a smart man when it comes to money. The lady doing the interview is having a hard time digesting what he is saying, she has lived to long in Europe.


    • Bama,

      Some things you need to know about Jim Rogers.

      – He was the partner to George Soros and responsible for making Soros a billionaire.

      – He is a long-vision investor. He admits, quote, “just sucks at market timing”, so don’t ask him “when to invest”. He simply invests where he knows, eventually, things will happen. It may do differently until then, but he doesn’t care.

      – owns most of Singapore.

      So, yep, pay attention to Jim.

      • Bama dad says:

        I liked his take on what Europe should do to “fix” their debt crisis. Don’t send what you don’t have, something the interviewer could not understand.

  22. Gold reached new record high today.

    • Cyndi P says:


      This reminded me of something you mentioned way back. Do I undestand this correctly? You said negastive interest rates would be an indicator of high inflation when all that money the banks are holding hits the ‘street’, or somethinkg to that effect….


      • Cyndi,

        I’m not sure this has created “negative” interest rates in the term I used.

        “Negative” interest rate = “fee”

        So when the FED changes their policy of paying interest on bank reserves into charging a fee to hold excessive reserves, then inflation will be roaring back.

        This hasn’t happened …. yet….

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    So, how does this $20 Billion BP slush fund ACTUALLY work?

    BP is to pay $2 Billion to the US government in the 3rd and 4th quarters of this year. BP is to pay an additional $3 Billion to the US Government in 2011. Thereafter, BP is to pay the US government $1.25 billion per annum until the $20 billion is paid off.

    IN THE MEANTIME, the US GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN OUT A LEIN ON $20 BILLION IN “BP OWNED ASSETS” HERE IN THE US. What that means, is that in the event of a default or a bankruptcy by BP, THE US GOVERNMENT CAN CLAIM THOSE ASSETS.

    Once again, this will violate bankruptcy law (if BP ever does go bankrupt), because the claims of the US Government on BP assets will SUPERSEDE the claims of BP secured bond-holders. Of course, this would leave the US Government in possession and control of virtually all of BP’s US Operations.

    I would be willing to bet that Obama and his cadre with do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to ENSURE that BP goes bankrupt within the next 2.5 years. Just watch!

  24. from the Bobo Files

    Color Bar
    7 06 2010

    Not too long ago in this country, there were two sets of laws in this country- one for whites and one for everyone else. This was (and is) utterly stupid and a violation of everything this country stands for. There are still vestiges of this unpleasantness lingering furtively in many neighborhoods in the country (not just the deep south), but it has largely been forced underground- for the most part. This is a good thing- it means that society (in general terms) is unwilling to accept this sort of inequality and injustice any more, and it will gradually wither and die out. Hopefully sooner than later.

    Then we started paying more attention to another separate and unequal set of laws based on color. This time, the color was green. Court cases have been widely publicized wherein wealthy people- regardless of skin color- were allowed to treat the laws as suggestions. Acts which would land Joe Citizen in the pokey only resulted in verbal warnings or “personal recognizance” bonds for those with money. In court, the wealthy very rarely were forced to suffer the consequences of their actions until those actions grew into atrocities- and sometimes, even that wasn’t enough to put a really wealthy person behind bars. We’re still dealing with this as a culture, but the American people are growing less willing to put up with this sort of inequality as well. Call it schadenfreude if you will, but we like it when the wealthy get more than a slap on the wrist for breaking the laws. The trend for many years was toward fewer repercussions for those with money, and this, too, is un-American. It needs to become extinct.

    Lately, however, a much more sinister color bar has raised its ugly head. There are increasing stories in the media about a new double-standard for laws based on color, only this time, the color is blue.

    Let me start by conceding that police in this country have a tough job. This does not give them the right to treat the citizens who employ them as enemies, however. Unfortunately, this is increasingly the case.

    The latest outrage concerns an off-duty police officer in Baltimore who shot an unarmed man to death in an alley behind a bar. This officer fired off all thirteen rounds at his target- who was about ten feet away- and only hit him six times. When the on-duty cops arrived, the shooter refused a breathalyzer test and was not arrested. But wait- there’s more! He was also involved in a drunken shooting in 2005, wherein he had shot someone in the foot during an altercation outside a bar. Sound familiar? Worse still, it turns out that this same officer had shot another unarmed man to death in 1995- this time shooting his victim in the back as he was running away.

    After the first two incidents, why was this imbecile permitted to carry a firearm, much less remain a police officer? We (the People) grant police authority over us to enforce the laws, but the police don’t seem to enforce those laws fairly or equitably when a police officer is involved. When was the last time a police “internal investigation” returned a verdict that even implied that a police officer had broken the law- or even “departmental policy”? The police brass in the Baltimore incident privately said that they were “troubled” by the officer’s actions. Troubled? WTF are these idiots smoking? Why isn’t this officer behind bars right now? Oh, right. Two sets of rules- one for cops, and one for everyone else.

    More at the link.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      So, in Long Island NY, a woman correction officer was given back her guns on Tuesday after having had them taken away from her for some stupidity or other. On Wednesday she shot her ex-lover to death and her uncle too. She then wounded her grandfather and abducted her niece.

      It is the double standard again. The President could not pass a security check to become his own secret service agent and yet he is president. This woman could not legally purchase a firearm and pass an instant background check and they hand her the guns.

      It’s like my grandad used to say , there is one rule for you and anoder for dem.

  25. Some of you may be interested: June 18th is “Random Acts of Anarchy Day“. Helpful. Public. Voluntary. Responsible. And without coercive government being involved in any way.

  26. The U.S. wins the right to abduct innocent people with impunity


    • Welcome Tony!

      Will do some research on this case as per your suggestion.

    • Well, did a quick read of several sites. It appears that U.S. officials acted on information received from Canadian officials; this gentlemen is a citizen of both Canada and Syria and it was believed that he had terrorist ties so he was sent to Syria.

      But the U.S. is at fault? So what are we supposed to do – not go along with or believe Canada’s advice? I’m guessing he was sent to Syria and not to Canada as per Canada’s instructions.

      Am I wrongly interpreting this? If so, would appreciate a site recommendation, and if I’m not, what would you have the U.S. officials do BF?

      • Kathy,

        Sending a man to another country to be tortured is a sickening, perverse thing to do.

      • Kathy,

        No, he was not sent to Syria per Canadian instructions. Canada gave no such instructions.

        Canada was at fault.

        Canada apologized.

        US was at fault.

        They cannot be wrong.

    • Tony,

      You are right.

      It is worse.

    • TexasChem says:

      The man has ties to terrorists and is just using the wests’ liberal minded idiotic judicial system.
      BlackFlag already knows this and is just trying to stir up a sh*tstorm.He has been linked to the KHADR family ehh BF? 🙂

  27. he Unknown Citizen
    by W. H. Auden

    (To JS/07 M 378
    This Marble Monument
    Is Erected by the State)

    He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
    One against whom there was no official complaint,
    And all the reports on his conduct agree
    That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a
    For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
    Except for the War till the day he retired
    He worked in a factory and never got fired,
    But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
    Yet he wasn’t a scab or odd in his views,
    For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
    (Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
    And our Social Psychology workers found
    That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
    The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
    And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
    Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
    And his Health-card shows he was once in hospital but left it cured.
    Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
    He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Instalment Plan
    And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
    A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
    Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
    That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
    When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
    He was married and added five children to the population,
    Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his
    And our teachers report that he never interfered with their
    Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
    Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard

%d bloggers like this: