Tuesday Night Open Mic for September 28, 2010

We come to the open mic night on the heels of a good conversation around public education. I would like to once again thank GrafZeppelin127 for taking the time to write an article that was interesting and excellently written, and then for also coming by and participating in the conversation around the article. I hope that he will find time in the future to write for us again here at SUFA, and further that he will find time to drop in now and then and participate in other conversations. I will not be available to write an article for Wednesday night and perhaps Thursday. If that is the case I intend to post one on Friday night. I will be trying to do one Thursday night though. For tonight’s open mic topics we have Pelosi perhaps losing support from her peers as Speaker of the House, an interesting poll on where voters get their information, Colbert going to Congress, and the US government looking for even more access to private communications in order to “protect the citizens.” I look forward to the conversations!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Some Dems Won’t Commit to Re-Upping Pelosi as Speaker

    Even if Democrats retain a slim majority in the House this November, Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have an insurrection on her hands from moderate Democrats looking for a change in leadership.

    Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who two weeks ago threw a colossal insult at his party by joining Republicans in a pledge to repeal the health care law, stepped out of line again over the weekend by telling a pair of Capitol Hill newspapers he wants someone other than Pelosi leading the chamber — specifically pro-defense Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

    Taylor’s comments add an element of chaos into the mix. Worst-case scenario for Democrats would be that defectors like Taylor, who would almost certainly struggle to mount an effective mutiny inside the caucus, could torpedo the speaker vote in the full chamber and hand the post to Minority Leader John Boehner.

    Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires members to vote for one of the two parties’ nominees — perhaps no Democrat would dare vote for Boehner — but enough votes for a de facto write-in candidate could act as a Pelosi spoiler if Democrats hold a slim majority.

    More likely, however, is that Pelosi will face a rare, though symbolic, challenge to her reign, marking a shift in loyalties compared with the past two election seasons when Pelosi enjoyed unanimous support from her caucus.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/27/dems-wont-commit-upping-pelosi-speaker/

    I have to be up front and admit, which won’t be a surprise to many of you, that this article brings me perhaps the greatest joy of the night. I literally saw the headline and started chuckling to myself. I have many reasons for this, primarily because I think she is a classless person and as intellectually dishonest as anyone in Congress, perhaps more so. And that is no small statement given the level of intellectual dishonesty from those 535 bozos.

    Let me first say that I don’t think it is going to matter. Unless the Democrats have a major trick up their sleeve for the upcoming couple of weeks, I believe that the GOP will take control of the House. When that happens, we are merely seeing the tennis match continue. We will then be able to watch the GOP screw the pooch for a couple of years instead of the Dems. As an added bonus I would have the opportunity to go after the OTHER party for a while, and then my readers can accuse me of being a shill for the Democrats instead of the GOP!

    Back to the story though. I hope to elicit some thoughtful responses on this particular question. I know that many people simply despise Pelosi, including myself. But I am interested in getting some honest answers to why Pelosi all of the sudden finds herself in the crosshairs of even her own party? I will offer my thoughts first:

    I believe that many in Pelosi’s party in DC are beginning to realize what a true liability Pelosi is. The far left folks, like her, along with the far right folks too, are so caustic and dishonest in their statements, that it alienates anyone who would attempt to be rational in the House. In short, because she is often such a nasty person, she presents a very bad image of the party in power. An image of a lying, spinning, ultra-partisan, fear-mongering, cut-throat, elitist. Don’t get me wrong, she isn’t alone and it isn’t just her party. Both sides are the same.

    In today’s newly forming political environment, I believe that politicians in DC are starting to realize that the people aren’t interested in their games. They are beginning to realize that the very reason that the US Congress has an approval rating half that of Bush at his lowest point, is because of people like Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, McConnell, Frank, Dodd, and all the others like them. In their race for self preservation, those politicians are beginning to try to put some distance between themselves and these ultra partisan folks. The American people simply don’t like those folks,and more important do not trust them, and that means that the smart move is to dis-associate from them.

    In Pelosi’s case, outside of her district, she is one of the most despised politicians in Washington DC today because of the nasty, deceitful person she is. Washington is realizing that the American population is turning against this type of politician with greater frequency and force. So they cannot afford to have her out there as the face of the party. It is simply bad for business. Kind of like having Michael Vick as the face of a veterinary clinic.

    • Morning All 🙂

      With alittle luck, the old warhorse won’t get reelected. I once had an old desert combat boot that resembled her, wish I kept it for target practice!

    • Matthews to Disaffected Left: C’mon Obama Has Pushed the Progressive Policies ‘We Were All Taught’ in Grad School to Do!

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz10vjPmLks

      I think that describes Pelosi as well, her agenda drives her. Taylor/Skelton
      might be honest, moderate Democrats seeking to reclaim the party from the radical left, or self-serving power seekers. Either way, it’s hard to imagine anyone worst than Pelosi.

    • As an added bonus I would have the opportunity to go after the OTHER party for a while, and then my readers can accuse me of being a shill for the Democrats instead of the GOP!

      Nah, you’ve been pretty fair (even when you’re wrong … 🙂 … it was BF who slipped up and defended bailouts (GM) and claimed the privately schooled geniuses running the big corps “can’t make mistakes” (sort of like that universe/reason/rational argument) … so BF gets the shill badge … but I know he’s a good guy, so it’s all in discourse.

      The Bills will rock Reevis and his buttheads this week ….

      • Charlie, Charlie, Charlie

        (1) I didn’t defend the bailouts.
        (2) The guys running GM had a plan, they executed the plan, they worked the plan, and it worked exactly according to plan. They did not fail.
        (3) You misunderstand success and failure.

        and
        (4) You’re a good guy too….even when you make mistakes.

      • Charlie,

        I appreciate that. I think that most people think that I am fair, but most also think that when I say that I think the GOP is as bad as the Democrats that I don’t really mean it. I do. Having them in power would give me the chance to ride them and change some minds. Fundamentally I would lean more right than left. I don’t believe in the progressive movement at all. I like some of what the GOP says they will do, but not what they actually do.

        As for the Bills. The new quarterback certainly looked better than Edwards. But I think the Jets D is better than the Patriots. Will be a tough game. Sanchez is playing better each week. Reevis, however, appears to be out for this game, so no one will be on the island.

        USW

        • I hear you. I like much of what the Libertarian party stands for, but can’t let go of national health insurance and some other issues the Libs want no part of. I saw where Finland was rated #1 in the world in education (a day late of your education discussion here). It’s a small population and parents played a huge role, but they have national heatlh insurance and 3 teachers in each classroom …

          Bills are probably the worst team in the league this season (and next) but why not, they have the worst management in the league … still, hope springs eternal … the romantic/sucker in me

          • Charlie,

            Please answer these questions. You can have Doc help you.

            Health Care is an “economic good”.
            True or False?

            Apples are an “economic good”.
            True or False?

            Novels written by Charlie are an “economic good”.
            True or False?

            Do you value health care?
            Do you value Apples?
            Do you value Books by Charlie?

            Does value have a price?

            Do you believe that you can have something that is very valuable at a price that is very cheap by using force to create an artificial price?

            If forcing an artificial low price for “this” economic good that you claim is so valuable that it must be made cheap works, do you support such an idea for all economic goods? If not, why some and not others, such as apples or novels?

            Do you believe low value goods should be made more expensive to offset the artificial lowering of very valuable goods price?

            Do you believe that all goods prices should be set by a committee to ensure “fairness”?

            • I believe national health insurance is an absolute necessity (for moral reasons). We can trim the fat everywhere else and find a way to pay for it.

              Now, do I believe we should leave the borders open so anyone without it came come here to get it? No.

              I don’t think this government (either party) can handle running a lemonade stand, never mind national health insurance, but under my plan (the Stella plan), this government would be tossed off high-rises (both parties) so they wouldn’t be in charge … just me (who is NEVER wrong).

              Now, the fact some of yous wouldn’t want to anti-up for it, well, tough noogies. You have to … or leave (which will help decrease the population problems–attrition works for me).

              My universe (the curmodgeon gov’t–Stella plan) says everybody (18 year olds) HAVE to serve in the military for at least 1 year (probably 2) so not only do they EARN the benefits they’ll receive forever … they’ll also learn how to make a bed and tie their shoes and get up for work in the morning. Should war break out, EVERYBODY gets to serve (not just poor kids or brave volunteers) … everybody.

              For those who feel they shouldn’t be forced to serve … there’s always France.

              The Stella Manifesto … more to come …

              • Charlie,

                Do you have a vacation home in North Korea? ❓

              • MORAL REASONS?!?

                It is immoral to force me to place my business development at risk by forcing me to purchase insurance I choose not to have. It is a direct violation of my freedom, and I will not abide by the law as it currently is.

                It is immoral to force me to engage in military service as it may invovle diret violation of my beliefs concerning violence.

                It is immoral for me to burden another by force, be that force my own actions and threats or that of law.

                National Health insurance that is mandated for participation and/or payment is IMMORAL!

              • Like I said, Jon, In Stella-land, you get to leave if you don’t like His (my) version of morality.

                I understand your beefs about that. I just don’t buy them.

                More this weekend, rough couple of days.

              • Or I can make you leave if I do not like how you run things. You want your own little land, no problem, but it better not encroach on my territory.

              • More Ayn Rand drivel … I don’t buy it.

              • Ok, screw morality. Let’s break it down like this: You don’t get to lay a finger on my earnings, you have no right to them. You laying a finger on it affects my future, harms my potential. Hell, it probably adds more stress to me and will do more to damage my health than the health care could ever do to help it. It adds this stress because I strive to get better. If others do not, that is fine, but blocking my way is just another thing I and others like me will always strive against.

              • The “striveanator” … sorry, but the weight of health care is a bit more of a moral cause than your pocketbook.

                Y ou’ll have to leave …

              • The “weight of healthcare”? What exactly has you so up in arms abuot the moral imperative of health care? Do you really think that all of the uninsured in this country are pining away for health insurance? There are a LOT like me who do not want it or need it.

                It’s INSURANCE! Its not care for the sick, its insurance. There is no moral imperative to cover a what if.

              • Charlie,

                Thanks for trying to NOT answer my questions. 😉

                I believe national health insurance is an absolute necessity (for moral reasons)

                .

                There is no dispute in that.

                I KNOW you feel it is a moral question.

                The problem

                You are trying to justify it economically – and it simply is impossible.

                If you say I believe it is Right to kill and steal other people’s wealth and money so that some people will improve their health – then you have a position! It’s called a Political Position.

                Now, you’ll still have to defend it – but the defense is in the realm of politics.

                But the moment you claim that some economic magic will work you are so out to lunch, they are ringing the dinner bell!

                We can trim the fat everywhere else and find a way to pay for it.

                Impossible

                There will be a constant acceleration of demand for an ever decreasing supply.

                Now, do I believe we should leave the borders open so anyone without it came come here to get it? No.

                Irrelevant.

                Why do you complain about immigrants?

                Why do you not complain about welfare-class?

                They are the same people with a different skin color

                So your argument is racist-based, true?

                My universe (the curmodgeon gov’t–Stella plan) says everybody (18 year olds) HAVE to serve in the military for at least 1 year (probably 2)

                Slavery

                so not only do they EARN the benefits they’ll receive forever … they’ll also learn how to make a bed and tie their shoes and get up for work in the morning.

                That’s their parents job.

              • BF, I can’t do this tonight (probably not in this lifetime). Your rational thinking doesn’t fit my paradigm (not because my paradigm is flawed–your rational thought is flawed) … why, you ask? Because you don’t get to walk back that GM bailout or the fact what I sarcastically call “geniuses” running big business, you claim “can’t fail” … because they were some of the brightest …

                Forgetaboutit … that flies like I vertical leap (not very far).

                More on the weekend, fellas … hopefully Doc can join your chorus by then … we’re hooking up friday night to solve the beer overflow problem in Fords, NJ.

                Stay cool, wingies … don’t shoot nobody while I’m gone.

              • Charlie

                Your rational thinking doesn’t fit my paradigm (not because my paradigm is flawed–your rational thought is flawed

                Your paradigm IS flawed, but successful in the short term.

                Thus this is where your mind lives – in the short term.(Economic speak: its called “a short time preference”)

                The damage that your paradigm delivers will be done to your children and their children, and probably not to you – thus, this is your measure of success – you win – it matters not one wit whether they win or not.

                ) … why, you ask? Because you don’t get to walk back that GM bailout or the fact what I sarcastically call “geniuses” running big business, you claim “can’t fail” … because they were some of the brightest …

                Whose walking back?

                I defined precisely what I meant by success and fail, and that they -indeed- succeeded and spectacularly at that!

                What bothers you is that they did win. You don’t like that, so you’ll conjure up all sorts of dust and fluff to try to obscure the situation.

                But the fact is: GM is still around, is still rich, and the Unions are “gone”.

          • I give Finland 10 years tops. They are still riding on a late industrial revolution, they still have a lot of freedom supporting their manufacturing sector, they are the most sparsely populated country in Europe. These things contribute to relative financial stability, but they will run out. Especially since they are the oldest population in Europe, meaning their social security system, having already been cut back some, will have to suffer a lot more cuts to stay viable.

            As for the national health insurance, well, again I point to the coming storm of the older population. Besides all that, they do not have the R&D to have the level of medicine they do if it were not for importing technology from more innovative medical nations like ours used to be.

            • Charlie, Jon.

              Finland.

              NEGATIVE 8% growth (ie: they shrunk 8%.)

              This is huge.

              The US, in the midst of economic turmoil, still managed a meek +1.5%

              Unemployment:
              9% and rising.

              In 1991 the Finnish economy fell into recession.

              Stock market and housing prices declined by 50%.[10]

              The growth in the 1980s was based on debt, and when the defaults began rolling in, GDP declined by 13% and unemployment increased from a virtual full employment to one fifth of the workforce.

              The crisis was amplified by trade unions’ initial opposition to any reforms.

              Politicians struggled to cut spending and the public debt doubled to around 60% of GDP.[10]

              Much of the economic growth in the 1980s was based on debt financing, and the debt defaults led to a savings and loan crisis.

              Total of over 10 billion euro were used to bail out failing banks, which led to banking sector consolidation.

              After devaluations the depression bottomed out in 1993.

              So Charlie, their answer to socialism was default, depression and devaluations.

              They ripped apart their economy, and started again –doing the same stupid economics that devastated them before – bloody geniuses (roll eyes).

              The difference with the US however is that all of Finland represents less than 5% of the economic output of the USA

              Your plan -which follows lockstep the Finnish – will not only devastate this country, but most of the world

              • My info was out of date, I give them 5 years, lol. I knew they had a recent drop in growth, a huge one. Did not know the rest of them falling apart was so far along… 🙂

              • Both of yous, I mentioned that in my first comment about Finland (they’re small and parents play a big roll); no new info in your rolling scrolling comments … oy vey. Jon, give them 10, fine. What do you give us? We’re the ones about to go broke. You say because of government (possibly correctly). I say because we let the corporate car run away from the speed limits.

              • Actually I say both. The corporate guys got immunity instead of being subject to the free market forces, and the government has run away with things for sure. Even you do not deny the corruption and waste, even if you doubt the failure of government running the lives of people and the distribution of wealth.

              • Jon, I’m with you, brother. I do see the waste of government (but it is this government). Maybe a better devised system with more hands on control of the people (occasional referendums might help). I know most of this country does not want to continue the insanity of an Afghanistan war.

              • Or any others for that matter. We are not under threat, we leave em to do whatever. They threaten again, we body slam them hard then leave again. This dragged out stuff and all these limitations on defensive action should have been learned from in Korea.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    U.S. Works To Make Internet Wiretaps Easier

    The Obama administration is pushing to make it easier for the government to tap into internet and e-mail communications. But the plan has already drawn condemnation from privacy groups and communications firms may be wary of its costs and scope.

    Frustrated by sophisticated and often encrypted phone and e-mail technologies, U.S. officials say that law enforcement needs to improve its ability to eavesdrop on conversations involving terrorism, crimes or other public safety issues.

    Critics worry the changes are an unnecessary invasion of privacy and would only make citizens and businesses more vulnerable to identity theft and espionage.

    The new regulations that would be sent to Congress next year would affect American and foreign companies that provide communications services inside the U.S. It would require service providers to make the plain text of encrypted conversations – over the phone, computer or e-mail – readily available to law enforcement, according to federal officials and analysts.

    The mandate would likely require companies to add backdoors or other changes to the systems that would allow a wiretap to capture an unscrambled version of a conversation.

    Those affected by the changes would include online services and networking sites such as Facebook and Skype, as well as phone systems that deliver encrypted e-mail such as BlackBerry.

    “The way we communicate has changed dramatically since 1994, but telecommunications law has not kept up. This gap between reality and the law has created a significant national security and public safety problem,” said Valerie E. Caproni, the FBI’s General Counsel.

    She said the changes would not expand law enforcement authority and would involve legally authorized intercepts on calls or e-mails sent by terrorists or other criminals. The changes would allow companies to respond quickly to wiretap requests from local, state and federal authorities.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/internet-wiretaps-would-b_n_740064.html

    As part of my favorite action of government clowns, we find that the very party that talked about how horrible the PATRIOT Act was as an invasion of privacy, seeks to do the same things. As I already reported in the past, despite talking about how the PATRIOT Act was a result of GOP fear mongering and an invasion of privacy for Americans, The Obama administration promptly extended the Patriot Act once in office. It seems that the outrage from Democrats was only a political ploy during a campaign. I am shocked that a candidate would stoop to such levels as saying something they don’t actually believe in order to gain votes.

    Under the guise of protecting us from terrorism (shockingly despite the fact that the same administration refuses to any longer use the term “war on terror”), they want to have a law that says all of the service providers must have a “back door” that allows the government agencies easy access to unencrypted versions of whatever anyone says. This is a blatant violation of my privacy in my opinion. I no longer believe that the government is capable of stopping terrorists who want to harm people. They are simply too inept at whatever they do, and their track record hasn’t been so hot, despite ever growing intrusions into our privacy.

    Is there really anyone who any longer believes that the US government can be trusted with such tools to invade our private worlds? Is there anyone who believes that there will not be more use of this against US citizens than “terrorism suspects”? I mean really, in a country where the head of the Department of Homeland Security ranks returning veterans and right wing groups who believe in the Constitution as greater threats than international terrorists, how can we possibly trust them to use this tool judiciously?

    • Pelosi is THE most reprehensible person in congress…IMHO. I totally agree with your assessment of her…

    • Having been in the communications business for close to 30 years now, it has always been common knowledge in the business…do not say anything on the phone (landline or mobile) that you would not shout from the front door of your house.

      I have received numerous subpoenas from law enforcement agencies to “tap” phones…the extent of my experience is in wireless applications, so that is where all of these subpoenas have been applied. I have worked with local law enforcement, DEA, FBI, ATF and several other agencies to eaves drop on suspected criminals. There has always been a big brother looking…it is growing more powerful with each passing year.

      • Terry,

        I understand the “judicious” part of things. What they are asking for is access to the back door and the encryption codes so that they can move faster. What I believe that means is that they want to be able to do it whenever they want, claiming that they simply didn’t have time to wait for a judge to sign the order.

        The Big Brother thing is really getting out of hand these days. I am wondering how long until the screens are installed in our living quarters.

        USW

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Wow – stop the presses folks – USW just quoted to ACLU in support of a position.

      Anyway – a few random thoughts

      (1) I believe all technologies should be forensic and monitoring-capable. While there are multiple ways for a bad guy to obtain and use forensic software and build the right hardware to forensically copy a multitude of devices, there is no evidence this is a common practice (negating the idea that requiring forensically-capable systems will result in a huge upswing of illegal access. Possible? Yes. Likely? No).

      (2) I am not a support of warrant-less wiretapping. Removing checks and balances undermines the very things we were founded on.

      (3) Privacy issues should never be political.

      (4) The person who signs their name to a warrant should be held legally accountable to the input into the warrant and the execution thereof. No exceptions. Not a perfect system but the best we’ve got.

      (5) The issue as I read different angles on this story is that LE is requesting the capability/insight/visibility/access to information/data that is supported by a signed warrant and transmitted/stored/processed by newer technologies (sidebar – since when the hell is encryption new?) that do not inherently provide monitoring/forensic access by design. To be clear – there are dozens of use cases all with different nuances. For example, monitoring P2P traffic is a far different animal than monitoring skype in terms of protocol-state, location of sniffers, inline v. mirroring, etc. The real challenge imho is a well-written law (stop laughing!) that neither undermines nor exceeds the needed access. As a largely sectoral privacy model nation, we have to strike a balance that satisfies the needs of both LE and the requirements and expectations of privacy.

      • “I am not a support of warrant-less wiretapping. Removing checks and balances undermines the very things we were founded on.”

        I’m with you on this, Ray. Any thoughts on how the Democrats were against this, until they were in power?

      • Ray,

        I will quote the ACLU when they are right, and lambast them when they are wrong, which is far more often.

        You obviously understand this stuff way better than most of us since it falls right into your wheelhouse. Do you really believe that a well written law would protect us sufficiently? I ask that in earnest. It seems to me that the federal government does pretty much whatever they like, and work around the rules whenever it is more convenient that following them. That is why I have such an aversion to giving them more access and power.

        USW

    • There does seem to be a lot of rhetoric over terrorism all the sudden:
      http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama-america-can-absorb-another-911/
      Not sure what that is all about, sounds a little fishy to me, but I can guarantee they will use any attacks to ramp up controls and gain power, so will the Republicans if it happens on their watch, unless we can replace enough of them with right minded versions.

      • I had heard about his particular quote from Obama. I am unsure of how to interpret it. Does it mean, as the author implies, that the left sees an attack as par for the course like accidents and cars? I don’t know. But I do agree that the best we can do is attempt to prevent it. It is impossible to guarantee that we can prevent it. Where we have to draw the line is when the actions taken to prevent it become worse than the attacks themselves. The PATRIOT Act mentioned above is an example. The Act doesn’t give us such horrible images, but its negatives are far worse that the 3000 lost on 9/11

        USW

    • USWep,

      Good luck to them. The more tightly they want to control the ‘Net the more the ‘Net works loose.

      Advanced encryption plus offshore VPN plus “Alter-net” services…. they will push the very people they want to watch further into the impossible to watch.

      But its the classic failure of modern police. They are so lazy that without a tool or a machine, they cannot do simple police work. This is their failure point.

    • This is yet another example of the police state that the Regime is building on. I too, noticed that the party who complained loudest about the Patriot Act has only expanded it and done nothing to limit or repeal it. Some folks are satisfied with ‘terrorists’ being targeted. So what’s to stop the police state from declaring all political opponents ‘terrorists’? The political opposition has already been called Nazis, racists, Haters, right-wing extremists, teabaggers, etc. They’ve also been designated as ‘terrorist suspects’. So what’s to stop the government from taking that last step? Um, that would be nothing.

      • I have always wondered just why our DOJ pushed for the Patriot Act. After 9/11, the people in power started doing things and creating organizations such as DHS and putting parts of DOJ under it. The NSA has always monitored incoming calls from suspect sources overseas, like from the middle east. I did not see any reason for warrantless wire taps of American citizens, in my opinion if the DOJ had reasonable cause to suspect that we had a home grown terrorist inside our country that was receiving messages from overseas all they had to do is approach a federal judge with the evidence and he would authorize the tap. As for DHS, that is one unholy mess that was never needed in the first place. Renaming and redirecting federal law enforcement agencies was nothing but smoke and mirrors to put all of the DOJ under the thumb of the currant POTUS and nothing more. Case in point is how the “investigation” of voter intimidation by the new black panthers was conveniently dropped.

        Sure am glad that I am retired!

        • Hi G.A.,

          I used to think that the Truthers were just plain crazy. Now, eh, not so much.

          Right after 9/11, I accepted that a bunch of muslim terrorists got lucky and had a successful attack. Now, after seeing how the US government has VERY conveniently used ‘terrorism’ to grab more power and wealth, and basically lay groundwork for a coming police state, refused to secure the borders, demonize politcal opposition, etc., I’m more convinced than ever that 9/11 was a US government operation, or was known about and allowed to happen as part of the Never-Let-A-Good- Crisis-Go-To-Waste way of operating.

          Should our Marxist Masters repeal the Patriot Act and all associated police state legislation/powers, I might reconsider my position.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    House leader calls Colbert testimony ‘an embarrassment’

    The House’s No. 2 Democratic leader said Sunday that comedian Stephen Colbert’s testimony last week on immigration was “inappropriate” and “an embarrassment.”

    Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California invited Colbert to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. But other Democrats weren’t happy about her decision.

    The committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., asked Colbert to leave the room at the beginning of the hearing because the comedian had no expertise in farm labor issues or immigration policy.

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told Fox News Sunday he thought the episode was more of an embarrassment to Colbert than to the House. But, he added, “I think it was inappropriate” that he testified.

    Lofgren spokesman Pedro Ribeiro declined comment Sunday.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-26-colbert-hoyer-hearing_N.htm

    Also see the video here:

    I have several conflicting thoughts on the testimony from Colbert at Congress last week. My first thought is that this is an embarrassment to the United States. We have a comedian that basically appeared before the United States Congress and made a mockery of the entire thing. We should be ashamed that something like this happened. I mean, realistically, who thought it would be a good idea for televised hearing in Congress to have a guy come in that would basically mock and make fun of the entire process. He didn’t appear as an average American citizen having their voice heard in the halls of power. Had that been the case it might be different in my eyes. He appeared in character, making fun of the whole thing.

    My secondary thought is that this was perfect. A clown performing on the world largest Kangaroo Court stage. Congress has made a complete joke of themselves for quite a while now. It is nothing but theater and staged outrage and protests. So I would suppose that having a comedian come in and perform as a fake character is certainly fitting, since we have not seen an honest representation of someone’s thoughts for quite some time in the halls of Congress. The members of the House subcommittee should be recognized for what they have become: a group of jesters who simply brought another jester in to add more ridiculousness to the political stage.

    Realistically, how can we possibly take the Congress seriously when this is the sort of thing they are doing. This was either a staged stunt by the Democrats who invited him, or it was a glowing example of how inept the entire process is. As for Colbert himself, I guess he should be commended for going in and treating the Congress as the joke it has become. His parody of testimony is a fairly funny political statement. The best part was that Pelosi said it was a good thing, “a real American bringing an important issue to more of an audience.”

    I realize that my first two paragraphs contradict each other. I am not “outraged” by it as some are. But I do think it was completely inappropriate for what we expect the United States Congress to be. On the other hand, it certainly fits in with the theater and running joke that Congress has become. But I am interested in hearing what everyone else thinks of the testimony. I am hoping that the video of the testimony appears above. It lasted 6 minutes. If it doesn’t I ask that someone find the video and put it here. I know some of you post videos regularly. And then everyone can chime in on what they think of this.

    • Maybe this is simply a statement by this committee that the subject of immigration is a joke to them. This would fall inline with subjects like the Bill of Rights, States rights, privacy and simply telling the truth. I would have preferred to see a different comedian, like the late George Carlin. Now that would have been entertaining.

    • Stephen Colbert has long been a favorite of mine. His false testimony (can we really call it false, though?) sheds light on the true nature of the issue: Desiring greatly to close our borders to illegal immigration while at the same time demanding that someone other than ourselves do the backbreaking labor we have snubbed our noses at in the past.

      While I agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem and am for tightening our borders, I also believe that America as a Nation must humble themselves and realize that no job is too mean to do. An unemployed person cannot be too picky (no pun intended) in what jobs are available.

      Two sides of America’s mouth have been talking since (atleast) the 1940s. On the one hand, cheap labor has been in the past an economic stimulant (poor wages equals lower costs). America was for that when the going was good. On the other hand, now that the country is overrun and illegal immigrates are certainly putting a drain on our pockets, it’s not okay anymore. America can’t have it both ways. America must learn to be consistent in their policy making. That means thinking ahead at the long term consequences instead of what might be initially beneficial.

      • I am also a fan of Colbert as I think his character as a commentary on American is genius. However, I think that taking that character in front of the US Congress sends a message that we shouldn’t take Congress seriously. While I certainly understand and agree with that message, the question is whether it is the correct message to be sending right now.

        While I agree with the sentiments that you put forth for the most part, the problem is not illegal immigration. That is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that we have for too long prospered under a false economy, one that is manipulated by Keynesian theory which falsely believes that it can be controlled. Add to that the massive spike in entitlement programs over the last century, and we find the real problem. Illegal immigration is a problem because they are a drain on our already limited resources. They are a drain because we have programs that illegal immigrants and others can take advantage of. Take away the entitlement programs, and they will either charge a higher wage or they will cease the immigration. As I said, illegal immigration is nothing but a symptom of our problems, we must not forget that.

        USW

        • Gotta think this one through…a symptom, huh….Ok…will think on this one.

          Sure is a hell of a symptom down here but I will think this through….may be something to it.

        • @D13:
          The whole reason illegal immigration is such a problem now is that it has been left unchecked by the American government for years.
          At first, America saw illegal immigration in the form of migrant workers who picked crops and then went back to their native land (very lucrative for everyone involved). Of course now the immigrants are coming over and, seeing that the grass is, in fact, greener, they decide to stay.
          Now that America is struggling financially, we want someone to blame. When we’re pointing the finger at desperate illegal immigrants, we really should be pointing the finger at ourselves.

          • I had to smirk at a short clip of a onstage comedian whose act was similar to Carlin – funny but poignantly accurate to the truth.

            He said:
            “So you are blaming the immigrant for stealing your job.

            Have you looked at them???

            They can’t speak the language, so the job they get is told to them by Pantomime (he goes and makes circles in the air and hammer like motions, while smiling stupidly)

            And have you seen them? Most of them don’t even have shoes!

            So – you moron Americans – complain that this guy, who can’t speak the language, doesn’t have shoes, probably little education can steal your job!!

            THEN YOU ARE EVEN A BIGGER MORON!

            We should be complaining about those D*** Norwegian Brain Surgeons stealing all our GOOD jobs!

            • Well, lets be honest: We’re getting our jobs taken from us from shoe-less illegal immigrants because of two reasons 1. We’re too proud to break our backs on a solid day’s work. 2. We won’t except anything less than $7.25 an hour.

    • I do not think that he was inappropriate at all. Yes he is a comedian, yes he has a ‘fake’ news program, and yes his ‘character’ is not how he really is. But if you watch his show, between the jokes he does cover topics that are meaningful from time to time. Look what happens when politicians go onto any comedy show. They make jokes about the issues but serious questions also get asked.

      He reported on the farm workers program where very few people took up the challenge to take migrant workers jobs. I don’t know if any other news station did before this but I would suspect it would have been little news at all.

      This is not a testimony to discredit at all. It was delivered by a comedian and there were jokes in the testimony, but he was also talking about a serious issue that we have all discussed here on SUFA many times. Migrant workers are doing this work and that will not change in the foreseeable future.

      Why can’t we fix the system to allow all of these workers to be legal and keep out the people that are here to participate in crime is the actual joke.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Poll: Bill O’Reilly is popular, but Rachel Maddow is unknown to likely voters

    More people are getting their news about the upcoming election from cable television than any other source, and from Fox News more than any other cable channel, according to a POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released Monday.

    The poll found that 81 percent of those polled get their news about the midterm elections from cable channels, like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or their websites, compared with 71 percent from national network news channels, such as ABC, NBC or CBS, and their websites.

    Among cable news channels, Fox was the clear winner, with 42 percent of respondents saying it is their main source, compared with 30 percent who cited CNN and 12 percent who rely on MSNBC.

    The results show the growing influence that 24-hour cable news has on shaping the political consciousness, despite the fact that network newscasts still draw many multiples of the number of viewers of even the highest-rated cable news shows.

    “Because people can tune into cable at any time of day, I think the cumulative audience is probably larger than the cumulative audience for the three network news shows,” said Chris Arterton, dean of the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

    The results of the poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted Sept. 19 to Sept. 22 also reflect a trend that many commentators and media analysts find disconcerting: Voters are turning to media sources that reinforce their political worldviews rather than present them with more objective reporting that might challenge their assumptions.

    “As more people get news from cable channels and websites that offer a particular point of view 24/7, it becomes increasingly important for viewers to sample multiple sources in order to best understand the issues and proposed solutions,” said Michael Freedman, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington and executive director of its Global Media Institute. “This trend is only increasing.”

    Still, newspapers remain an important source of news. Despite steady declines in circulation over the past decade, newspapers are more influential than national news broadcasts when it comes to news on the upcoming election, with 72 percent of respondents saying they turn to newspapers or their websites.

    Local news did better, at 73 percent, and conversations with friends and family was the second-most-cited source, at 79 percent. Radio was cited by only 58 percent of respondents, and non-newspaper websites and blogs by 39 percent.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42738.html

    I didn’t really care about what the study found in terms of what was most popular who which particular personality was better recognized or respected. It isn’t surprising that Maddow would be far less known or popular than O’Reilly. After all, Maddow is on MSNBC, which really doesn’t have anyone paying attention to it other than true far left folks.

    No, the point that stood out to me in the article was that they determined that an increasing number of people are choosing to tune in to shows or networks that reinforce what they already believe. This is not good news. There is so much to be gained from hearing the other side of the beliefs that you hold. We would benefit more from people instead watching only opposing views, so that they are constantly challenged to defend what they believe in their own mind.

    Personally, I don’t watch much in the way of news on TV. Usually if I am watching something political, I am watching C-Span or something like that where I can see what Congress is up to first hand. I am not interested in getting my political opinion from someone like Beck, O’Reilly, Olbermann, or Maddow. None of those folks are trustworthy in terms of giving me the straight scoop without a spin.

    What do you guys think of the poll results? Do they really mean anything? Are we seeing the beginning of the end for the network news stations. I think many Americans are aware that there is no longer an unbiased source of news on the television. Much like the print news, has the television news effectively killed its own credibility by constantly being on one side or the other? If that is the case, I believe that cable news won’t end up far behind. It would appear that the bias negatively affects the sources, while at the same time it would appear that the bias is fine since folks seem to be sticking to sources that espouse their own personal politics.

    As I said, my first inclination is to simply ignore all the results from this particular “study.” There are simply too many flaws and contradictions. But I do think we would be wise to not discount that reality that more folks seem to be sticking to channels that tell them what they already believe. Are there any non-biased news sources out there anymore? Do we have any hope whatsoever that we will one day be able to trust that the news presented will again fall back into “just the facts” rather than a spin on the facts?

    • US…the article stated:”The poll found that 81 percent of those polled get their news about the midterm elections from cable channels, like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or their websites, compared with 71 percent from national network news channels, such as ABC, NBC or CBS, and their websites.”

      Is it just me, or do these numbers seem a bit skewed? How can 81% get their news about mid term elections from cable channels, and 71% get their news from national network news? That would be a total of 152%…or do some get their news from both???

    • More numbers. I have read that the networks are bleeding viewers, and think that will continue unless they get back to un-biased reporting.

      35 percent, NBC, ABC, or CBS
      24 percent Fox News
      16 percent CNN
      8 percent MSNBC

      NBC Forced to Admit More See Tea Party as Good and Want ObamaCare Repealed – And They’re MSM Viewers
      By Brent Baker | Wed, 09/29/2010 – 02:49

      A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll didn’t come up with numbers pleasing to the NBC News staff, though Brian Williams, on Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News, did his best to spin the findings as showing “there is really bad news if you’re an incumbent officeholder of either party” and Chuck Todd insisted the public wants more from the elections than “just change [in] the color of the jerseys.”

      Todd, however, couldn’t avoid reporting that “the change that voters want” includes 54 percent who “hope that this Tea Party enthusiasm in the Republican Party makes them a fiscally conservative party” and “54 percent want to see the repeal of health care.” Plus, “42 percent tell us” the Tea Party movement has “been a good thing” – more than twice as many as see it as a “bad thing.”

      Unmentioned by Todd or Williams: Those pro-Tea Party/anti-ObamaCare numbers came from a polling sample dominated by MSM television news consumers. Question 36, in the PDF rundown of the survey, asked from which “television news sources do you get MOST of your information about politics and current events?” From the list offered,

      35 percent said “broadcast network news, such as NBC, ABC, or CBS,” 16 percent named “the cable channel CNN” and 8 percent affirmed they rely on “the cable channel MSNBC.” That adds up to 59 percent,
      compared to 24 percent who cited “the cable channel Fox News.”

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/#ixzz10vGnpt8C

    • Networks don’t think this newsworthy?

      Scooped: British Publication Tells Us Uncle Sam Having Problems Unloading Citi Shares
      By Tom Blumer | Mon, 09/27/2010 – 01:08

      CITIYou would think someone in the U.S. establishment press would be following Uncle Sam’s progress or lack thereof in getting out from under its investment in Citigroup, especially since the government promised that it would be fully divested from the bank holding company by the end of this year. From all appearances, you would be wrong.

      It looks like the government may not be able to keep that year-end divestiture promise. For a fair number of news followers to learn that, the UK’s Financial Times had to take an interest (link may require registration), and Drudge had to link to it:

      US Treasury stumbles selling Citi shares

      The US government is in danger of missing its deadline of divesting all of its Citigroup shares by the year-end after a fall in stock market trading volumes prompted authorities to slow down sales in July and August.

      The lull could prompt the US Treasury, which has a stake of about 17 per cent in Citi, to consider a share offering instead of selling the stock in small quantities in the market, according to bankers and analysts.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node?page=1#ixzz10vKPGyc5

      • This means nothing to the American Sheeple. Thus no coverage. As long as most of them can a) look at their 401k statment and see that the number of dollars is higher than the last time they looked, or b) they still have electricity and can find out what Snookie is up to, or who’s on Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, etc., they think everything is fine, and that anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

        • from Birdmom,

          Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America ‘s future.

          Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America ‘s resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

          That’s why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America . Here’s why.

          Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

          Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips – they’ve gotten off the fence. They’ve woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven’t seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

          Think of the crap we’ve slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

          We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

          But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

          A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers’ union – whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense – is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

          Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They’re organizing, they’re studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they’re reading history and case law, they’re showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 “FANTASTIC” years— the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

          Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website,aspenranchrealestate.com

          • Not to be a wet blanket BUT 40+% of voters STILL support what’s being done to the country. Over 40%!!!!!! Should the GOP ‘win’, the sheeple will go back to their ‘grazing’. When 80+% of voters are screaming mad, then I might believe that things will improve someday.

            • In the American Revolution, the country was divided in thirds. We aren’t as far as you think. It just means the supporters of freedom have to be more committed than the supporters of the state.

          • This accurately states my feelings and my hopes.

    • I used to watch 60 Minutes, and believed everything they reported.

      New MRC Report Documents Massive CBS Tilt Toward Obama: ‘Syrupy Minutes’
      Tim Graham.

      On Sunday, the season premiere of 60 Minutes will include an anticipated Scott Pelley report on the Ground Zero mosque. Will the story be pro-mosque, just like President Obama? The first clips displayed softballs of sympathy, that it should be seen as “a hub of culture, a hub of coexistence, a hub of bringing people together.” To underline the overwhelming sympathetic tilt of this program in the Obama era — especially all the Steve Kroft hope-and-change goo before the 2008 election — the MRC has a new special report called “Syrupy Minutes.” Here’s my executive summary:

      In the last five years, CBS’s 60 Minutes has become infamous for letting its left-wing ardor get way ahead of its journalistic mission. Dan Rather destroyed his own reputation in 2004 with a 60 Minutes II “expose” of President Bush’s incomplete Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard which relied on falsified documents. A CBS-appointed panel found “myopic zeal” in Rather’s professional demise, but no one would admit a political bias.

      For more than 40 years, CBS has boasted of 60 Minutes as a hard-hitting news show, a weekly story of investigative gumshoes digging up dirt and accusing major business and government leaders of committing dastardly deeds against the public interest. But the history of 60 Minutes isn’t filled to the brim with brutal investigations. It has a much softer, syrupy side, and it isn’t just reserved for movie stars or rock musicians. When it comes to champions of liberalism and even the radical left, the CBS News program has rolled out a red carpet, asking softball questions and lionizing their policy stands and programs – whether they were actually “achievements” or disasters.
      Story Continues Below Ad ↓

      On September 19, a week before the new season officially began, CBS’s Lesley Stahl promoted the latest book of Jimmy Carter, and insisted that Carter was a bigger success than most presidents, including Ronald Reagan: “But when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this: Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” Carter’s utter failure to end the Iranian hostage standoff and crushing inflation and unemployment rates were somehow irrelevant to history. Stahl also gushed to Carter: “A lot of critics of yours, when you were President, say that you’ve been a fantastic ex-President. You hear that all the time.” She said this even as she reminded viewers that Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council telling them they should oppose the first President Bush on the need for the Gulf War.

      In studying 60 Minutes broadcasts from January 1, 2006 through the September 2010 season premiere, Media Research Center analysts have found a very biased pattern of soft interviews and promotional language for the American left:

      — Liberals were featured more than twice as often than conservatives, and were four times more likely to be awarded easygoing interviews. Since 2006, 60 Minutes has aired 35 interviews with liberal leaders and celebrities versus 17 with conservatives. Twenty-four of the 35 interviews with liberals (69 percent) were friendly and unchallenging. Only five of the 17 conservative segments (29 percent) were soft – and one unchallenged conservative was hammering Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified for national office..

      — Barack Obama was a major beneficiary of 60 Minutes admiration. CBS has devoted hours of air time to the promotion of Barack Obama – five interviews before the election, and six after it, all reported by Steve Kroft. Of the 49 Kroft questions in the first four CBS interviews (before the financial crisis hit), 42 were personal or horse-race questions. Only seven focused on issues – five on foreign policy, and two on trade – with no real focus on any domestic issues. Kroft never focused a question on Obama scandals, or his record in the Illinois legislature. Even issue questions were soft and open-ended. Kroft’s interviews were even made into a DVD for nostalgic Obama supporters, Obama All Access.

      — Other candidates for president were not granted the same red carpet as Obama. The contrast was striking to Scott Pelley’s 2008 bailout interview with John McCain: “But why would you let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this on the American taxpayer?” Mike Wallace’s interview with Mitt Romney in 2007 was sharply personal, demanding to know if the Republican candidate had premarital sex with his wife and asking his five sons why none of them had ever joined the military.

      — Liberal journalists and celebrities were also celebrated, and conservative celebrities were hounded. Morley Safer championed Stephen Colbert for satirizing conservative talk show hosts and their “wildly inaccurate, but patriotic and combative noise…With all of their excesses, it was only a matter of time before someone came along to skewer them. Well, the eagle has landed.” Safer also felt the pain of actor Alec Baldwin having to deal with “conservative junkyard dogs like Sean Hannity.” But Mike Wallace confronted Bill O’Reilly: “You are addicted to the power, you are addicted to the money, you are addicted to the fact that ‘I am Bill O’Reilly, and everybody knows it.'”

      A review of the recent output of 60 Minutes should cause media historians to restrain themselves before declaring that this program is a hallmark of hard-hitting journalism, without a political axe to grind. They either carry an axe or a shoe-shine kit.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/09/23/new-mrc-report-documents-massive-cbs-tilt-toward-obama-syrupy-minutes#ixzz10vNEkhN6

    • September 29, 2010
      Trust in media continues to crater
      Rick Moran, American Thinker
      Gallup is reporting that trust in the media “to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly” has fallen again for the fourth straight year. Fifty-seven percent now say they have little or no trust in TV or newspapers.

      The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup’s annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

      Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

      Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans’ views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.

  5. 60 Minutes this past week showed one hell of a story about the outpost in Afghanistan. If that wasn’t reason enough to bring those guys home, nothing is. End it, now. If for no other reason, 60 Minutes served a purpose last week.

    Bills found their offensive Mojo … Reevis and buttheads will get trounced this weekend!

    • Sorry Charlie, whatever they “reported”, it went through the agenda driven spin cycle. I would not believe them on a issue, any more than I would Obama or Pelosi. Doesn’t mean they might not be right sometimes, just would have to hear it from another source.

      60 Minutes Does Fawning Profile of Ground Zero Mosque Backers, Bashes Mosque Opponent.
      Kyle Drennen.

      Scott Pelley, CBS In a Sunday 60 Minutes story that gave a glowing portrayal of the real estate developer and imam behind the Ground Zero mosque, CBS anchor Scott Pelley also used the opportunity to smear opponents of the project: “…a national controversy with anger, passion, and more than a little misinformation. Opponents whipped up a fury, calling the project a grotesque mega-mosque tied to terrorism.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2010/09/27/60-minutes-does-fawning-profile-ground-zero-mosque-backers-bashes-oppo#ixzz10wtrSMHn

      • LOI: There wasn’t much to spin about what these poor SOBs go through day to day. And for what? If somebody could give something approaching a sound reason for keeping our people in Afghanistan fighting a war we can’t possibly win … why? What for? What’s to gain? 60 Minutes seemed to be asking pretty much the same questions and those they interviewed we’re straining not to just let it fly.

        That war, just like the other one in Iraq, no matter who did what on 9-11, unless we’re going to nuke the entire area (which seems a bit like overkill), what’s the point in it? All we’ve proven over 9 years now is that we know how to waste lives and money. That’s it. No matter who’s providing the story and for whatever reason, what is the point anymore (if there ever really was one)?

        • Charlie…having been there…seen it…touched it…smelled it…walked in it….crawled around in it…..you are correct….we need to come home.

          However, if 60 minutes said that night was dark and day was light….I still would not believe them.

  6. Sneak Preview: The Hijacking of the 2010 Election
    By Jack Cashill
    Through a combination of massive, Somali-driven voter fraud, stunning Election Board incompetence, and the willful blindness of the Kansas City Star, machine Democrat J.J. Rizzo managed to beat conservative Democrat Will Royster by one vote in a Missouri State House primary on August 3.

    There is no Republican running in this heavily Democratic, multi-ethnic Kansas City district. The Democratic nominee will face only a seriously outgunned Libertarian in the November election, and truth be told, Royster may be to the right of the Libertarian.

    What the Democratic machine and the Star, which endorsed Rizzo, did not count on was for the intrepid Royster to challenge the election in court. In so doing, he has provided a sneak preview on how a desperate Democratic Party will attempt to neutralize the will of the people this November, and not just in Kansas City.

    Royster, a retired Navy fighter pilot and all-around good citizen, asks a fundamental question: “If we won’t let Somalis hijack our ships, why do we let them hijack our elections?” As many as a hundred Somalis voted, nearly all of them illegally, likely all of them for Royster’s opponent, in a House district in which only 1,300 people showed up to vote.

    The trial on September 7 in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court revealed several disturbing trends, some of which can be corrected by election day, some of which cannot.

    First to testify was Lindy Hobkins, a Republican supervisory election judge. As she related, a group of Somalis came into her Kansas City election site led by one Somali man.

    “They were unable to communicate on the most basic levels,” said Hobkins of the Somalis. To help his voters along, the leader “left the premises, went outside to where the electioneers are out at the appropriate space allotted for them, and he brought in a sign for Mr. Rizzo.” Hobkins continued: he “held it up and pointed at it and said this one, this one, this one.”

    In a disturbing little twist, David Raymond, the attorney for the Kansas City Election Board, grilled Hobkins as though she were a hostile witness. After she acknowledged that the Somalis were all somehow registered to vote, Raymond asked snidely, “Do you believe these voters should be disenfranchised?”

    Hobkins was more than a match for Raymond. She and her husband had been helping refugees resettle. “The biggest deterrent to them becoming citizens, because they all want to be American citizens when they come here,” she noted, “is that they do not have a handle on the language to be able to pass the test.”

    I checked the rules for citizenship. According to the official site for French-speakers (sorry, I don’t speak Somali), an individual has to “connaître l’anglais et être au courant de l’histoire et du gouvernement des États-Unis.” This translates to “know the English language and be current in the history and government of the United States.” I cannot imagine that the requirements for Somalis are any different.

    Hobkins knew the law. “How could they be registered to vote,” she asked Raymond, “if they did not know how to speak English on any level?”

    more at link,
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/sneak_preview_the_hijacking_of.html

    • Tea Party Group Exposes Massive SEIU Voter Fraud Scheme?
      By NB Staff

      At least that’s what it looks like. The group, True the Vote, is a grassroots organization in the truest sense of the term. Here’s a bit of what it recently uncovered:

      “The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them” Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. “Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic . . .

      “But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking.”…

      Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.

      Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2010/09/27/open-thread-tea-party-group-exposes-massive-seiu-voter-fraud-scheme#ixzz10x13sUpR

      • LOI…this is pretty big actually. All seemingly tied with the SEIU and ACORN. It has opened up a this can of worms in San Antonio, Ft Worth/Dallas, Austin, and Amarillo. Will be interested in fiding out the results…especially in Dallas and Houston where local races were decided by less than 100 votes.

    • Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.

      The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Votes collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.

      However, major voter fraud is not just isolated to Texas. As the Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel reports

      Less than two months before the general election, Florida’s voter registration rolls still include thousands of dead people and felons who by law should have been removed.

      […]

      State elections officials pledged to clean up the voter rolls two years ago after a Sun Sentinel investigation found they included more than 28,000 people who had died and 33,000 felons whose civil rights had not been restored.

      The latest list shows more than half of those ineligible voters were removed, but the rest, along with newly added felons, remained on the rolls.

      Finding faulty voter lists and other examples of voter fraud may become a major future battle to be fought by other grassroots activists in the years ahead. This problem has worsened as billions of stimulus dollars flow toward labor unions and community organizing groups committed to registering voters — particularly in poor and minority-dominated areas.

      If that’s not enough, Houston’s difficulties took a new twist one day after Harris County voter registrar Leo Vasquez announced he had turned over his findings to the district attorney:

      On the morning of Aug. 27, a three-alarm fire destroyed almost all of Harris County’s voting machines, throwing the upcoming Nov. 2 election into turmoil. While the cause wasn’t determined, the $40 million blaze, according to press reports, means election officials will be focused on creating a whole new voting system in six weeks. Just how they do it will determine how vulnerable the process becomes.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/fighting_voter_fraud.html

  7. September 27, 2010: From Anthony Watt

    Dr. David Suzuki, co-founder of the environmental activist group, The David Suzuki Foundation, is now touring Canada promoting his new book, “The Legacy – An elder’s Vision for our Sustainable Future”. The speech he gave this evening in Ottawa at the Dominion Chalmers Church was essentially a summary of the book, with much of the book’s text used verbatim in the presentation.

    Get a load of what he says about humanity’s role in the forces of nature:

    “We have become a force of nature … Not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as “natural disasters or “acts of God.” But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events.”

    If Mr. Suzuki thinks we’ve become a race of “God like beings”, able to influence hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions, next we’ll probably hear things like this:

  8. A hijack yesterday by myself continued to show the glaring differences in the understanding of the Middle East issues.

    I ask V.H. and G-man to watch this short video – it gives a very clear overview to why their perception of the Middle East has been skewed.

    • I watched. Not surprising how the MSM here f&%ks the truth up. BF, never wanted a debate on this issue, it is simply sad that after 63 years, longer than I am old, it continues. You asked if I/we would fight that long for our land, reckon the answer is “YES”.

      Peace!

      G!

      • G-Man,

        One of the problems is many believe the conflict is only 60 years old.

        It isn’t.

        It has been existing since 1914.

        We live today a consequence of a massive, geopolitical shift in human civilization that occurred in the WW1

        WW1 gave the world:
        -destroyed the concepts of culture and language as the cohesive factor of People’s unity, in its place created…
        ..communism, socialism and fascism, Nation States and nationalism – lines on a map and political ideology dictating the People’s unity.

        -redrew the map of the Ottoman Empire (Middle East) into “control” areas, maximizing internal strife to make it easier for external control
        -redrew Africa the same way
        -redrew Balkans the same way

        I have often argued that the Allied Powers victory in WW1, a victory impossible without American intervention, was the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.

        • What’s this? For years all I’ve heard is how its about the existance of nation of Israel, and that if it would just cease to exist, there would finally be peace in the middle east and probably in the whole world.

          No wonder so many people are confused.

          • Cyndi,

            No one says Israel “cease to exist”. Zionism, yes – it is a political movement – but the Nation, no.

            Here is a speech to the Jewish Women’s League this month.

        • I don’t have enough historical knowledge to argue with someone like you BF-I will just say-I am not surprised that America’s media coverage is biased towards Israel-I take that into consideration and I have listened on here and read much on the internet about this situation-you just have a tendency to act like everything was wonderful before the evil West interfered-these areas were huge dynasties and they conquered lands and people all throughout history. There are two sides to this story-you only see one.

          • V.H.

            -you just have a tendency to act like everything was wonderful before the evil West interfered

            That is an untrue characterization.

            In all parts of the world, the conflicts by governments exist. It is their method of controlling the people.

            However, that does not dispel the fact that Western interference, obstruction, machinations, invasions, overthrow and war upon these people is therefore justified

            They have a right to chose their own political destiny free from the whims and designs of Western American/European neo-colonialism.

            • Darn me. Changed the POV midway through the sentence from negation to positive…. and confused the heck out me too! 🙂

              One more time!!

              However, that does not dispel the fact that Western interference, obstruction, machinations, invasions, overthrow and war upon these people is evil and unjustified.

      • I wonder G, if you lived in the Middle East-would you be fighting for your land against Israel-or would you be fighting for freedom against the theocracy.

        • V.H.

          …or both.

          They are not exclusive.

          The issue, however, is when the hegemony destroys by design the moderate voice, then the only things left are the meek and terrified OR the radicals.

          Israel and the US policy is specifically designed to destroy moderates. The US policy that has existed since Eisenhower, and bears his name (the Eisenhower Doctrine):

          “You are either with us or against us”

          With such a policy, no indigenous, independent political movement can survive. It will be assaulted by US hegemony and its actors.

          Thus, Fatah is destroyed – leaving Hamas.

          Thus, secular Iran is destroyed – leaving the Mullahs.

          etc. etc.

        • V.H

          If I was from there, culturally I would be fighting for my land. However I’m not from there, so I would agree that both would serve as the correct answer.

          I also think that we will all be fighting both right here in the USA in the not to distant future. But that’s another subject.

          G!

          • It may be a different topic-but if it ever does come to a revolution-it could involve a separation, which would bring about the same type of arguments. I would fight to the death before I would be kicked out of the U.S. But I would lose my land and move to Texas or elsewhere to live with those I agreed with, and to have freedom and peace for myself and my children.

            • V.H.

              How “righteous” of you to die for your country but surrender “pieces of it” and live in Texas!

              You are so “generous” as to give 4 million people 2,401.6 sq mi. – the world’s most dense population at merely 1,600 people per sq mi.

              Oh, sorry, that would include all of the West Bank but 1/3 of that has been seized by Israel.

              So, the real population density is over 2,400 per sq. mi.

              Yep, you’re so generous, >why don’t you take 20,700 sq. mi of USA territory out of the 3.8 MILLION Sq. mi and give it to the Jews?

              • *20,000 sq. mi is the size of Israel – with 7 million people* or 350 per sq mi.

              • When all this stuff started the land was divided into different countries-the arab population was given almost all of it-I can understand the individual people not wanting Israel to take their land or to form a state-but once they lost the first war they should have moved. The jewish people where a part of the population to begin with, yes I know many immigrated in but so did a lot of Arabs. They were in complete disagreement over the matter of being free-so yes those who disagreed should have moved into some part of the land, the majority of the land that was controlled by the Arabs. You want to use history to place blame but the currant circumstances to argue against what should of happened 60 years ago.

              • V.H.

                ..when this started…

                When “what?” started? It did not start 60 years ago – it started almost 100 years ago, 1914.

                The land was full of Arabs, Jews and Christians and was not divided by religion.

                It was under the Ottoman Empire.

                The UN plan gave 56% of Palestine to the Jews, who were 36% of the population.

                V.H., when I went to public school, even they knew 56% was LARGER then 44%.

                Let’s take your next argument: you lost a war so suck it up!

                But…didn’t the Jews lose their war 3,000 years ago? So why do you support their claim today?

                Palestine was always populated by Palestinians – can you explain how a people “immigrate” to their own country?

              • And V.H.

                Arabs are not Palestinians are not Persians.

              • http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

                Where is this Palestine you speak of-there seem to be no borders until after the Ottamon Empire was divided up. Both jews and arabs or persians or whatever other name you want to use were part of the Ottamon Empire and they have been in the middle east for a long, long time. The point is the land was divided and decisions were made. A lot of people made bad decisions in this mess but the “Palestinians ” were one of those people. WE see the consequences of all those decisions today. You say Israel shouldn’t have been given a state but I see the treatment of anyone who isn’t a follower of Islam, I see the horror of Sharia Law and I think they were justified in demanding one. I see the circumstances of the present day Palestinians and I am horrified but I blame it on the stubborn, stupid decisions, that their semi ancestors made and the so called supporters of the Palestinians are making today. I see most of the present day people in Israel and the Palestinians as the victims of the hate and killing that has gone on for 60 years. I honestly see no way to overcome the hate that has developed with 60 years of conflict. To expect these people to trust each other or be reasonable is probably asking to much. So the question IMM why has this conflict continued for so long. What is the argument really about? It not about property rights.

              • V.H.

                You certainly didn’t look hard.

                Here is one from 1883

              • V.H.

                Both jews and arabs or persians or whatever other name you want to use were part of the Ottamon Empire

                Hmm, no.

                Persia (Iran) was never part of the Ottoman Empire.

                and they have been in the middle east for a long, long time.

                You bet – coexisting rather well I might add.

                The point is the land was divided and decisions were made.

                Ah, the euphemism to cover “we stole it and divided it among ourselvse”

                A lot of people made bad decisions in this mess but the “Palestinians ” were one of those people.

                Hypocrisy!

                You come and steal my house and give me a small room and complain that I’m one of the people who made the mess?????

                WE see the consequences of all those decisions today.

                Do we?

                If we do, why do we continue to support those decisions?

                You say Israel shouldn’t have been given a state

                That is not what I said.

                I firmly believe in self-determination.

                I do not believe that it is necessary to steal someone else’s house to accomplish it.

                but I see the treatment of anyone who isn’t a follower of Islam, I see the horror of Sharia Law

                You are NOT:
                (1) Arab
                (2) Palestinian
                (3) Persian
                (4) Muslim
                (5) nor live in the Middle East.

                ….so mind your own business.

                and I think they were justified in demanding one.

                On what justification!?!?

                Your claim -out of the blue???

                I see the circumstances of the present day Palestinians and I am horrified but I blame it on the stubborn, stupid decisions, that their semi ancestors made and the so called supporters of the Palestinians are making today.

                You are a victim of mass brainwashing and MSM programming.

                I see most of the present day people in Israel and the Palestinians as the victims of the hate and killing that has gone on for 60 years.

                And repeating the errors initiated 60 years ago (actually 100 years ago) will only guarantee it will continue into the future

                I honestly see no way to overcome the hate that has developed with 60 years of conflict.

                Oh, it is very easy.

                Stop killing innocent people.

                But that must start first by the action of the hegemony

                To expect these people to trust each other or be reasonable is probably asking to much.

                Trust cannot be earned while one side obliterates the other.

                So the question IMM why has this conflict continued for so long.

                Because Israel has not taken all the territory she desires.

                See the above map of the

                Erestz Yisrael

                Until she has all the West Bank and most of Lebanon, Israel will not relent.

                What is the argument really about?

                Re-creating an Erestz Yisrael out of the lands of the Middle East for the sole Dominion of Zionism at the cost of whomever (whether Muslim Or Christian) living there.

                It not about property rights.

                You got that right.

              • When I said borders. I was saying that as a part of the Ottoman Empire Palestine was not a separate country. As far as the rest, I’m done for the day. Have a good night 🙂

    • The difference between Jews and Muslims

      Subject: ONE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEWS AND MUSLIMS
      The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is
      ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population.
      They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

      Literature:
      1988 – Najib Mahfooz

      Peace:
      1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
      1990 – Elias James Corey
      1994 – Yaser Arafat:
      1999 – Ahmed Zewai

      Economics:
      (zero)

      Physics:
      (zero)

      Medicine:
      1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
      1998 – Ferid Mourad

      TOTAL: 7 (SEVEN)

      The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN
      MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population.
      They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

      Literature:
      1910 – Paul Heyse
      1927 – Henri Bergson
      1958 – Boris Pasternak
      1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
      1966 – Nelly Sachs
      1976 – Saul Bellow
      1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
      1981 – Elias Canetti
      1987 – Joseph Brodsky
      1991 – Nadine Gordimer

      World Peace:
      1911 – Alfred Fried
      1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
      1968 – Rene Cassin
      1973 – Henry Kissinger
      1978 – Menachem Begin
      1986 – Elie Wiesel
      1994 – Shimon Peres
      1994 – Yitzhak Rabin

      Physics:
      1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
      1906 – Henri Moissan
      1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
      1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
      1910 – Otto Wallach
      1915 – Richard Willstaetter
      1918 – Fritz Haber
      1921 – Albert Einstein
      1922 – Niels Bohr
      1925 – James Franck
      1925 – Gustav Hertz
      1943 – Gustav Stern
      1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
      1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
      1952 – Felix Bloch
      1954 – Max Born
      1958 – Igor Tamm
      1959 – Emilio Segre
      1960 – Donald A. Glaser
      1961 – Robert Hofstadter
      1961 – Melvin Calvin
      1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
      1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
      1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
      1965 – Julian Schwinger
      1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
      1971 – Dennis Gabor
      1972 – William Howard Stein
      1973 – Brian David Josephson
      1975 – Ben jamin Mottleson
      1976 – Burton Richter
      1977 – Ilya Prigogine
      1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
      1978 – Peter L Kapitza
      1979 – Stephen Weinberg
      1979 – Sheldon Glashow
      1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
      1980 – Paul Berg
      1980 – Walter Gilbert
      1981 – Roald Hoffmann
      1982 – Aaron Klug
      1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
      1985 – Jerome Karle
      1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
      1988 – Robert Huber
      1988 – Leon Lederman
      1988 – Melvin Schwartz
      1988 – Jack Steinberger
      1989 – Si dney Altman
      1990 – Jerome Friedman
      1992 – Rudolph Marc us
      1995 – Martin Perl
      2000 – Alan J. Heeger

      Economics:
      1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
      1971 – Simon Kuznets
      1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
      1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
      1976 – Milton Friedman
      1978 – Herbert A. Simon
      1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
      1985 – Franco Modigliani
      1987 – Robert M. Solow
      1990 – Harry Mark owitz
      1990 – Merton Miller
      1992 – Gary Becker
      1993 – Robert Fogel

      Medicine:
      1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
      1908 – Paul Erlich
      1914 – Robert Barany
      1922 – Otto Meyerhof
      1930 – Karl Landsteiner
      1931 – Otto Warburg
      1936 – Otto Loewi
      1944 – Joseph Erlanger
      1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
      1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
      1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
      1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
      1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
      1953 – Hans Krebs
      1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
      1958 – Joshua Lederberg
      1959 – Arthur Kornberg
      1964 – Konrad Bloch
      1965 – Francois Jacob
      1965 – Andre Lwoff
      1967 – George Wald
      1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
      1969 – Salvador Luria
      1970 – Julius Axelrod
      1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
      1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
      1975 – Howard Martin Temin
      1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
      1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
      1978 – Daniel Nathans
      1980 – Baruj Ben cerraf
      1984 – Cesar Milstein
      1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
      1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
      1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
      1988 – Gertrude Elion
      1989 – Harold Varmus
      1991 – Erwin Neher
      1991 – Bert Sakmann
      1993 – Richard J. Roberts
      1993 – Phillip Sharp
      1994 – Alfred Gilman
      1995 – Edward B. Lewis
      1996- Lu Rose Iacovino
      TOTAL: 129!

      The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.

      There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

      The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

      Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

      Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.

      Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel’s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

      ‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.’ Benjamin Netanyahu

      • LOI,

        So your argument is that those who don’t win Nobel Prizes – like the Chinese, Japanese, Philippines, Australians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Spanish etc. can be slaughtered and their homes stolen by everyone else who does win Nobel prizes.

        “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.”

        Yep, because Israel would wipe them out. It already has been established that they enjoy slaughtering essentially defenseless people (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) and would cheer the chance to do it wholly unopposed.

        Further, Arabs are not a terrorist country – they are a people.

        Israel is a terrorist country, not a people.

        • Flagster,

          I was not really arguing, just jerking your chain. It worked!

          “It already has been established that they enjoy slaughtering essentially defenseless people (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) and would cheer the chance to do it wholly unopposed.”

          BULLDOOKEY! Again, my friend, your bias overwhelms your principals. When they are attacked from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, usually by condoned terrorist groups shelling or firing rockets, Israel invades the area and levels it. Then they leave. They have tried that in Gaza and the West Bank, but since the attacks always resume, I don’t blame them for staying.

          For the record, I do not see Israel as blameless. I think the West Bank settlements are a mistake.

          I will stand firm on my principals, that if attacked, I will
          respond to defend myself. I think you are very big on not initiating violence. If you don’t like me, and go to a neighbors house, and start shooting at me, I will shoot back, and if my neighbor has a problem with that, he had best be careful who he allows in is house, and what activities he permits.

          • LOI

            BULLDOOKEY! Again, my friend, your bias overwhelms your principals. When they are attacked from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, usually by condoned terrorist groups shelling or firing rockets, Israel invades the area and levels it.

            Deja Moo!

            You argue that a homemade rocket, fired by desperate people, justifies the slaughter of thousands by advanced aircraft, tanks, missiles, attack helicopters etc.

            “Disproportionate response” is defeating Israel.

            Then they leave.

            Oh? Where? Still in the West Bank and still occupying most of Palestine.

            They will not leave.

            They will continue to grow and seize territory until they achieve their long-ago stated aim:

            Eretz Yisrael

            The only reason they gave back the Sinai was because it was never a part of the Eretz Yisreal

            They have tried that in Gaza and the West Bank, but since the attacks always resume, I don’t blame them for staying.

            They have not left either place.

            For the record, I do not see Israel as blameless. I think the West Bank settlements are a mistake.

            “A mistake”???

            A war crime

            If you don’t like me, and go to a neighbors house, and start shooting at me, I will shoot back, and if my neighbor has a problem with that, he had best be careful who he allows in is house, and what activities he permits.

            That is not the scenario, LOI

            This is the scenario:

            You invade my house, and push me into my neighbor’s house, demanding that the neighbor is responsible for me.

            He doesn’t like that, and neither do I.

            I continue to take back my house, however, you invite the local Hell’s Angel’s to protect you.

            Because you don’t like me trying to take back my house, you burn down half of my neighbors house, to the cheers and support of the Hell’s Angels.

            You claim you will “give me” back a small piece of my own backyard, but you continue to expand your vegetable garden into that promised piece and refuse to stop.

            You kill my children, my parents, my kin, take my house and my land – and claim it is your right given to you by God.

            • The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War and known in Lebanon as the July War

              The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military.

              The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[29] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional soldiers, believed to have been killed outright or mortally wounded, were snatched by Hezbollah to Lebanon. Five more were killed in a failed rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon that damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport (which Israel said that Hezbollah used to import weapons and supplies),[32] an air and naval blockade,[33] and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.[34]

              The conflict killed at least 1,300 people, mostly Lebanese citizens,[35][36][37][38][39] severely damaged Lebanese civil infrastructure, and displaced approximately one million Lebanese[40] and 300,000–500,000 Israelis, although most of the latter were able to return to their homes.[23][41][42] After the ceasefire, some parts of southern Lebanon remained uninhabitable due to Israeli unexploded cluster bomblets.

              On 11 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved UN Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was approved by both Lebanese and Israeli governments the following days,

              called for disarmament of Hezbollah,

              for withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, and for the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the south. UNIFIL was given an expanded mandate, including the ability to use force to ensure that their area of operations wasn’t used for hostile activities, and to resist attempts by force to prevent them from discharging their duties.[44] The Lebanese army began deploying in southern Lebanon on 17 August 2006. The blockade was lifted on 8 September 2006.[45] On 1 October 2006, most Israeli troops withdrew from Lebanon, though the last of the troops continued to occupy the border-straddling village of Ghajar.[46] In the time since the enactment of UNSCR 1701

              both the Lebanese government and UNIFIL have stated that they will not disarm Hezbollah.

              • LOI,

                Sorry, I missed where Lebanon started a war with Israel.

                Can you point it out?

              • Flag,

                Just as they have been fighting for thousands of years, we may not ever agree on this subject.

                Hezbollah attacked Israel from Lebanese territory. Just as Hamas and the PLO have attacked from Gaza and the West Bank.

                I can only see that you are defending terrorists, due to your dislike of Israel. You never make a statement condemning the terrorist, only Israel’s overreaction.

                You have admitted Arafat made a mistake walking out on Camp David when he had 98% of the territory they wanted.

                Does it not strike you as strange how, whenever
                peace threatens in the Middle East, some terrorist group attacks?
                We would have been out of Iraq, except for the violence against civilians.

              • LOI

                Just as they have been fighting for thousands of years, we may not ever agree on this subject.

                The Big Lie

                “There has always been a conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East”.

                This is factually untrue.

                For thousand years, they have been living side by side in peace for one sees the other as Brothers of the Book.

                Why is this lie so important?

                Because it justifies the brutality today.

                Where is the largest Jewish population in the Middle East – other than Israel?

                Iran

                Hezbollah attacked Israel from Lebanese territory. Just as Hamas and the PLO have attacked from Gaza and the West Bank.

                Israel obliterated South Lebanon..slaughter thousands..supported by proxy the slaughter of thousands..and took Lebanese territory (Blue Line) which is where Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers to barter a trade for Lebanese victims of Israeli kidnapping

                As I’ve pointed out before, peace can only come from the unilateral decision of the hegemony.

                I can only see that you are defending terrorists, due to your dislike of Israel.

                I do not defend terrorists.

                I do not dislike Israel.

                I see a country run by Zionists that are pushing that country to self-destruction by committing massive atrocities upon innocent people.

                You never make a statement condemning the terrorist, only Israel’s overreaction.

                I do! You just ignore them.

                What I also do – which you do not – is understand the motivations of the victims.

                PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

                What Makes A Suicide Bomber?

                You have admitted Arafat made a mistake walking out on Camp David when he had 98% of the territory they wanted.

                Yep, but also remember this fact.

                He was not a Palestinian

                He was Egyptian.

                Does it not strike you as strange how, whenever
                peace threatens in the Middle East, some terrorist group attacks?

                Nope.

                Nor does it surprise me that a the near conclusion of real peace, Israel slaughters a few dozen in Gaza or the West Bank or reneges on its promise on the West Bank.

                However, no matter the situation it is always the hegemony action which creates the weaker actor’s REaction.

                Always.

                We would have been out of Iraq, except for the violence against civilians.

                “We” will never be out of Iraq.

                It has NOTHING to do with civilians.

                Heck, “we” allowed hundreds of thousands starve for a political point.

                Do you really believe the US Army is there because they care about civilians????? (If you do, you are seriously delisional)

                The US will be there until every American solider in Iraq is forced to withdraw or killed.

        • “Israel is a terrorist country, not a people.”

          Really? I know your opinon on who started what MIGHT justify that they are a terrorist country, but to say they are not a people? What exactly defines a “people”? I think in an attempt to sound clever, you ended up saying something a bit foolish.

          • Israel is a country.

            Arabs are a people.

            Jews are a people.

            Jews and Arabs live in hundreds of countries.

            Clear?

            • Ok, but Israel is a name the Jews also identify with as their “people”. “Israelis” live all over the place. And perhaps if we referred to the “arabs” as “Palestinians”. Altho that is still a group of people, not necessarily a geographic area, just as the “nation of israel” or an “Israelite” is not necessarily referring to a geographic area.

              • Jon,

                Israeli is like American.
                USA is like Israel.
                Jew is like Christian.
                Arabs are not Palestinian.

                There are many Jews who are not Israeli, many Israelis who are not Jews.

                There are no Arabs who are not Arabs.

                There are no Jews who are not Jews.

        • Also, just because soemone is shown to be willing to beat back a weaker opponent, does not mean they would engage in massacre if there was no resistance at all. IF they wanted to wipe out the Arabs entirely, they could do so now. Even if it could be argued that the only reason they do not is world opinion, would not that world opinion be even more against them if they wiped the arabs out after the arabs put down their arms?

          Again with the making no sense and applying different reasoning to Israeli actions than to Arab actions because of your bias.

          • Jon,

            You appear ignorant of the Ersetz Yisrael that is a fundamental core to the Israeli doctrine.

            • At its maximum extent, during the height of David’s united Kingdom of Israel,[2][3] it corresponded approximately to present-day Israel, the Palestinian territories, the western part of Jordan and the southern part of Lebanon; at other times it embraced only the area around Jerusalem.

              • Which by your own specific clarification DOES NOT mean the wiping out of Arabs. It means taking a certain area of territory. This does not involve the wiping out all Arabs worldwide or otherwise. So, um, no, Ersetz Yisrael does not justify your claim that they would “wipe them out”.

                Furthermore, it is irrelevant to my argument. They could take that region by force NOW, but they do not because of either world opinion or disunity about whether that would be right to do, or both. Those things would exist in even greater measure if the Arabs put down their arms. Israel is not failing to take territory because they do not have enough military might, nor because they fear Arab might in retaliation. They fear the loss of support from current allies and retaliation from combined efforts of NON-Arab nations. Also, many in Israel do not believe that force is the answer to gaining that territory even if they truly believe it is their by birthright. If it was given by God, God can find a way to grant it to them. Your bias concerning their theology versus Islam theology is all over your sleeve as well.

                Its fine, everyone is and has a right to be biased, it would just be nice for more intellectual persons like yourself to admit it.

              • Jon

                Which by your own specific clarification DOES NOT mean the wiping out of Arabs. It means taking a certain area of territory. This does not involve the wiping out all Arabs worldwide or otherwise.

                Jon,

                If to achieve its Eretz Yisrael would require the obliteration of all the Arabs, she would do it

                If it required the obliteration of Europe, she would do it.

                General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.

                Professor Martin Van Creveld Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

                We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome.

                Most European capitals are targets of our air force.“

                Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, pointed out that “collective deportation” was Israel’s only meaningful strategy towards the Palestinian people.

                “The Palestinians should all be deported. The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time.

                Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.”

                Creveld said he was sure that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wanted to deport the Palestinians.

                “I think it’s quite possible that he wants to do that. He wants to escalate the conflict. He knows that nothing else we do will succeed.”

                Asked if he was worried about Israel becoming a rogue state if it carried out a genocidal deportation against Palestinians, Creveld quoted former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan who said “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

                Creveld argued that Israel wouldn’t care much about becoming a rogue state.

                “Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

                Creveld is a well respected, high profile Professor of Military History in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

                (BF> Creveld IS one of the most significant military strategists on the planet.

                So, um, no, Ersetz Yisrael does not justify your claim that they would “wipe them out”.

                I beg to differ.

                Furthermore, it is irrelevant to my argument. They could take that region by force NOW, but they do not because of either world opinion or disunity about whether that would be right to do, or both.

                Correct. If they move too quickly, they will alienate their patron for it will become politically unacceptable for the American public.

                So, the plan – slow and steady.

                Those things would exist in even greater measure if the Arabs put down their arms.

                It is NOT a Arab issue.

                It is a Palestinian issue thrust upon the Arabs.

                Israel is not failing to take territory because they do not have enough military might, nor because they fear Arab might in retaliation. They fear the loss of support from current allies and retaliation from combined efforts of NON-Arab nations.

                For now, this is correct.

                Also, many in Israel do not believe that force is the answer to gaining that territory even if they truly believe it is their by birthright.

                These people hold no power in Israel.

              • Perhaps. It sounds like an extreme position, much like some of the theocratic crap in some of the Islamic countries. Most people in those countries do not feel as the extremists do, but again, they hold no power there.

                Of course, people of my mindset hold no power in THIS country, but we may very quickly, and if things go far enough, I guarantee that we will have power. Israel’s situation may be different because of rising poll support, but I still rather doubt a “kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” attitude will last.

                You may be right about how dangerous they are, you may not. You may be right about how peaceful Islam really is and about what their reaction would be to being left alone, and you may not. From what I can see, your data is solid, as is the data on the other side. Your presentation is biased and comes across with the same credibility that your opponents do.

                As far as I am concerned, it is not my business, neither Israel’s actions nor the rest of the Middle East. Not my problem. If you mess with us, you get blasted to the stone age. If you do not violate sovereignty, you will not be messed with at all. You start invading other nations, there may be some saber rattling or even a volunteer force added to your would-be victim’s resistance.

                Beyond that I care not.

              • Jon,

                Perhaps. It sounds like an extreme position, much like some of the theocratic crap in some of the Islamic countries.

                It could be, I agree.

                But the core difference

                Israel has sought the capability and obtained the capability today to do so

                Further Creveld is no mad man.

                He is among the top handful of military strategists in the world…. a modern day von Clausewitz.

                If you mess with us, you get blasted to the stone age. If you do not violate sovereignty, you will not be messed with at all.

                This is not true.

                Eisenhower doctrine has not been revoked, in fact, it has been reinforced.

                “Either you are with us or against us”

              • Israel has sought and obtained it, yes. Various Islamic countries have also sought it, some are obtaining it as well. Means does not create guilt, that sort of thinking ends up with gun control and forced disarmament. Even intent or desire does not create guilt, only action does.

                I was not speaking of what has been done with foreign policy, I fully agree it has been severely bolluxed. I was referring to the attitude we SHOULD have.

              • Jon,

                Agreed.

      • LOI,

        There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people

        Blatant lie.

        Ever see Southern Lebanon or Beirut in 2006?

        How many mosques have been leveled?

        How many innocent thousands have been bombed in Beirut? Do you know where that city is?

        • “How many innocent thousands have been bombed in Beirut?”
          How many innocent die in every war? Best solution, don’t start a war, live in peace.

          Do you know where that city is? Is it in the mid-west?

          Beirut is the capital and largest city of Lebanon with a population ranging from some 1 million to over 2 million as of 2007. Located on a peninsula at the midpoint of Lebanon’s coastline with the Mediterranean sea, it serves as the country’s largest and main seaport, and also forms the Beirut Metropolitan Area, which consists of the city and its suburbs. The first mention of this metropolis is found in the ancient Egyptian Tell el Amarna letters, dating to the 15th century BC, and the city has been continuously inhabited since.

        • Would it not be “fun” to sit across a table with these “people” and negotiate a “peace” settlement?

          http://www.wluml.org/node/6518

      • “There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.”

        I take it you are unaware of actions committed by Jews before the formation of Israel? Hotel bombings and assassinations of British diplomats? Here’s a nice one for you to look into:

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

        Jews will kill and maim to get what they want. Christians will kill and maim to get what they want. Muslims will kill and maim to get what they want.

  9. Some late night fun…

    Glenn Beck – his show is considered “empty calories” in the TV business!! The truth finally gets out! 🙂

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/glenn-beck-vs-fox-news_n_743258.html

  10. Has anyone seen what James O’Keefe, the “ACORN Pimp”, has been up to lately? This guy just keeps proving over and over and over that’s he nothing but a complete moron…

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/

    • Todd,

      This is pretty bizarre. While it appears legit, and I am not questioning that, it seems so bizarre as to be impossible to be real. I don’t quite understand what the purpose of the “gag” was. If he seduced her and did something afterwards he would be viewed as an asshole, wouldn’t he? I don’t see how this plan would have had any positive results for him had it succeeded. Again, not saying the story isn’t true, just saying nothing about it makes any logical sense to me. Does it to you?

      USW

      • USWeapon,
        Bizarre indeed. My only guess is he wanted to embarrass someone he doesn’t like, endear himself to those in power that he worships, and extend his 15 minutes of fame.

        Probably the same reasons for his ACORN stunt last year and his attempted “wiretapping” this spring.

        It makes no sense to me…

      • I just don’t understand how she failed to be seduced by him.

        • Bob,
          He’s quite a “prize” isn’t he! 🙂

          I think that explains why he pulled off the “Pimp” last year – he fits that much better!

    • Bozell Denounces O’Keefe’s ‘Ugly, Dishonest and Filthy’ Stunt
      Brent Bozell.

      The following is NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center (MRC) founder Brent Bozell’s statement regarding news of James O’Keefe’s sting operation attempt to embarrass CNN.

      The MRC unequivocally denounces James O’Keefe for his attempted assault on CNN. It isn’t just childish and immature; it’s ugly, dishonest and filthy. There is no place in the conservative movement for this type of behavior and that’s exactly what I warned about in a commentary piece I submitted to CNN.com just two days ago.

      “Could the Citizen Journalist abuse the public trust?” I wrote in this piece that should run in the next few days. “Hypothetically, of course. Conservatives must all guard against this. Let there be scrutiny, by all means.” And I repeat: there must be scrutiny.

      Bottom line: We want nothing to do with O’Keefe or his dirty antics.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/09/29/bozell-denounces-okeefes-ugly-dishonest-and-filthy-stunt#ixzz1112e6My1

  11. A play in one act. SCENE: Two people chatting in a coffee shop.

    A: Let me ask you something. Are you an ethical person?

    B: I would like to think so, yes.

    A: Do you use violence to get what you want?

    B: No! What do you mean?

    A: If you want a new shirt, do you steal it from someone?

    B: Of course not.

    A: If someone has a table you like in a restaurant, do you threaten him with a gun to get him to move?

    B: I would never do something like that!

    A: Why not?

    B: Well, like I said, I like to think of myself as an ethical person, and so I try to live as ethically as I can. I’m not perfect, but I try my best.

    A: So is there absolutely no way you would ever use violence in your life?

    B: Hmm. Well, I suppose if someone attacked me, I would use force in order to defend myself.

    A: Well, that makes sense. One could hardly accuse you of being unethical for defending yourself, could they?

    B: No, I don’t think so.

    A: Nor do I. I mean, it’s really common sense, isn’t it? If people couldn’t use force to defend themselves then there would be nothing to stop the people who wished to act unethically.

    B: Yes, and unfortunately, there will always be such people.

    A: Agreed. So, can you think of any other time you might decide to use force against someone, other than in self-defense?

    B: Umm, not really, no.

    A: How about me? Other than defending myself, can I ethically use force against someone to get what I want?

    B: Well, no. The same rules apply to you as to me.

    A: Can you think of a person who is exempt from these rules? Someone who is ethically allowed to use force to get what he wants?

    B: No, not really. It seems to be a pretty universal rule.

    A: Well, what if I give permission to someone to be able to take something from someone by force? Would this be an ethical use of force on his part? He has my permission, after all.

    B: No, you can’t do that!

    A: Why not?

    B: If something is wrong if you were to do it, it remains wrong if someone else does it for you.

    A: But what if I get a big bunch of people together who say it’s OK for that person to take property by force? Wouldn’t that make it OK? I mean, who could stop us?

    B: Whoa, there. Now you are confusing might with right. It doesn’t matter how many people say that something is right—if it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and that’s all. Just because you have a gang strong enough to get away with it doesn’t make it right.

    A: So some things are just plain right and others are wrong, and it doesn’t matter how you try to fancy them up, you can’t change wrong things into right things?

    B: Yes, that’s exactly right.

    A: Well, then. It seems we have come to the conclusion that violence is only ethical in the context of self-defense.

    B: Yep. That’s what I think.

    (They both pause for a sip of coffee.)

    A: So, did you hear? They’re probably going to try and take my house away from me.

    B: What?

    A: Yeah, I stopped paying the property taxes and the government is threatening to take it.

    B: Oh, no! What can I do? Do you need a loan? Let me help, please!

    A: No, I have the money. I just don’t want to pay.

    B: Well, that’s just being silly! Is it worth losing your entire house because you don’t want to pay a little property tax? I’m sorry, but I just lost all my sympathy for you.

    A: But I don’t think that schools should be funded through property taxes.

    B: But they are, and so you have to pay!

    A: Well, whatever. When they come to take my house, I’m going to lock myself inside and not come out.

    B: Are you crazy? What are you thinking? That won’t stop them!

    A: Well, if they break in, I have a gun to defend myself. I mean, it is my house, and I have the right to defend my property with force, right?

    B: But you’re breaking the law by not paying your taxes! They have the right to take your house if you don’t pay! And if you use a gun against them, you’re only going to get yourself killed!

    A: Am I violently attacking the people who are going to come and take my house away from me?

    B: No, of course you aren’t.

    A: Are they defending their very lives in using force against me?

    B: If you point a gun at them, yes.

    A: But they are pointing a gun at me first. I am just defending myself.

    B: Oh, come on! No one is pointing a gun at you! You have to pay your property taxes or you lose your house. You knew that going in. Now you’re going to pull out a gun and attack people who are doing their job in conjunction with the agreement you made when you bought the house? You’ve really lost it!

    A: So they can take my house because the law says so?

    B: Well, duh.

    A: But isn’t the law really just a use of force?

    B: Of course it is, but the law is here to protect us. Like you said before, we need to be able to use force to defend ourselves against people who want to act unethically. The law provides that collective self-defense. The gun only comes out when someone breaks the law.

    A: But if I own a house, how can self-defense be invoked to justify the use of force against me in taking my house from me?

    B: It’s not self-defense per se, it’s the law.

    A: So if you were to tell me that I have to pay you a certain amount every month or you were going to take my house, would that be lawful and ethical behavior on your part?

    B: No, because what I say isn’t law. That would just be me extorting money from you. That’s illegal and unethical.

    A: So how did the government get to be able to tell me that I have to pay them monthly or I will lose my house? How can they do what you and everyone else cannot do individually?

    B: Look, it’s what society has agreed upon. You can’t very well have a society without laws, can you? You have to play by the rules. Why do you think you should get special treatment?

    A: But I thought you said that what’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong. You said I couldn’t get a gang of people together to give permission to someone else to take the property of another. But that’s what you are doing to me, isn’t it?

    B: No that’s completely different, and what do you mean by saying that I am doing something to you? I don’t have anything to do with you and your house, so don’t go blaming me for your problems.

    A: But you are part of society.

    B: And so are you!

    A: So, I am threatening to take my house away from myself?

    (pause)

    B: I’m pretty much speechless over here.

    A: OK, let’s get back to something else you said. You told me that the only conceivable reason for ethically using violence was in self-defense, and that this rule is universal. Again, I am not attacking anyone, so why am I being threatened with force? How can that possibly be ethical?

    (Somewhere, deep down in B’s brain, an uncomfortable feeling about realizing that perhaps there is something inconsistent in his claim to being an ethical person begins to stir. An annoying mosquito of a thought, quickly brushed away, vaguely suggests that if he were to seriously pursue this logical train of thought, he may come to an unwanted destination. Of course, if he derails the train here, he won’t have to make the trip. And hell, he knows he is ethical, so why waste time proving to himself what he already knows? Who cares if this other bozo doesn’t believe him? That’s his problem. But still, this whole exercise has left him feeling annoyed and affronted, and he doesn’t really appreciate the spoiling of his previously good mood. Who is this high and mighty guy, anyway, to try and judge me? What an asshole.)

    B: You know what? I got a thing I gotta get to. I’ll talk to you later.

    (B gets up and leaves.)

    • Are you trying to support A? A is a thief if he thinks he can just have his house without paying for it. If you defend A here you must also defend him when he puts a flat screen on his credit card then doesn’t pay for it. Then he gets a car on credit and doesn’t pay for it. How far does A get to go?

      You have said previously to not stress if you just walk from your mortgage. The contract states that if you dont pay you forfeit the house. So you forfeit the house, move on and have no guilt from it.
      Now you seem to be saying its not right to force A from the house? Something doesn’t add up here.

      • woops. Reading your looooong post again I see you are referring to prop taxes not house. Still.. A has to pay up or move on. He knows darn well he must pay the taxes. If you rent a house part of the rent goes to prop taxes. Are you saying it’s ok to only pay 800 instead of 850 since the 50 is prop taxes? You’d be put out for that too.

        • A rental agreement is between you and the landlord. If he chooses to pay taxes, that is up to him. If you agree to his rent, it does not matter what it goes to. If he buys porn with $100 of the rent every month and you find that immoral, would it mean you did not have to pay? Of course not.

          If I buy a house outright, there should be no way for me to lose that house because I do not owe money on it. Unless, in fact, I do not really own it, I am “renting” it from teh government and they, in fact, own all the land. IF that is the concept of property in this country, then we have already lost everything.

          The point of the play scene is that taxes, at least property taxes, are unethical. If I “know going in” that I will always have money exorted from me, it might make me a fool to try and stop paying, but it does not make the extortion ethical.I might know going in that the school bully is going to take my lunch money, but eventually I will get hungry enough to hit him with a rock or something and make him freaking stop stealing from me. That is sort of how I am starting to feel about that big bully named Uncle Sam.

    • Genius.

  12. Anyone still “Loving” the new healthcare law?

    Report: McDonald’s May Drop Health Care Plan

    Published September 30, 2010

    | FoxNews.com

    Sept. 9: People walk by a McDonalds in New York City. McDonald’s Corp. has notified federal regulators it’s health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn’t compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

    AFP

    Sept. 9: People walk by a McDonalds in New York City. McDonald’s Corp. has notified federal regulators it’s health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn’t compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

    McDonald’s Corp. has notified federal regulators it’s health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers isn’t compatible with a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, raising speculation about the fate of those employees’ health coverage.

    Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn’t loosen a requirement for “mini-med” plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans. The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

    While many restaurants don’t offer health coverage, McDonald’s provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

    Last week, a senior McDonald’s official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain’s insurer won’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80 percent to 85 percent of its premium revenue on medical care, the Wall Street Journal reported.

    But McDonald’s issued a statement Wednesday denying that it planned to drop coverage for its employees and defending its benefit plans.

    “We’ve had the opportunity to speak with regulatory agencies directly to better understand the implications of the law and to share our point of view,” Steve Russell, a senior vice president with the company, said in the statement. “Moving forward, we will continue to have an open dialogue with legislators as well as regulators.”

    McDonald’s and trade groups say the percentage is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims. Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don’t directly help patients.

    Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

  13. How many of ya’ll think that reperations are a good idea? Is this just the beginning?

    House Republicans on Wednesday charged that a multibillion-dollar settlement with black farmers supported by the Obama administration was rife with fraud.

    At a press conference in the Capitol Visitor Center, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) alleged that a $1.25 billion Agriculture Department (USDA) settlement to resolve discrimination claims included individuals who were never farmers.

    Bachmann said the discrimination claim process was subject to “massive and widespread fraud and abuse.” King also said he believes the Obama administration has ignored the fraud allegations surrounding the settlement.

    “I think they have turned a blind eye to the fraud and corruption here,” King said.

    The GOP lawmakers called on Attorney General Eric Holder to start an investigation into the settlement’s claimants to ensure that they are genuine. In addition, they asked congressional leaders not to sign off on new appropriations for the settlement.

    http://www.thefoxnation.com/black-farmers/2010/09/30/gop-billion-dollar-black-farmer-settlement-massive-fraud

    • Does this involve the Shirley Sherrod case? Noticed that whole thing went away very quickly.

    • I think it’s about buying votes, with our money, of course.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_pigford_pig_out_and_the_el.html

      There is a growing firestorm over the allegations of massive fraud in the Pigford settlements[.] … According to sworn testimony by John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association, there are 18,000 black farmers. They could not all have been victims of discrimination. To date, there have been over 94,000 claims made. These numbers speak to massive fraud, meaning that American taxpayers are on the hook for what Pigford judge Paul Friedman called “forty acres and a mule.”

  14. BO’s actions just keep getting better:

    The sham is over! Mr. Barack Obama needs to truly “come clean” on this one.

    His administration illegally ordered that the investigation of the Black Panthers, who threatened voters in 2008, be STOPPED…and the case against them be ERASED!

    You read that correctly: STOPPED! And ERASED!

    As a result, one of his administrative assistants has quit over this matter.

    Justice has never been served for the voters who were intimidated by the Black Panthers in Philadelphia in 2008.

    I’m sure that you have heard inklings of this important story…

    Federal authorities originally brought a case against the New Black Panther Party over an incident that took place outside a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008.

    Members of the New Black Panther Party were brandishing a police-style baton weapon. The video of their actions was widely distributed on the internet. The video showed that Members of the New Black Panthers blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters, and hurled racial epithets.

    The Justice Department (DOJ) Staff recommended the prosecution of these thugs. When the defendants refused to answer the charges, the case essentially was won by the government, with only the penalty portion of the legal proceedings left to resolve. Even though DOJ lawyers had won (the Black Panthers did not even show up in court!), the Obama Administration suddenly ordered the charges dropped, even against advice of the Democratic prosecutors who brought the case.

    A former Obama Administration official has stated officials in his department “lied” about the decision to dismiss the DOJ’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, occasionally “under oath.”

    J. Christian Adams, who quit the Obama Administration in disgust, says that new documents blow the Black Panther case wide open.

    Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified, under oath, before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, on May 14, 2010, that the decision was simply “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” He testified there had been no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.”

    However, new documents and email records make that testimony appear to be FALSE, and, potentially, PERJURY!!

    Sam Hirsch, a Deputy Associate Attorney General—yes, a political appointee by Mr. Obama – was directly involved in the decision to dismiss the case against the Black Panthers.

    He sent at least 58 documented emails about the case. Hirsch and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rossenbaum exchanged at least 13 e-mails, including 8 emails the day before the DOJ dismissed it as an “open-and-shut case.”

    These revelations appear to contradict the earlier Department of Justice sworn testimony that such connections to political figures were not a part of the decision to dismiss this case.

    We MUST demand a Congressional Investigation into this unbelievable injustice. Barack Obama promised complete transparency in his Administration, but he has lied, schemed, and stonewalled every attempt to find out the truth about this obvious case of voter fraud! YOU and I must demand answers. This corruption must be rooted out. Congress must take action NOW!

    Please, SELECT HERE to send your IMMEDIATE FAX to every Member of the U.S. Congress. And, please, make the largest possible DONATION that you can to help the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) to ferret out the truth about this voter fraud, and the Obama cover up, AND, your contribution will help USJF to fight voter fraud in the upcoming election!

    Mr. Hirsch was involved in the DOJ decision to dismiss its voting rights case against the New Black Panther Party.

    Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the third highest ranking official in the Department of Justice, visited the White House on nine different occasions between March 25, 2009 and May 27, 200, to discuss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. It appears that Mr. Obama has known about this coverup all along!

    Top political leaders inside the Obama Justice Department were involved in the decision to drop the Black Panther case, but at least one top Justice official said otherwise under oath.

    A second career government civil rights lawyer ripped a hole in the Obama administration’s lies about the Black Panther voter intimidation case last week. Christopher Coates, who headed the Voting Rights Division of the Justice Department, said that the Administration’s decision to throw out the case was a “travesty of justice,” that reflected the “anger” of the President’s appointees and their “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the “law” for the protection of white voters.” This second witness contradicts the sworn testimony of Obama administration officials, and calls into question whether the Mr. Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to deny equal justice to a whole segment of American citizens.

    The Coates’ testimony before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights last Friday CONTRADICTED the Obama administration’s version of events. Coates’ testimony corroborated the work of former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams, who stated that Mr. Obama has made it policy not to pursue charges against minority groups accused of discriminating against white victims. Mr. Coates concluded his testimony by reminding the department, “We do not have the discretion to decide not to enforce the law based upon the race of the perpetrators or the race of the victims of the wrongdoing.”

    Last week’s testimony has been months in coming. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department DENIED Mr. Coates the right to testify; then transferred him to a satellite office in South Carolina. Christopher Coates told the Commission that he could not continue “sitting silently by at the direction of superiors while incorrect information is provided.”

    We agree with Mr. Adams that the documents could expose illegal behavior on the part of the Obama administration.

    “These documents show the Obama Justice Department’s decision to drop the Black Panther case was certainly political and potentially corrupt,” Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has declared. He goes on to say: “The Black Panther decision is a scandal for the Obama administration, and it merits serious attention by investigators. Assistant Attorney General Perez seems to have been less than candid in his sworn testimony when he said no political appointees were involved in the decision.”

    Let me put it to you straight: When Justice Department officials deliberately misrepresent facts to the public and to Congress, THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES. LYING TO CONGRESS UNDER OATH IS PERJURY!

    There must be an investigation by the United States Congress!

    Last week’s disclosing of the email logs show that the Justice Department was LYING. The politically-motivated DISMISSAL of the New Black Panther Party case was made high-up in the Obama political chain of command.

    These new developments threaten to expose the full extent of the Obama administration’s role in this cover-up of voter fraud, possibly including obstruction of justice and perjury!

    This case is being handled by Judge Reggie Walton in the District of Columbia, and a hearing will be held in mid-October.

    ALL EVIDENCE shows that the Barack Obama Administration has been totally UNTRUTHFUL about who was involved in the dismissal of the case.

    I believe that the order for dropping this case (that was already-won) came from the top! It is very clear that this administration is filled with forces which would rob us of our freedom if they could. WE WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN! Corruption, even at the polls, must NOT be allowed to prevail!

    Respectfully…for the voters,

    Gary G. Kreep, Esq.
    Executive Director
    United States Justice Foundation

    P. S. We must investigate this immediately. After all, it’s been almost two years since this atrocious action against our basic freedom to cast a vote. Please help us to force an investigation by the United States Congress. As freedom loving citizens, we will NOT be bullied!

  15. Guns and the Drop in the Violent Crime Rate
    September 27, 2010 1:46 P.M.
    By John R. Lott Jr.

    President Obama undoubtedly didn’t intend it, but he deserves some credit for the recent report that all violent crime rates dropped in 2009, murder rates by 7.4 percent, robbery rates by 9 percent: His election caused gun sales to skyrocket, and crime rates to plummet.

    Gun sales started notably rising in October 2008, and sale really took off immediately after Obama won the presidential race: 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than bought them in November 2007. That’s over a 40 percent increase in sales. By comparison, the change from November 2006 to November 2007 was only about 35,000. Over the last decade, the average year-to-year increase in monthly sales was only 21,000.

    The higher sales continued well beyond November 2008: about 3.15 million more people bought guns in the 14 months after the election than in the preceding 14 months. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, doesn’t tell us how many guns each person bought, just the number of people who bought them. Most likely, though, gun sales rose by more than the number of people who purchased them.

    At the same time gun sales were soaring, there was an unusually large drop in murder rates. The 7.4 percent drop in the murder rate was the largest drop in murder rates since the 1999. For those who don’t remember, 1999 — when Bill Clinton was president and Columbine occurred — was another time when gun sales soared. With Clinton domestic-policy advisers such as Elena Kagan pushing hard for more gun control, Americans were worried that more gun bans were coming; in response, gun sales soared.

    Higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, and the more frequent use of the death penalty all reduce crime, and so does letting victims defend themselves with guns. More certain or greater penalties make it more risky for criminals to commit crime. Victims who can defend themselves can also make committing crime more dangerous and deter criminals.

    Americans living in the District of Columbia and Chicago have seen this phenomenon firsthand. After bans went into effect in both cities, murder rates rose dramatically. The District’s murder rates then plunged by 23 percent in 2009 after the Supreme Court threw out D.C.’s gunlock laws and handgun ban. After that 2008 decision, 70,000 D.C. residents were able to use their long guns for self-defense. As my research in the just-released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime shows, murder rates don’t fall and tend to climb when guns are banned.

    If President Obama really understood that it reduces crime to let law-abiding citizens defend themselves, it is unlikely that gun sales would have had to increase. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Chicago gun ban this month, Americans may get to see yet again that more guns means less crime.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/247897/guns-and-drop-violent-crime-rate-john-r-lott-jr

    • “More Celebrities Than Ever Are Carrying Firearms”
      Permits are apparently increasing across the economic spectrum.

      They might not be dangerous, but they’re armed.

      Seeking an added layer of protection, more high-profile celebrities are seeking permits to carry guns in New York City, according to New York’s Daily News.

      Among the big names licensed to pack heat: Marc Anthony, Robert De Niro, Donald Trump, and his son, Donald Jr., Mets third baseman David Wright, and Martha Stewart’s daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart. . . .

      One reason for the rise in interest seems to be the vulnerability some celebrities feel in the Internet age, where so much personal information can be accessed online. “They can get their own security, but with the Internet, it is much easier to find people,” attorney John Skylar Chambers tells the News. “They don’t want to find someone on their lawn at five in the morning.”

      Gun permit aren’t easy, or cheap, to get. Applicants must show that they often carry large amounts of cash or valuables, or that they are being threatened in some way. And the application alone costs a nonrefundable $340.

      Despite the rise in applications from celebrities, the number of permits issued in New York City is actually down by 2.4 percent this year, to 2,093. . . .

  16. Buck the Wala says:

    BF,

    Re: your posts on Israel/Palestine — one question comes to mind: You keep arguing that it is always the hegemony that causes the reaction of the weaker party and that there can be no peace until Israel stops the violence. So what do you suppose Israel do as its innocent citizens are murdered by terrorists on a daily basis?

    I am not saying that Israel is blameless in the current mess, but somehow you refuse to see the continued actions of the Palestinians.

    I don’t want to rehash everything you’ve already argued once again. All I want is your answer to this question: What should Israel do as its citizens are killed by terrorists? If nothing, why? How will doing nothing create peace, as opposed to ‘proving’ to the terrorists that they are ‘winning’ by wearing Israel down resulting in even more suicide bombs and more innocent deaths?

    • Buck,

      I’m going to address your questions in a different order then you offered them because I think it exposes a certain line of mental traps that a lot of Americans suffer.

      I am not saying that Israel is blameless in the current mess

      There is this apparent need for blame. I do not blame in this context, because its contention extends to guilt

      I (if you’d actually note) offer cause/effect.

      You keep arguing that it is always the hegemony that causes the reaction of the weaker party

      Well, think about it rationally.

      Who is the power and who is not? It is really that simple.

      In all cases, the hegemony acts and the weaker party reacts.

      It cannot go the other way – because if it did, then you have made a mistake determining who is the hegemony!.

      Do understand the salient point?

      and that there can be no peace until Israel stops the violence.

      Correct! and unilaterally.

      It is wholly and completely in the power of the hegemony to decide if and when a conflict starts or stops.

      It was not Iraq who invaded the US – it was the US who invaded Iraq. Thus, the Iraqis react to the invasion.

      Certainly this reaction can influence the hegemony to act some more – but it cannot make the hegemony act. However, the hegemony CAN make the weaker party react by exercising the power differential.

      Iraq cannot bomb the US, but the US can obliterate Iraq. Thus, the power cause/effect moves only in one direction.

      This is no different a situation then with Israel/Palestine. The moment Israel stops, so do the Palestinians. The power differential can only move one way – the powerful upon the weak. When the power decides to stop, the effect also stops.

      Example: The US is bombing Iraq. The Iraqis do not or could not resist. Did this stop the bombing? Nope.

      So what do you suppose Israel do as its innocent citizens are murdered by terrorists on a daily basis?

      First, no such thing exists. Fewer Israelis die than Americans in their own cities. So the emotional rhetoric of lies is key to Israel maintaining its hegemony – for its power rests on the platform of the US sympathy and that can only be held with big lies.

      Second, if the hegemony is serious about peace, then it will suffer the very few causalities it must without retaliation.

      This very act will signal the seriousness of its peace efforts and will automatically cause the weaker party to ruthlessly reign in any extreme factions of its own so to not provoke the hegemony.

      Only the strong can stop unilaterally. The weaker cannot never stop without it becoming a surrender. If the weaker are committed to never surrendering, they cannot stop unilaterally. Do you see and understand this?

      as opposed to ‘proving’ to the terrorists that they are ‘winning’ by wearing Israel down

      So don’t stop and follow through with both sides of the conditions.

      Hold this premises:
      (1) The weaker party will never surrender
      (2) The hegemony eventually seeks peace.

      Question:
      Does the hegemony demonstrate its desire for peace by
      (1) bombing the crap out of the weaker party
      or
      (2) grounding their bombers?

      Do you believe dropping bombs on the weaker party is a sign of a desire for peace?

      (PS: I am NOT asking rhetorical questions – these are serious considerations in the geopolitical scenario so presented)

      • Buck

        Additional:
        automatically cause the weaker party to ruthlessly reign in any extreme factions of its own so to not provoke the hegemony

        This is exampled by the British/IRA conflict.

        When Britain STOPPED provoking, the IRA reigned in its more extreme factions – in fact, by fratricide of its own radical members or handing them over to the British.

  17. “Let the Jews, who claim to be the chosen race, prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.”–Mahatma Gandhi, Nov. 26, 1938

  18. Why does Germany still owe money for the first world war?

    In a few days Germany will pay its final reparations to the Allies for the first world war, 92 years after it finished.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/29/germany-reparations-first-world-war

  19. TexasChem says:

    @-BlackFlag,

    You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality!

    There is no Palestinian people.There never has been a Palestinian people since there has never been a Palestinian state.Never ever in history.Todays so called Palestinians (transplanted Jordanians)are the Islamic Arab worlds pawns against a unified Israel border.Period.This conflict started specifically with followers of Amin Al Husseini who began the Islamic war upon the west and Israel 80 years ago.These followers are funded by Saudi oil money.This Islamic worldwide Jihad has caused the death through outright murder of over 10 million human beings in a lil’ over half a century!Islam the religion of Peace!Submit!

    The west bank and gaza strip should be incorporated into the state of Israel as permanent boundaries and ALL peoples living in those geographic regions should be given status as Israeli citizens in my opinion.Many if not most nations have different ethnic groups and different religious groups living together peacably.The same could be true in Israel.

    “No two historians ever agree on what happened, and the damn thing is they both think they’re telling the truth.” —Harry S. Truman.

    • TexasChem says:

      For Blackflag,

      A little calming music my friend!

    • Tex,

      There is no Palestinian people.There never has been a Palestinian people since there has never been a Palestinian state

      Your understanding of history is badly distorted.

      It has been the name to describe the People and the geography for over 2,500 years.

      Islamic war on Israel 80 years ago

      I cannot imagine how that is possible, since Israel has only been around since 1949

      This Islamic worldwide Jihad has caused the death through outright murder of over 10 million human beings in a lil’ over half a century

      Where do you get your information? The back of matchbooks?

      The west bank and gaza strip should be incorporated into the state of Israel as permanent boundaries

      That, and more, is indeed the current plan.

      and ALL peoples living in those geographic regions should be given status as Israeli citizens in my opinion.

      Nice opinion.

      But a couple of problems.

      Most of the people whose homes have been stolen do not think that would be a honor – but instead would see it as a grave insult.

      The Zionists will never allow it. It would mean the Jews become outnumbered again.

      “No two historians ever agree on what happened, and the damn thing is they both think they’re telling the truth.” —Harry S. Truman.

      And he is right, because are public schooled and their world has been well filtered for them.

      • Tex

        Back at ya

      • V.H.,
        Further to “this has been going on longer than 60 years”

        The World Zionist Organization (Hebrew: ההסתדרות הציונית העולמית‎), or WZO, was founded as the Zionist Organization (Hebrew: ההסתדרות הציונית‎), or ZO, in 1897 at the First Zionist Congress, held from August 29 to August 31 in Basel, Switzerland. It changed its name to World Zionist Organization in January 1960.

        The ZO served as an umbrella organization for the Zionist movement, whose objective was the creation of a Jewish homeland in The British Mandate of Palestine. Theodor Herzl, who with Max Nordau and Zvi Shimshi, organized the first Congress, later wrote in his diary: “If I were to sum up the Congress in a word – which I shall take care not to publish – it would be this: At Basle I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.”

        The platform of the WZO is the Jerusalem Program. The Zionist Council, meeting in Jerusalem in June 2004, adopted this text as the latest version.

        Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future. The foundations of Zionism are:

        * The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;

        To punish the Turks for their war against the Allied powers in WW1, the Ottoman Empire was disassembled and allocated.

        The Zionist Organization submitted their draft resolutions for consideration by the Peace Conference on February 3, 1919. This shortly followed the Conference’s decision that the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire should be separated from it and the newly conceived mandate-system applied to them.

        The statement included five main points:

        * Recognition of the Jewish people’s historic title to Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home in Palestine.
        * The boundaries of Palestine were to be declared as set out in an attached Schedule.
        * The sovereign possession of Palestine would be vested in the League of Nations and the Government entrusted to Great Britain as Mandatory of the League.
        * Other provisions to be inserted by the High Contracting Parties relating to the application of any general conditions attached to mandates, which are suitable to the case in Palestine.
        * The mandate shall be subject also to several noted special conditions, including the provision relating to the control of the Holy Places.

      • TexasChem says:

        It is time to restore historical correctness and dispose, once and for all, of the literary and present day propagandistic use of the term Palestine when referring to the biblical/geographical area of Judea.

        Nowhere in the Jewish Bible is the word Palestine used. Nor is it ever used in the Christian Bible. Read the New Testament texts and look for the word, Palestine. It does not exist.

        The Bible, both Jewish and Christian, never employs the name Palestine in reference to biblical times. Any Bible commentary that refers to the biblical period as ‘in Palestine’ is either committing an historical error or is making a determined and sinister effort to deny the Jewish biblical names of Judah, Israel, Judea, Samaria and Galilee – especially that of Israel. It is, therefore, necessary to review some brief history to understand the monumental error being committed.

        During the First Jewish uprising against the Romans, the Roman general, Titus, destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Subsequently Rome issued coins with the phrase, Judea Capta, meaning that the Jewish province of Judea had been captured. However, they did not use the term, Palestine, for it was as yet unknown and certainly never employed in Roman coinage of that time.

        The second Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation of Judea broke out under the banner of Bar-Kochba in 132 AD. It was eventually crushed in 136 AD after years of heroic resistance against the legions of Rome’s emperor, Hadrian Publius Aelius.

        Incidentally, a discovery of 120 coins minted by followers of Bar Kochba, who was known as the Son of a Star, have just been found by Israeli archaeologists near the Dead Sea where the Jewish defenders made their final stand against Rome. The coins all had the words, ‘Freedom for Jerusalem’ imprinted on them.

        Hadrian destroyed Jewish Jerusalem, plowing the city under and filling the furrows with salt. He renamed it Aelia Capitolina, in part after his own name, and built a shrine to the Roman god Jupiter on the site where the Holy Jewish Temple had once stood.

        But he also chose to rename Judea with that of the hated ancient enemy of Israel; the now long extinct Philistines. This was done as a lasting insult to the Jewish people. Hadrian thus renamed the land Philistia, later Latinized into Palestina and, in time, becoming Palestine.

        Not historically accurate anywhere near your 2,500 year claim of this land being called “Palestine”.
        Gasp!You are wrong Blackflag!

        • Tex,

          Nowhere in the Jewish Bible is the word Palestine used.

          No where in the Lord of the Rings is the word Jew used.

          Therefore, Jews do not exist.

          Nor is it ever used in the Christian Bible. Read the New Testament texts and look for the word, Palestine. It does not exist.

          Read the Lord of the Rings, word for word, for the word Jew. It does not exist.

          The Bible, both Jewish and Christian, never employs the name Palestine in reference to biblical times.

          Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Bambi never employs the word “Jew”

          Any Bible commentary that refers to the biblical period as ‘in Palestine’ is either committing an historical error or is making a determined and sinister effort to deny the Jewish biblical names of Judah, Israel, Judea, Samaria and Galilee – especially that of Israel. It is, therefore, necessary to review some brief history to understand the monumental error being committed.

          Any movie critic that refers to a passage as proofing the existence of Jews is committing an historical error or making a sinister effort to create their existence.

          During the First Jewish uprising against the Romans, the Roman general, Titus, destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Subsequently Rome issued coins with the phrase, Judea Capta, meaning that the Jewish province of Judea had been captured. However, they did not use the term, Palestine, for it was as yet unknown and certainly never employed in Roman coinage of that time.

          The Romans, Ottomans, Egyptians, Persians etc. all refereed to the areas as Palestine (or Philistine).

          To claim “Palestine” as unknown to the Romans is rather bizarre since the Egyptians – who predate the Romans – used the term. (Philistine).

          The second Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation of Judea broke out under the banner of Bar-Kochba in 132 AD. It was eventually crushed in 136 AD after years of heroic resistance against the legions of Rome’s emperor, Hadrian Publius Aelius.

          So you admit the Jews lost all there land far and square.

          the now long extinct Philistines.

          They were not “extinct”, no more the the Plains Indians are “extinct”.

          Gasp!You are wrong Blackflag!

          You lose again.

          • TexasChem says:

            BF Stated”the now long extinct Philistines.

            They were not “extinct”, no more the the Plains Indians are “extinct”.

            You lose again.”

            TC:Ummm No I do not lose!You lose!

            The Philistines were known as the “Sea Peoples” whom, it is believed, originated from Crete. They settled along much of the south eastern Mediterranean coastline and certainly had nothing to do with the ancestry of any Arabs — despite the deluded imaginings of the late arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat.

            The usage of the Hadrianic term, Palestine, was subsequently absorbed into the lexicon of the Church, which has continued to use the historically incorrect term, Palestine, when referring to biblical history in maps and literature: often replacing the word, Israel.

            Interestingly, when the Crusader King Frederick II obtained a lease of much of the Holy Land from the Egyptian Sultan, Al-Kamil, including Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem, he called it the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

            When Great Britain was awarded the Mandate for the territory in 1920 by the League of Nations, it immediately employed the term, Palestine, on both sides of the River Jordan.

            The British term became the geo-political usage for several decades and the Jewish community was obliged to use terms such as the Palestine Post for today’s Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra for today’s Israel Symphony Orchestra. The historically correct name, Israel, was finally revived after the reconstituted State of Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948.

            Back at ya!

%d bloggers like this: