Tuesday Night Open Mic for October 19, 2010

We come to open mic and I am still trying to recover from the last few weeks of work. I am working on some more substantial articles that I think are going to be pretty good when they are finished. And we will see Part 3 of Jon Smith’s series coming later this week as well. For tonight we have several interesting topics. We have a SCOTUS judge who decided that he is skipping the State of the Union, a Senatorial candidate that doesn’t know what the Constitution says, the idiot women on The View making complete asses of themselves, and a lame attempt by Democrats to buy the Senior Citizen vote with a $250 credit to each senior. As many of you may have noticed, I have tended to stay away from stories about specific races for the upcoming elections. Realistically, all the madness out there is getting more than enough coverage. But the other side of that is the races that are most interesting are so bizarre or idiotic that these candidates simply don’t deserve the time it would take to write about them.


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Supreme Court Justice Alito Plans to Skip Next State of Union Address

    When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president’s next State of the Union address,Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them.

    The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political and awkward for the justices, who he says are expected to sit “like the proverbial potted plant.”

    Of course, Alito did not remain impassive at the most recent State of the Union speech by President Barack Obama. He reacted to Obama’s unusual rebuke of the court for its decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true.”

    The 60-year-old justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged with a smile that his colleagues “who are more disciplined refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.”

    Alito, answering questions following a speech Wednesday at the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York, also said, “Presidents will fake you out.” The institute provided an online video link to Alito’s talk and question-and-answer session.

    The president will begin a sentence with an invocation of the country’s greatness, Alito said. If justices don’t jump up and applaud, “you look very unpatriotic,” he said.

    But, Alito continued, then the president may finish the thought by adding “because we’re conducting a surge in Iraq or because we’re enacting health care reform.” Justices aren’t supposed to react to statements about policy or politics.

    The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomasand the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years.

    “So I doubt that I will be there in January,” Alito said.

    At least one justice, Stephen Breyer, has said he was not bothered by Obama’s criticism and believes justices should attend so that viewers can see the three branches of government represented in the same room.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/16/supreme-court-justice-alito-plans-skip-state-union-address/

    Let me first say that I am in full support of Alito in deciding that he isn’t interested in participating in the political dog and pony show that the State of the Union has become.

    For those who weren’t around to read the past articles that I have written about the State of the Union Speeches, I think that they are the most sophomoric, childish displays possible from what is supposed to be the governing body of the most powerful nation in the world. Watching the completely partisan up and down game frankly leaves me embarrassed that the rest of the world might be watching.

    To be honest I am surprised that the members of the Supreme Court attend the State of the Union address at all. They are expected to sit there like bumps in a log so that they don’t show any political bias or reaction to what is being said. What a ridiculous sentiment since anyone who pays any attention can tell you the leanings of every member of the Supreme Court off the top of their head. That they are required to sit there and pretend that those biases are not present is just dumb. I think that the members of the Supreme Court should either be able to react however they see fit based on their personal beliefs or they should all not attend at all.

    But that goes away from the fact that I think the State of the Union address is an outdated and useless event in today’s political world. Besides the sophomoric behavior exhibited by nearly everyone in attendance, it simply serves no purpose any longer. In today’s 24 hour news cycle, there simply isn’t a need for it. If I could borrow a line from Vince Vaughn…

    The State of the Union is Gay.

    • Common Man says:

      Yeah and Pelosi reminded me of one of those groundhog pop-up games where you try to hit the groundhog as he pops up out of the hole to score points. I wished I could set next to Nancy and clobber her on the head evey time she stood up and started clapping.

      There’s an idea for a video game, but it would have advanced stages enabling you to gather an assortment of weapons. anything from the simple hammer they use now to katana’s and .50 Cal’s. What a concept and one that would help people vent their frustration.


    • YOU LIE!

      • Mathius

        I know you are simply trying to interject humor this morning but it is the President and Democrats who are lying about the Citizen United decision. Mr. Alito understood the true ramifications at the time and I expect that is why he mouthed “not true”.

        Here is a pretty good discussion of what has and is going on with regard to campaign financing and how the Citizen United decision fits.


        Everything I have read from the left wing sites has been mostly emotional claims. This was the first article I have seen that addresses the actual changes rather than assigning the entire existing situation to the court’s decision.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:


          It’s all a show.

          Attend, don’t attend, it doesn’t matter. It’s not like the Justice won’t read the speech or watch it on TV. Of course he will. Not that there will be anything in it he doesn’t already know.

          But there’s no need for the SOTU in today’s world – it was necessary when news traveled slowly and only through certain channels. In today’s work, it’s an anachronism and is being used as yet another stump speech that you can force the entirely of both houses to sit through, and you can get some media attention and preempt prime time TV with. It’s smoke and mirrors – there’s no fracking substance.

          Do you think a true and serious conveyance of the details about the state of the union would be interrupted 60 times for applause? Would they do that annoying thing where they praise some random “ordinary citizen” for something irrelevant? Would they throw out so much red meat about what they’re going to do or would they stick to the topic at hand of where we are as a union?

          It’s all theater, so turn down the lights, sit back and enjoy. I would pay good money to see one, just one, person sitting in the back row with 3D glasses on and a large tub of popcorn.

          • Common Man says:


            Although rare, you and I are in total agreement on this one. And not only is a waste of time it also sonetimes screws up what little TV I do watch.

            Maybe they could set the next one up as a pay-per-view


            • I do hate when they cancel my shows.. I have so little time these days that I desperately need the hour here and there that I get to spend being a couch potato.

              I need to watch Jeopardy! and Stargate Universe. I like to watch NCIS and House. And when is V coming back?!

              • Common Man says:

                With ya on NCIS and yes I would like to see ‘V’ come back too.

                • Seems like V will be back Jan 4.. but who knows. I think it’s in danger of being canceled despite it’s awesomeness.

                  BTW: I just found out that NCIS is a spinoff of JAG – I never knew that.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I could care less who attends or doesn’t attend the State Of The Union Address.

      I don’t even watch it. It’s all a bunch of BS lies.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Too Little Too Late: Obama’s Proposed $250 Rebate to Seniors Unlikely to Sway Election, Analysts Say

    President Obama and Democrats have proposed a $250 rebate to seniors who are not getting a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security benefits for the second year in a row, but critics are suggesting the promised pay-out is merely intended to sway the senior vote — and likely won’t even succeed in that, with the midterm election two weeks away.

    Polls suggest the Social Security work-around won’t have much political impact on seniors who are poised to turn out in record levels on Nov. 2 and are likely to pull the lever for the Republican candidate — an advantage that could propel the GOP into power in the House and possibly the Senate.

    The proposal comes as more than 200 Democratic candidates urge Obama to reject any proposed cuts to Social Security benefits from his fiscal commission, which has said everything, including entitlements, are on the table.

    Critics dismiss the efforts as a cheap stunt.

    “I think the Democratic Party’s standing between now and November is past the point of rescue with seniors,” Glen Bolger, a GOP pollster, told FoxNews.com

    But Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said the proposal can’t hurt.

    “It’s hard to say that any policy makes the difference,” he said. “But it does underline differences between Republicans and Democrats on Social Security and Social Security can make a real difference in seniors’ voting decisions.”

    Democratic pollster Guy Molyneux said seniors will have a “positive reaction” to candidates who support the proposal.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/little-late-obamas-proposed-rebate-seniors-unlikely-sway-election-analysts-say/

    What I love best about this particular article is that no one on either side of the issue even begins to refute that this is little more than an attempt by the White House to buy votes from Senior Citizens. There is no other purpose. This isn’t being done because the White House wants to do something for AARP members because of the second straight year with no raise in the Cost of Living Allowance. THAT isn’t the type of income redistribution that this White House has in mind.

    No, this is nothing more than an attempt to bribe senior voters to vote for the Democrats in the upcoming elections. And I personally think that it is sad. I chuckled when the Democratic pollster said that it underlines the differences between the Republicans and Democrats on Social Security. What a load of horseshit. It doesn’t underline anything but the desperation of the Democratic party as the election nears and the are realizing that their little run of uncontested power may be coming to an end.

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand that for seniors that are on a tight budget, every dollar helps. So this $250 is something that is needed by the folks who are living on that budget. But overwhelmingly, senior voters are simply smarter about the entire process than younger voters. Years of participating in the process gave them better vision on the subjects. So I personally believe that this $250 is nothing more than wasted money as far as the campaign goes. Seniors will be the first to see right through this and see that it is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes.

    Senior voters understand that $250 is chump change from an administration that gives billions to corrupt banks, bails out unions, and who, if they have their way, will increase energy costs dramatically which will cost those seniors far more than a measly $250.

    • I don’t think it is going to help much. In the early voting that I did, I was number 324 when I signed in. The majority of the early voters were elderly seniors. I sneaked a peak at a couple of sample ballots that they were taking in with them where they had marked. I did not see any democratic marks. I agree with Fox News this time that Obama is courting the wrong voters. He is appealing to theyoung school generation. I don’t think it is going to work.

    • Common Man says:

      68 cents a day…woopi!!!! What in God’s name can you do with 68 cents a day, hell it would take 3 days savings just to buy 2 “Buck Doubles” from Burger King.

      Obama is an ass, as is every other hack pandering for votes.

      I do hope that seniors come out in mass and vote these morons out, because there doesn’t seem to be much hope the young will take up the cause.


    • Let me re-post this from yesterday. It seems relevant to the discussion of whether the YOUNG are going to vote and whether they are being counted in the polls.

      Nine Reasons the Democrats will Retain Control of the House

      A well done article that reveals the thinking and efforts of political insiders. This will make your stomachs tighten.


      • Common Man says:


        Although I’m sure there are ‘some’ truth’s to part of what he is saying, I would note that it is written with a slight bit of bias oppinion.

        Here in Michigan most people are focusing on the Governor spot. The two candidates running Virg (Dem) and Rick (Rep) are poorer and poor choices. Virg is a lifetime political hack backed by the unions, and Rick is the former COO of Gateway and a self-proclaimed nerd. Rick has a 5-6 point advantage, but Michigan is a heavy liberal state????

        I’m not sure how things are going to pan out, but my hopes are that we rid both houses of at least 40% of the snakes slithering in there now.

        The biggest issue is that regardless of how things turn out we will still be watching the same show, but with different actors.

        Hope you caught some nice steelies and will soon put some venison in the freezer. So far this deer season we have had a poor turnout. Acorn crop is a bumper, and the weather has been overly mild. We need a hard frost.

        Shoot straight my friend.


        • CM

          It is not just bias but a heavy dose of wishful thinking.

          I am intrigued by this notion that cell phones are having an increasing affect on the accuracy of polls.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Christine O’Donnell: “Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?”

    Republican Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell today challenged her Democratic opponent Chris Coons on his statement that the Constitution disallowed the integration of religion into the federal government, asking, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?”

    The exchange, which prompted laughs from the studio audience, came during a debate this morning at Delaware’s Widener School of Law, which was aired by WDEL radio.

    In a discussion over the whether or not public schools should be allowed to integrate religion-based ideas into science curricula, O’Donnell argued that local school districts should have the choice to teach intelligent design if they choose.

    When asked point blank by Coons if she believed in evolution, however, O’Donnell reiterated that her personal beliefs were not germane.  “What I think about the theory of evolution is irrelevant,” she emphasized, adding later that the school of thought was “not a fact but a theory.”

    Coons said that creationism, which he considers “a religious doctrine,” should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution’s First Amendment.  He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.

    “The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

    “Government shall make no establishment of religion,” Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)

    “That’s in the First Amendment…?” O’Donnell responded.

    Also during the debate, O’Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.

    “The 17th Amendment I would not repeal,” she said, before asking the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: “I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me.”

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020015-503544.html

    Christine O’Donnell continues to baffle me with the level of incompetence that she displays on a regular basis. Let me say this:I don’t dislike O’Donnell. I have an issue with her positions around evolution and her beliefs that the church should have a place in government. I don’t care if she practiced witchcraft 15 years ago. She is a regular person, even with her lack of knowledge, and that alone makes her more qualified to represent Delaware than professional politicians.

    But when you don’t know that the Constitution says what it does about the separation of church and state, you have crossed into an area that renders you unable to properly represent anyone in the federal government. I mean, jeesh, you are running for the position of United States Senator and you don’t know what the amendments to the Constitution are?

    The bigger issue here is for the Tea Party. Candidates like O’Donnell are simply burying the Tea Party. If this is what the Tea Party chooses as its representation, you have to question the wisdom of the movement in the first place. The picture that O’Donnell is painting of the Tea Party is a bunch of incompetent fools. And that is a shame because the party surely has many smart folks. Mad Mom comes to mind.

    It leads me to think that perhaps the anger behind the Tea Party is real. But the party itself is not. You can call it grass roots. You can call it the party of regular people. But when your highest profile candidates are folks like Christine O’Donnell, what you cannot call it is a viable party. I mean did you really ever think that we would have candidates winning primaries that make Bob Barr seem sane and knowledgeable?

    • Her comments and the national attention by the media in more of a ‘gotcha’ style of reporting, makes me think that the media is trying to stir up the liberals as much as possible, and is approaching the level of distain that they have for Palin.

      It also seems like the media is attacking anyone that comes from outside of the establishment and scrutinizing them at a higher standard then the bums that are already in power.

      • Naten,

        Did you listen to the debate? I did. The woman is dangerously uninformed.

        Now, mind you, I don’t have a huge issue with someone not knowing the 17th Amendment. But when you run for Senate with it as a focal point and you don’t know it, it shows that you’re just a suit and that someone else is doing the real job. That, I object to. Who is that person? What do they stand for? What do they think? Why are they hiding behind O’Donnell?

        Further, if you don’t know the First Amendment… well.. ok, you really should, but I guess it’s possible that you might not. But Coons quoted* the First Amendment**, and she was incredulous. “The First Amendment says that? It says that?!” That shows me that she doesn’t even have a passing familiarity with the basis for the single most*** important tenet of our society. That is terrifying.

        *From memory – something most people here can probably do
        **He was slightly off, but got the meat of it
        ***Yes, most.

        • Basically she was correct. The statement made was about separation of church and state…there is no reference to that specific language in the first amendment, simply that the federal government cannot create a religion.

          To me, Coons is the one that is ignorant, and when asked, could not cite the 5 freedoms enumerated in the 1st amendment. The MSM has once again struck…in a attempt to paint someone as something they are not. If you are a sheeple, then you will believe them…the actual 1st amendment language is ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’

          So where is the separation of church and state in the 1st?

          • I’m listening to it again, they are talking about the principle of Church and State, not the wording.

            “The government shall make no establishment of religion” (not quite right, but close enough)

            “That’s found in the first Amendment?” (incredulous)

            She does, at one point, say “the phrase ‘church and state’ appears in the first amendment?” to which he says that it was developed by judicial review. But that doesn’t explain the above exchange – she didn’t think Amendment provides for freedom of religion.

            And scarier still though, this is a religious woman who thinks that it’s ok to make the US into (more of) a theocracy and doesn’t believe that the First Amendment prevents that.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Terry – where in the 2nd amendment does it say you don’t have to be in a militia in order to keep an bear arms? It doesn’t.

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


            For the necessity of a free State, the right of the people in a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed”

            Course – I’ve always wondered how, the assurance of a FREE STATE is congruent with a well REGULATED militia.

            • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

              Where it says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE. Unless , of course you think that the Preamble which says “We the People” is interchangable with We the militia”. As US said, Sheesh…

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                That is a comma SK, not a semi-colon. But you’re missing my point – regardless of trying to compare grammar use across two hundred years it has been interpreted countless times over the years that the 2nd guarantees the right of individual citizens to bear arms – a position I don’t particularly care for but support 100%.

                • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                  My apologies. I am just so used to people jumping on the “militia” bandwagon that I go on automatic.

                  I would hope that in these arguments people would look at the meaning of words and look at how they changed. I think that is crucial. At least that’s the way Brother Patrick taught me in Junior year of High School. Pretty good American History teacher, he was a former FBI agent.

          • And we would NEVER prevent the free exercise. Of anything other that Christianity or Judaism.

        • Actually, it reads to me that she was trying to point out (rather poorly) that the constitution does not specifically say “separation of church and state”. And that applied to the topic of teaching creationism in school is not necessarily an establishment of religion.

          An example of contradiction within the media. “It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America’s public schools.” And later “But teachers can teach about religion”

          Also of note is that she asked him what 5 freedoms the first amendment granted, where he could only come up with one. “First Amendment Center surveys show that most Americans can name just one freedom in the First Amendment and only one in 25 can name all five — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rights of petition and assembly”


          • I got speech, press, assembly, and religion immediately. I had to think for a second to get petition. I guess I’m a little rusty.

            • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

              One Mosque in One place.

              I personally think that they should try to build the sucker. Let’s see if the trade unions allow it to happen. I do wonder.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Naten53 – I think you’re off base on this one – Christine O’Donnell has followed (incorrectly imho) a Sarak Palin 2.0 gameplan that advises to ignore all but the most friendly of media (Sean Hannity in O’Donnell’s case) and, oddly, to hold as few campaign events as possible. I understand the strategy – control as much as you can about messaging on/about you – you control the message then you (in theory) stand a better chance of winning. I’m not clear what is so gotcha about Christine O’Donnell, who proclaims to want strict adherence to the Constitution, interrupting Coons to interject a completely wrong-headed response regarding the 1st amendment. The other incident regarding her lack of knowledge of the 14th and 16th amendments only underscores the point – those aren’t gotcha moments unless you consider that she “got herself”. The fact that a Tea Partier does not know what the 16th amendment is not gotcha journalism, it is significant in pointing out that someone lacking even a basic understanding of Civics and Government could actually be elected to the U.S. Senate – that isn’t improvment – that is a colossal step backwards.

        • Of course nitpicking the actual language versus an accepted summary in the first amendment appears worse when you cannot do the same with every other part of the constitution not just the rest of the amendments. It is like a grammar Nazi not using there, their, and they’re incorrectly but points out someone misspelled the word Samhainophobia (fear of Halloween since it is October). And since when does knowing the constitution or not prevented a senator from doing whatever they wanted anyways.

          I do think that it was quite poor of her to try to spin it the way that she did (even though we should all be able to admit that we know what she tried to do) The fact though that I was trying to make was that this is the State of Delaware. The second smallest in area, and 45th in population. And this race has been making national media way before the witch and first amendment ‘gotcha’ moments. I live in Pennsylvania and how much national media is the senate race for Arlen Specter’s seat getting? I stand by my earlier statement that the national media is scrutinizing this race more then they would have normally because this is an anti establishment candidate. And if she wins I think that the distain that the opposition have for her will be equal to that of Palin or close to it.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Regardless if its 45th in population a Delaware Senator gets the same vote as a Senator from New York, California, Texas or Pennsylvania. That the PA race is maybe not getting as much press, to me, only reveals that there is less ideological backwash floating in the electoral bottle. As the PA race has tightened it has gotten more press – after all- we are talking about a seat that was GOP for years……

            • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

              This whole thing is not worth arguing about. The Constitution was written in the 1780’s, it was not until Madeline Murray O’Hare appeared on the scene in the 1950’s that anyone notiiced, for the first time, that there was this very obvious separation of church and state which had been ignored for the previous 150 years because, apparently, like Sleeping Beauty, the courts and legislatures were asleep.

              Of course the meaning of words had obviously changed so much in the intervening time that suddenly “establishing” meant any and all mention of a Deity in the public square.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @SK – you’re incorrect sir – please refer to Reynolds v. United States and then Everson v. Board of Education – both of which predate Murray v. Curlett.


                • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                  Interesting but not convincing. Seems that they could be seen as foundational in later, broader, more sweeping regulations. I agree actually with the disenters in Everson. If the majority opinion is strictly interpreted then obviously using taxpayer funds for any purpose which aids a private or religious school should be prohibited.

                  Of course I disagree with the premise and as a New Jerseyian who sent all his kids to Catholic School have benefitted from the decision. I do get a kick out of it though. If the Catholic School had to close because of the cost of transportation then Mr. Everson would have found himself paying one hell of a lot more in school taxes to not just transport but educate the kids.

                  I just don’t get the part where the amendment quite clearly prohibits a government sponsored religion. This would originally have been interpreted as a sect such as Episcopalian over Catholic or Baptist as did exist in some New England States until well into the 19th century. As a matter of fact, this favoritism was the causal factor for the creation of many Catholic schools. The stretch if you will is to broaden it to exclude all religion and find a new unintended meaning.

      • Here is MM’s take:


        Not sure O’Donnell is as misinformed as some would like to think.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Kathy – I would fully expect right wing shrills like Malkin to focus as they are – never mind the conceptual context of the issue of “…separation…” and focus more literally on “THE PHRASE ISN’T IN THERE! THE PHRASE ISN’T IN THERE!”

          Of critical importance is that contrary to Miss O’Donnell states in that what she thinks “is not important” – it is critically important – it is important to understand that contrary to Jefferson’s Danbury letter – she may not believe there need be a “firewall” between Church and State. Remember Kathy – this is the same informed woman who wants us to know that mice have been grown with human brains.

          And to be fair – I don’t give Coons a free pass – he has almost completely escaped scrutiny because of O’Donnell’s idiocy.

    • USW

      There is NO Tea Party PARTY. I am surprised you would even allude to the existence of such a thing.

      Ms. O’Donnel is not a true “tea party” candidate. She was a “conservative” candidate who was supported by “tea party” people and the “Tea Party Express”. The latter is a political activist group of primarily “conservatives” who are trying to hijack the Tea Party Movement title.

      As for the real “Tea Party” I think the answer is quite simple. In order to throw out the “establishment” you must defeat them when ever you can. Ms. O’Donnell simply benefited from the establishment candidate being thrown out. Daffy Duck could have been the candidate and would have won.

      Round One: Cleanse the Republican Party of the left leaning and spending politicians.

      That is all that has occurred so far.

      The “Tea Party” Candidate in one of the Arizona House races is a rocket scientist. You don’t see the media playing her up every night like O’Donnell do you.

      Note that Ms. O’Donnell has been far behind in the Polls from the day of her primary victory. Yet the President has campaigned for her opponent. Why? Because she is a sure loser in the general.

      Personally I wish she would win the seat.

      • Ray Hawkins says:
        • Ray

          It is a Political Operative site. An article was issued today by the NAACP discussing the racism in the Tea Party. Article was on HuffPo. This site was listed as “legitimate source”, yet notice who sponsors the site…….at bottom of the page you provided.

          Almost at the end of the article it admitted that they had found SIX people fitting the description of racist.

          Even more interesting is the NAACP spokesman admitting the Tea Party is amorphous and spreading. This is somehow considered a danger of racist growth because they can’t track who is a member and who is not.

          I just love how the “baiters” are having a cow over this whole thing.

    • She was correct that seperation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The scary thing is that the audience laughed when she said that.

      She may not know every line in every amendment but does every sitting congressman or senator know every line? Let’s give them all a test. Some currently in congress say the Constitution doesn’t matter to them anyway. 👿

      O’Donnell is still pro business, limited government, less taxes. I’d vote for her if I could. Could she be any worse than what we have now? This year it’s all about ‘vote them all out’.

      • Listen to the debate. She wasn’t talking about the phrase “Church and State.” She didn’t believe him when he quoted the thing at her without using the phrase.

        She can spin it any way she wants, but the video speaks for itself and I encourage you to watch (there are two points in the video where they argue about it).

        • I understand. We’re screwed for years to come anyway. At least six more years. It’s all about sending a message this year. I’d even vote for you this year Matt. 🙂

          • Is that on record?! I want that on record! Anita would vote for me. I’ll have USW send you my address for campaign contributions.

            Interestingly, my boss (far, far, far right) said much the same thing. He thinks O’Donnell is a nut, but he’d still vote for her over the incumbent because he wants to send a message.

            Unfortunately, the message is: We Americans, as blind reactionaries without regard for consequence.

            • Yes that’s on record! However I’ll be sending DPM pallets of grog for his help to convince Mathius to vote correctly on specific issues.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        If I was in the audience (at a law school no less, where half the attendees probably just got out of Con Law), I would have laughed too.

        • Why Buck? At that point she was right. She stepped in her own shit after the fact but originally she was right. The audience laughed but she was right.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            She had demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. Spin it however you want – well the words, ‘separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution’ – but look at the overall context of her remarks. Coons pointed out precisely what the 1st Amendment says and her answer: ‘really?’

            • Give it up, Buck. I’ve been having this debate at work for the last hour. Her defenders either insist she was talking about the phrase (she wasn’t), or that it doesn’t matter because it’s more important to boot the incumbent. I can’t budge my co-worker and he’s a smart guy and he listened to the whole debate as well.

              I suppose they think the same thing about us – that regardless of what O’Donnell thinks, we’re going to find fault and play it in the most negative light.

              Maybe we’re both right and we’re both wrong.

              … Except that we’re right and they’re wrong 🙂

    • You know… you know….

      You’re right.

      There are lots of competent people in the Tea Party.

      So why are they running idiots like this?

      Someone who says “I will base all my decisions as Congresswoman on the Constitution” and then doesn’t recognize the First Amendment should not get national backing by any serious party.

      • Mathius

        The answer to your inquiry is quite simple.

        The “TEA PARTY” is not a party. And even as a movement it was not organized enough last year to solicit, groom and then support a slate of its “own” candidates.

        The Republicans became the primary target for two reason in my view.

        1. The Republican Conservatives were out to cleanse the party of the Rhinos.
        2. The regular tea party folks lean right and viewed the Republicans as the easier place to start cleaning house.

        What you get is Established Republicans losing primaries to anyone who did not talk like an Establishment Republican.

      • JAC is totally correct.

        The Tea Party is not an organization, but a loosely defined protest movement.

        It has no leader, it has no doctrine, it has no article of association.

        Anyone can claim they are advocates of the “Tea Party” and who can argue?

      • Really, really you want to go down the “idiots” road Mathius? Do I really need to spend my day showing you all the liberal “idiots” your party is supporting? Come on Man, what kind of a blanket statement is that?

        But just for fun, let’s start with your own great state of NY – saw clips of that debate – idiots? Every last one of them. And yet who will you guys put in office? Corrupt as can be Cuomo. Who are the idiots?????

    • MSNBC on Tuesday continued its attempt to dismiss Republican candidates as extremist, hitting Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell and others as “mean girls” who are unqualified for office. Jansing appeared shocked that the Delaware candidate pointed out the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. She then read from the First Amendment, but failed to find the words.

      After playing a clip of O’Donnell from this morning’s debate, Jansing sputtered, “I thought she had to be kidding.” She then pulled out her “handy, dandy” pocket Constitution and quoted, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech.’ Amendment number one. I don’t even know where to go with that.”

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/10/19/christine-odonnell-separation-church-and-state-not-constitution-msnb#ixzz12txronwM

      from Wikipedia
      The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke,

      but the phrase “separation of church and state” is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists,

      where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has currently interpreted it since 1947, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court,[1] though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle


      I think she was correct, but did not state her thoughts well.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
      “Congress shall make no law bridging the separation of church and state”

      And if you think about it in context, when talking about schools, before the Dept. of Ed. and the federal gov. took over education, it was a state issue
      if children dared to say, “one nation, under God”. All the lawsuits requiring the ten commandments be removed from all public buildings also comes to mind. Why do those words appear in various places in the supreme court building? Did the justices who partook in it’s construction violate the 1st amendment? Can we hold them in contempt of court?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Does this not mean, were congress to pass a law requiring a prayer before school events, it would be unconstitutional, but if any or every school decides to do so on their own, that is a simple use of free speech.

      The words, separation of church and state are not in the constitution, but the principle is. I think O’Donnell is trying to get at how the meaning and intent of the constitution has been perverted over time. Consider how the “Theory of Evolution” is now regarded, as unquestionable law. They never admit or question that they don’t know how life began, the theory of evolution picks up after life begins, but does not address how it occurred in the first place.

      I do wonder how she has gotten so far, her qualifications seem questionable.
      That said, I would vote for her just because I think she would take less of my money than Coons.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @LOI – “That said, I would vote for her just because I think she would take less of my money than Coons.”

        Disappointing mindset. I’d rather you not vote (even though I’m certain you don’t live in DE). (and let’s be fair – Coons has gotten a free pass in the media because of this dipshit O’Donnell. How many people are going to vote for him ONLY because he is NOT Christine O’Donnell, or he is not her even though she is us which means she is him. Or something like that).

        • Ray

          Think Strategically.

          Which will be easier to get rid of in 6 years?

          An establishment Democrat politician in a Democrat state, or a wingnut Republican?

          This is a 20 year war. I’ll take the O’Donnells along the way if they disrupt the opposition.

        • Ray,

          “Disappointing mindset.” She is a fiscal conservative. Compare her to Coons on that issue alone. And as JAC said, she will be easy to get rid of next time, and will be ineffective on any wingnut issues. No one will take her serious on anything she sponsors.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @LOI – not sure how you can bucket her into any particular ideology – her planks are the slogans of all slogans (Coons isn’t much better) and she has zero experience in any role of any responsibility whatsoever. I’m just glad I’m not voting in Delaware.

            • Ray

              I understand your views on O’Donnell and admit she doesn’t seem to be the brightest bulb in the lamp, but think about this.

              If Angle and O’Donnell WIN it will be the loudest and most effective shot across the Bow of BOTH parties that could be mustered.

              Both have publicly chastised the Republican establishment. And obviously their election would cause the Radical Progressives heads to explode.

              You could not send a clearer signal to D.C. that the American People have had enough. So much so that we would rather have these two than anything the establishment has to offer.

              Now is not the time to get all “pragmatic”. Its time for Revolution.

              Besides, it would be the funniest thing in politics to come along since Pat Paulson ran for President.

              • Babaganoush says:

                @JAC – hey – I liked Pat Paulson! (Haven’t heard that name in a loooong time)

                File it all under “How the West Declined: The Final Chapters”

                When our Statesmen stopped being Statesmen and became Politicians we began the inevitable slide.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Ditto for Baba…..sad that we have to laugh at ourselves before we’ll figure out the joke is on us.

                An aside – why the hell is the notify for comments not working? Shitty WordPress or Shitty Comcast?

    • Seems a little strange, this “great speaker”, who is also supposedly a “christian” can’t mention God. I wonder why the media never questions Democrats on their religious beliefs? Maybe I am biased, but I think it’s because most Democrats pay lip service to being religious, so the media never questions Christians like Hillary if their religious beliefs will conflict with their positions in government.

      Obama omits ‘Creator’ from Declaration rights language again
      Thomas Lifson, American Thinker
      He’s done it again! President Obama has removed “Creator” from the language of the Declaration of Independence when citing the rights with which we are endowed — by God, as the Declaration tells us. From the Whitehouse.gov website, the text of the President’s remarks to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee onOctober 18:

      As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

      He did this before on September 15th, speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute:

      After President Obama says “created equal..”, there is a long pause during which he scowls and blinks several times. For once, he may actually have opted to not read something that was on the teleprompter. It looks like he is disgusted and decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says. (video here).

      Both times, he was speaking before political groups of his supporters.

      Once could be a mistake, but twice is a pattern. Acknowledging that our rights come from a power higher than government or himself seems to rankle this man who claims the power to halt the rise of the seas.

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        Actually, I heard that it has been four times. Perhaps Beck is right, If the rights do not come from the “Creator”, then they must come from government and therefore are much more fragile.

    • The media are in a full-scale hyperventilation following Tuesday’s separation of church and state comments by Delaware Republican senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell.

      As an Investor’s Business Daily editorial points out, O’Donnell was right when questioned about this issue during a debate with Democrat candidate Chris Coons, and all the nattering nabobs of negativism filling the airwaves are wrong:

      There is, of course, no such passage. Those scoffing law scholars might want to look at the Constitution’s unadorned text instead of the judicial activist law review articles that take up so much of their day.

      What the Constitution does say, in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — a restriction imposed upon the state to prevent its interference in religious practice.

      IBD referenced Mark Levin’s “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.”

      The “Wall of Separation” phrase comes not from the Constitution, but from President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. As Levin notes, the obscure comment was virtually ignored for nearly a century and a half. It wasn’t until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson case — which actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools — that the Jefferson metaphor was used to establish “the anti-religious precedent that has done so much damage to religious freedom.”

      Levin’s argument is similar to that of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In his dissent in a 1985 ruling against silent school prayer, Rehnquist pointed out: “There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson.” He called Jefferson’s “wall” “a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging.”

      Others legal scholars agree:

      Columbia Law School Professor Phillip Hamburger in his 2002 book “Separation of Church and State” argues that the early Americans enacted the Establishment Clause to prevent the corruption of religion by worldly influences, and that “the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation.”

      IBD moved to a fabulous conclusion:

      Is it any wonder that the newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, did not require the study of constitutional law when she was dean of Harvard Law School — but did require the study of foreign law? Those future federal judges graduating Harvard might catch onto the fable liberal activists have gone to such trouble weaving.

      Maybe we should start calling the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause the “Free Exercise of Religion Clause”— since that’s what its plain language protects. Perhaps then there would be fewer false decrees from judges and fewer laughs when a citizen politician states a constitutional truth.

      Readers are encouraged to keep all of this in mind when they hear someone like MSNBC’s Chris Jansing or the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman mock what O’Donnell said Tuesday.

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/20/what-media-wont-tell-you-about-separation-church-and-state#ixzz12vf4NvpF

    • NEWS: Chris Coons Was Sued Three Times In 2007 For Retaliating Against Public Employees For Their Political Views

      Funny, I don’t remember hearing about this even once in “the news.”

      The media is too busy hyperventilating about every word ever uttered by Delaware Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell to do any real investigative reporting on the Democrat candidate Chris Coons.

      I decided to do a little digging myself. Luckily, I had the internet…


      found at John Lott’s website

      (August 2007) WILMINGTON, Del. (AP)- A third lawsuit alleges that New Castle County Executive Chris Coons retaliated against county employees because of their political views.

      Dennis Parkstone filed the latest lawsuit last month. He claims he was fired after 35 years for a minor violation because he voiced support for Coon’s rival in 2004, Sherry Freebery. However, county spokeswoman Christy Gleason says Parkstone was fired because he sent inappropriate and explicit e-mails on the county’s e-mail servers.

      A lawsuit filed by county police Corporal Trinidad Navarro is scheduled to go to trial next month. Navarro alleges he was passed over for a promotion because he supported a police chief appointed by the previous county executive.

      And two years ago, Freebery’s brother alleged in lawsuit that he was improperly fired because he supported his sister. He was the general manager of Special Services for the county.

    • You nailed it, USW … and it isn’t so different from when Ross Perot was gaining so much enthusiasm and then put that poor SOB in the Vice Presidential debate for that meltdown. It seems these third party candidates are almost plants from the two major parties. Two Tea Party originators, I’m told (I don’t know for sure), have walked away from the mess it’s become. You can’t have people like O’Donnell anywhere near a microphone. She “almost” legitimizes Sarah Palin (and that’s pretty bad). That will be Obama’s ticket to victory in 2012, the tea party and/or Sarah Palin. If he wins, yous can blame them.

      I’m just hoping they let Ralph Nader on the debate stage for a change …

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Behar, Goldberg walk off stage during argument with Bill O’Reilly over proposed NYC mosque

    Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the stage of “The View” Thursday during an argument withBill O’Reilly over the proposed Islamic center near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    The women objected to the Fox News Channel host saying that “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” They returned after an O’Reilly apology.

    The fireworks came amid a heated argument on the issue.

    “Listen to me,” O’Reilly said, “because you’ll learn something.”

    “Pinhead!” retorted Behar, who also hosts a prime-time show on HLN.

    O’Reilly, who was on the popular daytime talk show to promote his book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama,” said locating the Islamic Center near ground zero is inappropriate “because Muslims killed us on 9/11.”

    Goldberg responded with an expletive and Behar rose from her seat.

    “I don’t want to sit here,” Behar said. “I don’t. I’m outraged by that statement.”

    She walked off the set, followed by Goldberg.

    The show’s creator, Barbara Walters, immediately said her colleagues were wrong to walk off.

    “We should be able to have discussions without washing our hands and screaming and walking offstage,” she said. But she also scolded O’Reilly, saying that it was extremists who committed the terrorist act. “You cannot take a whole religion and demean them,” she said.

    “I’m not demeaning anybody,” O’Reilly said.

    “Yes,” Walters replied. “You are.”

    After some more back-and-forth, O’Reilly said that “if anybody felt that I was demeaning all Muslims, I apologize.”

    Behar and Goldberg returned, with Behar saying, “We’re back now because you apologized.”

    The 16-story Islamic center and mosque is planned for lower Manhattan, two blocks north of where the World Trade Center once stood. Critics say the location denigrates the memory of those who died on Sept. 11, 2001. Proponents say planners have a constitutional right to build and see the project as a reflection of religious freedom and diversity.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-us-tv-view-oreilly,0,5529200.story

    And if I can manage to pull it off, the video can be seen here:

    Let me first make the obvious observation. The political intelligence of the panel on The View went up exponentially the second Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the stage. I have absolutely zero respect for what Behar has to say on nearly any subject. That someone could be so fundamentally wrong and stupid on so many political subjects and actually be considered a political pundit is somewhat baffling to me. Like Rosie when she was on there, Behar makes The View unwatchable for a great many Americans who might otherwise be interested in seeing the show.

    On the topic itself, this is a prime example of what is wrong with this country and our political discussions. O’Reilly, like him or not, did not mean all muslims, and every single person on that panel knew it from the beginning. They took an opportunity to attempt to make some sort of bizarre political statement, which still remains a mystery. There are very, very few people in America who are so bigoted against muslims that they believe that all muslims are bad. And O’Reilly has regularly gone out of his way to offer that distinction on many occasions. All that Goldberg or Behar needed to do was a quick correction, “you mean radical muslims, because it wouldn’t be fair to say all muslims,” and O’Reilly would have immediately agreed.

    Instead they made vague comments to attempt to muddle the situation. Goldberg screamed “That is such bullshit,” leaving open to interpretation what she meant. From his retort, O’Reilly obviously thought she was implying that the 9/11 terrorists were not muslims.

    I wanted to include the video for three reasons. First, it is fun to watch the two fools walk off stage and make an ass of themselves, showing themselves to be emotional and petty. Second, it is worth seeing O’Reilly tell Behar to listen and she will learn something. Finally, there is a part in this video that made very few of the cuts shown throughout the news world. And that is the statement by Elizabeth Hasselback about the Obama administration’s decision to change the language around this in an attempt to be politically correct.

    I despise political correctness, as many of you know. If you are going to get your feelings hurt by what I say, perhaps you are in the wrong business. Now this uprising from the two View idiots was nothing more than an attempt to somehow salvage a victory in a debate they clearly were not willing to have on merit. Odd how often political debates end up that way. Such infantile children in a grown-up profession (and I mean everyone in politics when I make that statement).

    • They should have stayed off the stage. It was the most immature and reprehensible display of lack of characted I have witnessed in a long time…..but then again, I have never watched The View. I choose not to watch that dribble. I am not much of an O Reilly fan at all…usually turn him off…..but it was interesting to watch the highlights. O Reilly did not have anything to apologize for at all and he should not have.

      • Agreed. He should’nt have apologized. He should have stated that their inability to accept the truth is not his responsibility.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The day after this happened there was a caller into the Michael Smerconish show who was at the taping – Whoopie and Joy were rolling their eyes (off camera) at O’Reilly the moment he walked out – real professional eh? They were looking for a moment to do “something”. Second – the applause and cheering you hear as they walked out was due to two things (and not what you think) – one of the stage hands flashed the applause prompt sign (and many of the lambs in the audience simply respond to what they are told to do) – but many in the audience were clapping and cheering because these two idiots were getting off the set – NOT IN SUPPORT OF THEM.

    • This fellow has it very well summed up, worth watching the video


    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m still wondering why this is even an issue, or why it is still being discussed.

      It doesn’t seem much different than a Jerry Springer episode to me.

  5. Update… Del Rio, Texas. Captured sniper crossing Texas ranch tells officials that the cartels are setting up “safe” routes in border states and will protect them with military trained snipers. Arizona already has this problem. Texas is patrolling for it and has revised ruloes of engagement…Napolitano, who put out a memo in March warning about this…now says there is no credible eveidence to support it…

    Meanwhile….Sheriffs are being targeted (four attenmpts in last 3 months), kidnappings are on the rise, pets are being slaughtered and warnings written in blood on barn walls, fences are still being cut, military style incursions into Texas are happening but are being stopped by the National Guard (under expert guidance, I might add), automatic weapons are on the rise (none American), Mexico has protested the newly assigned “gunboat” (high powered shallow drafted bass boat….with 2 M-60’s)on the American side of Lake Falcon that is openly patrolled by the Zeta cartel on the Mexican side…flying their own banners….the list goes on….

    But there is no problem. There is no credible evidence…..and the news is silent.

    Texas WILL militarize the border with its own National Guard and will defy the United States government…..it is predicted.

    • Common Man says:


      My friend, I do wish you and your fellow Texan’s God’s speed. I hope things get “controlled” soon.

      You should change out the M-60’s for a couple of .50’s though…more stopping power.

      Napolitano is a shit-bag.

      I can tell you that if I owned property down that way I would not pay any attention to government directions. You are in a war zone…nuff said.

      Keep you head down and eyes open my friend


      • Will do, CM…will do. However, in answer to your .50 cal….great idea and a longer reach but that round will travel over 1800 meters with accuracy…PLUS….ever been on a bass boat when two .50’s open up? Astounding is the only word that comes to mind. It can literally push a boat backwards. They, the police, were playing with the idea of a .50 cal, a quad 40 mm on a flat boat, a 7.62 mm mini on a deep v hull Chris Craft….when we were asked about our opinion, it was pretty easy to deispel the issue. If safety of civilians are a concern, then the .50, while formidable, is too long range and ineffective for small patrolling. It is a defensive weapon. The quad 40’s was laughable. No boat big enough to handle it much less carry the ammo and the explosive power too large for collateral damage. The 5,000 round per minute mini was interesting…shorter range and an area weapon…but mounted on a Deep V hull eliminated pursuit in shallow waters. A tri hull 15 ft bass boat (shallow draft) with a 150 horse merc and 2 M60 machine guns provided all things. Accurate firepower with less recoil oand tighter shot control, ample rounds per minute (600 annd it can be fired semi automatic) for its intended use, light and can be carried during disembark, since it uses fixed head space, the barrel can be rapidly changed for sustained fire in 6-9 round bursts, tracer burn out at 6-900 meters and it can use 5 different types of rounds. It uses a standard NATO round of 7.62 and can fire foreign rounds. Maximum effective range and drop…1100 meters.

        Perfect weapon and we used them quite effectively to patrol small lakes and rivers in Vietnam and Bosnia. They actually listened to my staff and did this and Mexico is protesting. The Zeta’s are using small very fast stolen bass boats with shallow draft and lots of men with automatic weapons with a maximum effective range of 600 meters. Our suggestion is perfectg and top be manned by quialified military personnel and not civilian. Less hassle that way…no miranda issues.

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          Barry Sadler, used to say that only the US Army could succeed in screwing up the MG-42 design when they copied it and made the M-60. Comments?

          Note that the Paki’s still use the 42 in 7.62. Wonder if they changed the cyclic.

          • The 42 is good but melted barrels a lot. Lands and grooves had a tendency to smooth out affecting the trajectory to point blank. (As you know, Point blank does NOT mean close range as is popularly thought).

            The main problem with the M60 is cleaning but other than that it is a great weapon…or at least I think so. It is tempermental at times but reliable if proper care is taken. The M60 also is best fired a rates of 6-9 round bursts. The 42 had a cyclic rate that tended to jam some but all in all it is a good weapon.

            But Sadler is quite right. The Army proving grounds would screw up a wet dream but when we got it in the field, you know that soldiers always figured it out and usually made it better.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @D13 – thought I read somewhere that many of these cartel thugs are former Mexican military Spec Ops soldiers – can you expand on that? True? Who trains them? How well do the pass a Spec Ops sniff test in terms of quality? What struck me is the notion that they aren’t just bums off the street but trained soldiers now running drugs.

      • Hate to admit it , my friend, but you are correct….and in the 80’s, I trained approximately 300 of Mexican Military in Special Ops, originally set up by Reagan, to help with our southern border. They are military but not only Mexican military but foreign trained military as well. My group only trained Mexican Federales, as far as we knew.

        We have captured several former military from Ecuador, Venezuela, Chile, and Argentina. We have captured former military from Georgia, Sudan, and Chets…the most recent were 9 from Somalia that were trained in a supposedly secret base located in Arak, Iran….south of Tehran and another base locaed in Harat, Iran (not sure where that is). None of this is getting reported and it is a damn shame.

        Here is the deal that is going down, Ray. These are NOT common thugs that are running it but they are training common thugs to do the dirty work. Like the 15 year old assasin in El Paso that got everybody in an uproar. He was a known assasin throwing rocks at a border agent. So, we have well trained people at the helm utilizing the easily converted young common street thug.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @D13 – guess I get more and more disgusted that the news cycle is more worried about reporting on the latest celeb divorce or what dumb things candidate x, y or z has uttered.

          • Ya know Ray, that is the sad thing. The real news is not reported because it is election year…..If Obama wants to make inroads to Texas…close the borders….better yet….tell him to stay the hell up there…we Texans have been taking care of our own problems for years….we will handle this one. Have a great day, my friend.

            You would not believe the uproar from Mexico over our Bass “gunboat”…..they are livid and have threatened to file a law suit against Texas for the armed patrol of Lake Falcon…unbelievable. Totally unbelievable and laughable,,,,,you should see the border towns now…..no tourists or hardly any. Their livlihood is dying very fast. Consulates are closing….American companies on the borders in Mexico are armed camps….unbelievable. Razor wire and armed guards everywhere. The trucking indistry hardly know how to respond. Mexico still will not allow American truck drivers into Mexico because they do not want the competition but the Mexican drivers will hardly drive except in daylight hours. Mexican drivers can come into the US, however, but they are scrutinized thoroughly. No one is “waved” through anymore. What used to be a two hour crossing is now four or more hours. SIGH…..

      • Sorry, Ray, forgot to ask you how you and the young un are doing? Keeping him straight and true or has he taken over completely yet?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @D13 – we’re doing great – the little one just seems to grow up so damn fast. Trying to work on things like “nice hands” and “giving hugs w/o tackling” other kids. He is smart and he listens and he knows darn well when he is bad – but I love the challenge! Hope you are well also sir!

          • Doing well, sir…doing well….really having a time on the border. House fire all in order…did get my letter from the US Gov on my small business taxes that are not going up because fees are not taxes..according to this letter but all in all…doing well.

            By the way…tackle the gals…shake hands with guys. I am sure you will teach him well and proper. If you need some help, DPM and I will offer to help train the lad.

    • Texas WILL militarize the border with its own National Guard and will defy the United States government

      GO TEXAS and GO D13! “bring em back alive” !

    • Just looked at FOX, and the news is silent. Disapointing.

      An armed militant group is invading the US, the federal government will not act. An violent incident at this time will have a dramatic impact on the elections.

    • Interesting, Media Matters is dismissive of border violence.


      • Yep, that is Media Matters for ya…however, anyone that is dismissive of the violence…well, come on down and go shopping after 5 pm in Mexico, or go to a restaurant at night in the Mexican border towns. Come on down and go fishing in Lake Flacon or Amistad….come on down and go rafting the Rio Grande through the big bend country. Just make sure you bring an emergency radio transmitter tuned to 122.5 when you get in trouble. It will give off a signal like that of the ELT in an airctraft and we can find you via GPS.

        Blame the drug consumption if you wish…blame the United States if you wish….blame the poor economy if you wish….blame the drug laws if you wish…..all of this is bull shit but blame it anyway. Adopt the methods of pity if you wish…pity the drug user if you want…pity the poor man trying to make a living off illegal drugs because he has a need to feed his family, if you wish. The blame game is easy and it is cowardly. The pity party is, likewise, easy, and the answer that most wish to use.

        That does not change the fact that the bullets are flying, the kidnappings are happening, the murders will continue.

        Once again, we must get through that drugs are only ONE FIFTH of the problem. The kidnappings will continue. The extortion will continue. The slave trade will continue, the gun running will continue….ALL are independent of each other. AND everyone is missing another very important point…..security.

        Close the DAMN BORDER….ENFORCE IT…MONITOR IT…business will continue.

  6. In Pennsylvania there is a revision to the current ‘castle doctrine’ going through the state legislature. It is intended to expand the ‘stand your ground’ over the current ‘retreat first’ to be anywhere you are legally allowed to be, if the aggressor is threatening you with deadly force.

    Currently the bill has passed the House and Senate under different wording and it has to be finalized. The current governor (D) has said he will not decide on signing it until the final wording is in. But his term is up and the election this year the Democratic candidate has said he will veto it and the republican said he will sign it.

    While these people play politics I would like to point out this article that ran yesterday that is linked below. The last sentence of the article really ticked me off. “The state District Attorneys Association opposes the expansion, fearing it will lead to greater violence and make it harder to prosecute shooters.”

    “Harder to prosecute shooters”!!!!! Why are they worried about prosecuting shooters that are defending themselves and not prosecuting the person that is the aggressor that is threatening you with deadly force.

  7. Just curious, though I someone doubt it in this group…

    Are any of you going to the Restoring Sanity Rally in DC on the 30th?

  8. Question on saving money. I was watching a special just a while ago about Washington DC and that they are now providing dinner to school children as well as breakfast and lunch. In DC alone, the administering of the dinner is 5 million and change. Nine other states are doing this for dinner

    Research shows the following:

    The federal government first became significantly involved in school lunches through the Commodity Donation Program of 1936, which aimed to eliminate price-suppressing crop surpluses by distributing excess commodities to schools for meals for students who could not otherwise afford them.

    In 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act to establish permanently a federally funded school lunch program and improve child nutrition. Since then, the law has expanded to include free and reduced priced breakfast, milk, after-school snacks, and summer meals for qualifying students.

    Students are entitled to free lunches if their families’ incomes are below 130 percent of the annual income poverty level guideline established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and updated annually by the Census Bureau (currently $20,650 for a family of four). Children who are members of households receiving food stamp benefits or cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, as well as homeless, runaway, and migrant children, also qualify for free meals.

    Students with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty are eligible for a reduced price lunch. Schools cannot charge children who receive reduced price lunches more than 40 cents per meal, but each school food authority sets the exact student contribution level independently. Students who do not qualify for free or reduced price lunch can purchase slightly subsidized meals, but these lunches are considered “paid” because the student shoulders most of the cost. The lunch program subsidizes each “paid” meal between 23 and 25 cents to offset administrative costs.

    Now, in 2007, the cost was 12 billion bucks. Some of you will consider this chump change. This is a program that had a good intended purpose that has run away and is now an entitlement.

    Call me callous, and you probably will, but this is a program, in my opinion, that can be eliminated. Why shhould it be a government responsibility to feed someone else’s children. (Please, no cry in your soup diatribe about poor families not being able to afford it. These same poor families seem to afford big screen tv’s, cell phones with apps, Nike shoes and shirts, gameboy, PSIII and other things.) The food stamp program is supposed to help poor families feed…so we still give food stamps PLUS free meals. AND, there seems to be no qualifiers even though the law says so. There seems to be no enforcement because in Fort Worth in the affluent districts, the same programs apply and I just got off the phone three minutes ago with a frind of mine that makes $145K per year and pays .20 cents for breakfast and lunch for his kids.

    So, let’s take 12 billion and 9 other seemingly stupid giveaways that amount to 12 billion…..so that is..ummmm….120 billion to apply to a host of other areas. Am I alone in my thinking here? I never let any of my children use the free breakfast and lunch program and my grandchildren are not on it now….what gives?

    What happened to taking care of your own?

    • Heard about this too. A woman commenter this morning said this is society’s problem and therefore, all of society needed to step up and pay for it. yikes!

      As a side note, saw where Chris Christie has extended an offer to Rhee to come to NJ and clean up their education system. He is one smart guy who is getting it done!

      • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

        If I were her I’d pass. Christie lost all credibility with me when he canned Brett Shuldner. Yes, he is a bully and even more interesting, when Shundler was testifying before the Senate in Trenton, Christie chose, on the same day, to announce the cancellation of the Hudson rail project. Guess which one got all the press?

        See, my liberal friends, even a died in the wool old conservative like myself can condemn a jerk when he sees one.

        • SK,

          Thanks for sharing that. I have only heard about him taking on the teachers unions and the right wing spin on it (Christie 2012). I was waiting for more info.

        • Don’t know who Brett is.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            Bret was his secretary of education. He was a wall Street type who moved to Jersey City back in the eighties. Finding a corrupt city, he decided to change it. He was the first Republican mayor since before WW 1 and the only recent mayor not to be indicted. He led revival of Jersey City by slowing (you can’t stop it) corruption anmd explaining to wall Street firms that they could build office space or rent it for a fraction of the cost and be a 15 minute $ 1.00 PATH ride from lower Manhattan. He was re-elected FOUR times and left office with a budget surplus.

            He is a pusher for education, believes strongly in vouchers but has worked well with unions. His strategy seems to be give them something now which they want which is temporary in exchange for something he wants that is permanent. In the end the short term cost is offset by long term gains.

            NJ politics is pure unadulterated cannibalistic chaos. He ran several years ago for the Governorship nomination and won. The two he defeated, both hacks, went home with the marbles and football and did not support him. The names they called him in the primary were the best ammunition the Dems could have had. We got McGreevy instead.

            He has been quiet since then mostly working on education initiatives. Christie tapped him for Education secretary. While they were working on the “race to the top” money, Schundler may have made a mistake (note: may)which he either did or did not tell the governor about. NJ lost by a couple of points. What came out in the hearings was that Schundler brokered a deal with the unions that would have gotten NJ seven (7) extra points (offsetting the two) but “Tough Guy” Christie backed out of the deal to not appear “soft” on the unions. After Christie fired him, he added insult to the injury by calling him a liar.

            I like Bret, as a newly elected Mayor he took 45 minutes of his time to give a private interview to a high school freshman journalist on his plans for Jersey City’s future. Five minutes had originally been blocked out for the interview. The interviewer was my oldest son. We didn’t even live in Jersey City.

            Christie is a bully. Bullies may be required at some time, but I don’t have to like them.

    • D13,

      It is imparative they keep these programs. It’s not about feeding anyone, but about keeping their entitlement class. They are teaching future voters that the government will provide for them. We were pressured to sign up for assisted school lunches. Took a rather firm no. I think schools push it to get more funding, so numbers drive it, not need.


      • ok…good point.

        • more


          The Liberal Elite and Black Intellectual Serfdom
          By Chidike Okeem
          Recently, while campaigning for the upcoming midterm elections, President Obama engaged in classic liberal race-baiting by demagogically asserting that Republicans are counting on blacks not turning up to the polls. However, despite Obama’s agenda in making that assertion, unfortunately, the underlying premise of his comment is accurate: the majority of blacks unthinkingly vote for Democrats in droves.

          It is my contention that black people who diligently vote for Democrats are intellectual slaves to the liberal agenda, inasmuch as they, for the most part, are ignorant of the history of the Democratic Party and vote for policies that harm their communities. It is only a black intellectual slave who can observe the impact of liberal policies on the black community without having a scintilla of unease about pulling the lever for Democrats — election after election.

  9. This seems under reported to me, that over a million are striking in France, the model Obama and the liberal idolize, and the rioters seemed very young, (possibly Arab).

    French Fuel Depots Forced Open Amid Strikes

    Published October 20, 2010

    | Associated Press

    PARIS — French authorities forced strike-shuttered fuel depots to reopen to ensure gasoline supplies, and the interior minister threatened Wednesday to send in paramilitary police to stop rioting on the fringes of protests against raising the retirement age to 62.

    Youths wearing hoods and scarves on their faces rampaged through the Paris suburb of Nanterre, breaking shop windows and hurling stones at riot police. The town has seen clashes in recent days centered on a high school that joined the protests.

    Months of largely peaceful demonstrations against the pension reform have taken a violent turn in recent days. The plan is slated for a vote in the Senate on Thursday, but labor unions want the government to renegotiate, saying the bill threatens the country’s hard-earned social protections.

    President Nicolas Sarkozy and his government have stayed firm, insisting it is essential to saving the money-losing pension system. Countries around Europe are also facing public resistance as they try to tame government debts that have threatened the euro currency.

    With nearly a third of France’s gas stations dry Tuesday, authorities stepped in overnight to force open three fuel depots in western France blocked by striking workers for days, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said. He said the operations saw no violence.

    “The right to strike does not give anyone the right to prevent people from working or the right to block things, or the right to prevent travel,” Hortefeux said.

    He warned that the fuel depot blockades threaten emergency services and could have grave consequences for the entire French economy and public health and safety. He described an “infernal spiral” of consequences when nurses and bus drivers can’t get to work.

    “These acts are not only unacceptable, but they are also irresponsible,” he said.

    French unions have a long tradition of street protests, but the current strife is particularly worrisome because it has touched the vital energy sector and is drawing often volatile youth into the mix.

    Hortefeux warned rioters that “the right to protest is not the right to break things, the right to set things on fire, the right to assault, the right to pillage.”

    “We will use all means necessary to get these delinquents.” That includes the GIGN paramilitary police, he said.

    Over the past week, 1,423 people have been detained for protest-related violence, he said, more than a third of them Tuesday. Of those, 123 are facing legal action. He said he ordered police to look at video surveillance to find more perpetrators, suggesting more arrests could be ahead.

    He said 62 police officers have been injured in the violence over the past week.

    In Nanterre on Wednesday morning, about 100 students blocked the school entrance and part of highway in front of the school, while a “tranquility team” of about 30 adults in special red jackets sought to keep things calm.

    Then about 100 other youths arrived and started darting through the town streets, smashing store windows and throwing stones. Some store owners lowered metal blinds to avoid looting. Nine police vans were parked in the surrounding area.

    The sidewalks of Nanterre were littered with glass from bus shelters and illuminated signs that had been smashed Tuesday. All the vehicles were removed Wednesday from the street in front of the school, because a car had been torched there the day before.

    This week’s clashes revived memories of student unrest in 2006 that forced the government to abandon another highly unpopular labor bill. And the specter of 2005 riots that spread through poor housing projects nationwide with disenfranchised immigrant populations is never far away.

    Students plan new protests Thursday, with a demonstration in Paris hours before the Senate is expected to approve the measure. The bill would raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 to prevent the pension system from going bankrupt as citizens live longer and a diminishing pool of young workers pay into the system.

  10. Buck,

    I can’t hold back any longer. What is a WALA?

    • Buck the Wala says:


      The whole thing is a play on my last name from my college days at a party.

      In a drunken stupor my roommate yelled out ‘Who wants to Buck the Wala?’ (me being the Wala). The rest is history.

      • Are you sure it’s not because you look kindof like a wallaby?

      • I knew it.. I knew it. Drunken college party names always stick.

        • Maybe, but our parties were always the best.

          Buck is responsible for my very first taste of Grey Goose, and for that I will always be grateful.

          Adding, you wouldn’t believe the secret magic properties of astroturf.. did you know that it can convert spilled beer into glue and sand while completely eliminating the odor? Also, fish don’t like to live in punch mixing machines. How ’bout the apparent fact that there is no rule against breaking the laws of physics during a Beirut match? And townies will occasionally show up claiming to be with the band when there is no band.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Ah, Classic!

            Too bad you just can’t drink vodka anymore. What a shame! And as for the astroturf, all is well and good until it comes time to pull the thing up. Thank god for Mrs. Wala helping clean up that mess!

      • At least it was not ‘Washinton Area Lawyers for the Arts….whew.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Catchy! Where do I sign up? Do I have to move to Washington to join?

          • Dont know about moving there…but it is an organization….I one had a frined that was a member while there…he moved back to Texas…took years to de-program.

      • is it for walla walla washington, the town so nice they named it twice?

    • Babaganoush says:

      But also – for Anita – what is a “ta”? The singular of ta-ta’s? Ani’s ta?

  11. Common Man says:

    Just got this in email. Have not had time to check it out, but figured that some of you out there could verify it’s validity, and if in fact it is true, experess some thoughts:

    “This may explain why Ms. Sherrod decided not to accept her former job or any other federal job. She seems to have faded from the spotlight.
    Another fine mess!

    Subject: “The rest of the story…..”

    Please take time to read all, it is very interesting.

    Remember Shirley Sherrod, the dept. of Agriculture gal, who seemed to be ‘racist’ and lost her job??? Well as Paul Harvey used to say, “here is the rest of the story”…. and it is not pretty. The surprise ending has not been shared nor reported upon by the media, but it is a whopper!! Thanks to the Wall Street Journal for bringing this to light. It takes some reading below, to the 6th paragraph for sure, before you will realize what happened here.

    You can ‘google’ the word Pigford and it pops up, then click on The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit…. and check this information out for yourself.

    Begin forwarded message:

    You thought you knew what happened with the Shirley Sherrod story, but you may have missed the twist and big ending. The hook was baited, the fish bit hard, then you found out you were playing an entirely different game. Please read it all. Any of you banging your head yet? How in the hell does this crap keep happening, and why do we let it be ignored. Cover up after cover up, plain corruption at it’s best, and it is costing us dearly folks.

    83 DAYS

    Pigford vs. Glickman

    This came in this morning in response to the WSJ article
    published yesterday on Obama dividing America on race. There is no need to make any other comment other than pass along this mind boggling information…all comments that follow are from this article:

    Andrew Breitbart is a media genius. He proved it originally with
    his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups. But Breitbart’s handing of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.

    It all began Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in
    horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed. As she smirked to the room, she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer – ‘one of his own kind’ – for help. The black woman was Shirley Sherrod – and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded – and received – Sherrod’s resignation. Breitbart had won.

    But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his
    face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart . Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media.

    I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart’s in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.

    Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release
    of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman”.

    “In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States
    Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

    But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America .

    There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.
    Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims?
    And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.

    Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly
    exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting.

    Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted
    her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of
    “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Obama.

    Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the
    woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

    But Breitbart knew. And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly
    laid a trap which Sherrod – and Obama – stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment. Yes, folks – Breitbart is a genius.

    As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovered too late that her
    cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost. Oink”


    • Are we sure the world has heard about this? Won’t it be swept under the rug as are so many other things? Is this an impeachable offense? I would think the the Savior we have in the White House knows math….

  12. Man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. There is a consensus of all scientists(not just those getting government research grants) Oceans will rise, polar bears will drown, give me money and I will save you.

    • Doesn’t nature produce nearly all greenhouse gases?

      And what about the sun, doesn’t it have a lot to do with the earths temperature?

      Mind you, I am not saying I know all the answers, but you are asking for billions or trillions of dollars to be spent, and it might be early to say it’s all because of mankind.

    • The new term is “global climate disruption.” Since we can’t figure out if it’s going to get warmer or colder.

  13. You know…I always wondered….did Adam and Eve have a belly button?

  14. Flashback: Teddy Kennedy Conspired With USSR to Use American Media Against Reagan, GOP

    At the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog, J.P. Freire reminds us of a dark chapter in American history. Freire draws some strong parallels to today’s debate over foreign influences in American elections.

    But the story itself is incredible. According to an internal KGB memo discovered by reporters in the 1990s, the late Senator Edward Kennedy colluded with the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s foreign policy efforts.

    In 1983 , according to the memo, Kennedy offered to enlist the services of America’s leading media personalities in an effort to counter official American military and diplomatic policy: “[T]the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow,” Kennedy suggested. “The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

    The Senator’s motives were openly political. There was an election coming up, and Kennedy wanted to ensure victory for the “rational people” – the people who agreed with him, naturally.

    Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe…

    The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

    So in order to “counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people” and, of course, win an election, Kennedy offered a few ideas.

    First, he wanted to come to Moscow to advise the Soviet government on how to counter American resistance regarding nuclear arms control:

    Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.

    But here’s the key part:

    Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact [sic] a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

    If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

    Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

    Amazing. The “Lion of the Senate,” a legendary legislator and a liberal hero, conspired against the United States. He willingly aided in undermining U.S. foreign policy towards the Soviet Union.

    It seems that Kennedy felt he had run out of licit options to further his agenda.

    Kennedy couldn’t stop Reagan’s policies through political channels, he thought. “According to Kennedy,” the KGB memo recalls, “the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda.”

    Kennedy also felt that it was useless appealing to the American people via the mainstream press, since “the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.”

    Instead, he proposed they go right to the people, and this is where the more popular media figures came in. Kennedy would use the public’s interest and trust in a Cronkite or a Barbara Walters to channel the Soviet message.

    The story serves as a grim reminder that the media can be used for ill as well as good.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/20/flashback-teddy-kennedy-conspired-ussr-use-american-media-against-re#ixzz12vg21xXe

  15. Opinion: Just How Lousy Is the Economic Recovery?

    John Merline Opinion Editor
    AOL News
    (Oct. 18) — It’s become conventional wisdom that the country has come through the worst recession since the Great Depression. President Obama has repeatedly made this claim — during his campaign, just before his inauguration, at a town hall meeting this September, and many times in between. Lots of commentators have as well — and, indeed, the term Great Recession is quickly becoming the accepted name for the 2007-09 downturn.

    Whether that’s true isn’t exactly clear. At 18 months long, the recession did last longer than the previous record holders — by all of two months. But in terms of unemployment, the 1981-82 recession was worse. The jobless rate peaked at 10.8 percent in Nov. 1982, compared with the peak this time around of 10.1 percent.

    What is crystal clear, however, is that we are in the midst of the most pathetic economic recovery since the Great Depression. As John Lott put it recently: “The only records being broken are for the stubbornly slow recovery.”

    Indeed, when you compare the current recovery to the recoveries from the two previous worst post-Depression recessions — the one in 1974-75 and the one in 1981-82 — the picture is decidedly bleak.

    As the charts below make clear, economic growth is seriously lagging, unemployment is far higher, consumer confidence far lower, and the federal budget deficit much bigger than at similar points in those recoveries.

    Obama’s response to this has been to say that he was dealt a terrible hand, and to say that things could have been worse if it weren’t for the all the things he’s done since taking office. “The challenge,” he said at the Sept. town hall, “is that the hole was so deep that a lot of people out there are still hurting.”

    But the evidence from past recoveries shows that things could be — and arguably should be — much better than they are now. Which strongly suggests that, however bad the recession was, something the federal government is doing today is putting a drag on the normal recovery trajectory.

    Only by admitting there’s a problem will we ever have a chance of getting the current recovery back on track.


    recommend viewing charts at link

  16. Why keep hiding in the shadows, huh?

    Aw: Soros donates $1 million to Media Matters


  17. from FOX

    Gunbattles stir panic in 2 Mexican border cities

    NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico – Mexican soldiers battled gunmen in two cities across the border from Texas on Wednesday, prompting panicked parents to pull children from school and factories to warn workers to stay inside. Assailants in a third city threw a grenade at an army barracks.

    The U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo warned American citizens to stay indoors. The statement said there were reports of drug gangs blocking at least one intersection near the consulate in the city across from Laredo, Texas.

    The local city government and witnesses reported several more blockades — a new tactic that has emerged in northeastern Mexico, where violence has soared this year amid a split between the Gulf and Zetas drug gangs.

    Cartel gunmen frequently use stolen cars and buses to form roadblocks during battles with soldiers. Witnesses in Nuevo Laredo said gunmen forced people from their cars to use the vehicles in the blockades.

    Shootouts also erupted in Reynosa, across from McAllen, causing a huge traffic jam in the highway connecting the city with Monterrey and Matamoros.

    The local governments of Reynosa and Nuevo Laredo warned residents to stay inside through a series of Twitter and Facebook messages.

    By the evening, the Nuevo Laredo government said in a Twitter message that the “situation of risk” had ended, and most of the vehicles blocking the roads had been removed.

    The city government also said federal authorities reported no fatalities, but it was unclear if anyone was injured. Officials at the press office of the Mexican Defense Department said they had no immediate information on the shootouts.

    Witnesses and reporters at the scene said four shootouts erupted in Nuevo Laredo, including one behind a Walmart store near a residential area.

    Bullet casings from assault rifles littered the scene, and at least one house and two cars had bullet holes. Apolinar Rodriguez, a resident of the neighborhood, said he thought he heard grenade blasts.

    “They are fighting with everything they have,” he said.

    Parents rushed to schools to pick up their children. Factory managers at one industrial parked closed their gates, ordered their workers not to leave and canceled night shifts.

    “We were not allowed to leave for two-and-a-half hours,” said Eva Lara, a worker at one factory.

    Meanwhile, assailants hurled a grenade at military barracks in Matamoros, across the border from Brownsville. A Red Cross worker, who asked not to be named for security reasons, said four adults were injured, none seriously. He said they were treated inside the barracks.

    Mexico’s northeastern border with Texas has become one of the most violent fronts in an increasingly bloody drug war.

    Shootouts in the middle of cities erupted frequently, and in the most horrifying attack, 72 migrants were massacred near Matamoros in August, apparently because they refused to work for the Zetas. Several mayors and the leading gubernatorial candidate for Tamaulipas state — where Reynosa, Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros are located — have been assassinated.

    In Ciudad Juarez, a 21-year-old Texas National Guard soldier was reportedly one of two men killed Wednesday.

    Spokesman Arturo Sandoval of the Chihuahua state attorney general’s office says family members identified the soldier as 21-year-old Jose Gil Hernandez of El Paso. The identity of the other man was not available, and details on the incident were sketchy.

    A message left with FBI El Paso spokesman Michael Martinez was not immediately returned. However, he told the El Paso Times that Hernandez was shot about 1 p.m. Wednesday in the Colonia Revolucion Mexicana in Ciudad Juarez. Martinez told the newspaper that the FBI and the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division were trying to verify the details of the shooting.

    Nationwide, more than 28,000 people have been killed in drug gang violence since December 2006, when President Felipe Calderon deployed soldiers to battle the cartels in their strongholds in northern Mexico and along the Pacific coast.

  18. Let’s see if I can get Cyndi riled up with this one from Fox’s Political Grapevine:

    President Obama has left out the word “creator” while quoting the Declaration of Independence… again. He referenced the document to a Democratic Party gathering Monday, saying — quote: “Each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights.”

    The Declaration of Independence language is “they are endowed by their creator.”

    He made the same error on September 15, speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. When asked why the president has omitted “creator” twice, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn’t seen the comments — quote: “but I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

    • Was it an error? I believe it to be intentional.

      • I agree Terry. Same thing with the pictures of him being the only one around not saluting the flag.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          The un-Christian, un-American bastard! How dare he not declare the existence of a creator when he mentions the Declaration, or make sure he is saluting the flag anytime there is a flag and cameras present, or wear a meaningless flag pin on his lapel, or…

          • Now you’re getting it Buck.

          • Actually I slipped up when I said above he didn’t salute the flag. Pictures show him being the only one without a hand over his heart during the pledge. And I’ve seen one with Michelle and him with their left hands on their chests. Regardless…it’s not patriotic.

          • OK then, why would he refrain from the “endowed by our creator” line? It is part of the Constitution he swore…on a bible BTW…to defend and uphold.

    • Not riled. He’s a POS who is is pandering to his Godless base. What else is new? Yawn.

  19. Juan Williams is fired from NPR for his remarks on O’Reilly’s show. Here’s what got him fired:

    National Public Radio has fired the political analyst Juan Williams for comments he made about Muslims on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox show. These are two of the controversial comments in question, according to The New York Times:

    ‘I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

    And this, in reference to Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who attempted to blow up Times Square with a car bomb:

    “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.”

    Here we go again. This is not hate speech. This is “I have my eye on you too” speech. What say you ?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Actually this is neither. This is another example of taking statements completely out of context.


      • I sort of agree with you Buck. But check out Common Man’s post at #11 as far as the Sherrod case. There’s a bigger story there.

        I’m just saying Williams wasn’t spewing hate and NPR firing him makes no sense. Freedom of speech? Not any more.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          There may have been more to the Sherrod case, I don’t know all the specifics. But from what I do know it (and Williams) was a case of (1) taking statements completely out of context and (2) overreacting based on those out of context remarks.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Buck – “(2) overreacting based on those out of context remarks.”

            Overreacting indeed.

            This political correctness BS has gotten WAY out of hand to the point of ridiculousness.

            Say anything that can be remotely interpreted as offensive and you’re liable to get fired, censored, etc…

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Completely over the top and out of control.

              • Yes, it is a shame-emotional rants filled with exaggeration and half truths are fine depending on your party affiliation but a straight forward honest truth about fear brought on by current events is frowned upon and can even get you fired. You can’t admit to reasonable fear or even caution without being labeled a bad, bad person. Even when most of the of society has the same very rational fear.

                • Delete “the of”

                • Bottom Line says:

                  And to add…

                  For years, much of what we’ve heard from the propaganda machine is Muslim terrorists, this and Muslim terrorist that, terrorism terrorism terrorism terrorism… but if you mention it the wrong way(whatever that is), you get canned, censored, ridiculed, etc…

                  It’s insane!

                  • Maybe any type of talk show should include an additional warning. All comments about any minority or group of people should be assumed to mean SOME. We are only human,Please assume the qualifier unless we make a point of saying and I mean ALL. Thank you.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Agree with the general sentiment VH, but you can’t say that being fearful of all Muslims is reasonable or rational.

                  • I didn’t and wouldn’t say that but it isn’t irrational to think “are any of these people ONE of the crazy ones”. It is much more irrational to expect people not to wonder. And wondering doesn’t mean you are a bigot just a realist.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Would you say it irrational of me to wonder about the Christian I see on the street for fear of him being a domestic terrorist? I would find that completely irrational, in fact, just as irrational about wondering about the Muslim on the street.

                      I do not believe you to be a bigot or racist for wondering, but lets admit that this is an irrational fear that we should be trying to get over (much as Williams had said).

                    • I’m not sure what your point is Buck-on one hand you admit that it is not irrational to wonder but on the other it is still an irrational fear.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Sorry if I didn’t come across clearly — I am saying that it is completely IRRATIONAL. But that doesn’t mean people don’t have these thoughts. What is important is that we recognize these thoughts to be what they are – IRRATIONAL – and try to look past them.

                    • It is irrational to be a bigot-it is not irrational to look at reality and be cautious. I think you mix the two up-because you seem to identify them as the same thing. But I am not talking about people fearing every person of middle eastern descent that they see. I am talking about people getting on a plane. The idea that it is a possibility that another terrorist might attack this plane isn’t irrational. What people need to be careful of is not allowing their rational fear to lead them to irrational actions or to let it turn them into bigots. Anymore than those who want to be politically correct, should let their rational attempt to stop the fear of muslam extremists from getting out of hand should turn it into an irrational attempt to turn everyone who speaks the truth into a bigot.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Of course it is irrational to believe that there is a good chance of ‘this’ plane being attacked by terrorists due to what happened on 9/11. It is completely irrational to fear or question an entire group due to the actions of a few.

                      That isn’t to say that we’re all not guilty of this from time to time. But what is widespread is not necessary rational nor reasonable.

                    • Just what is it that we are guilty of Buck-acknowledging facts. Per you-in order not to be irrational I must ignore the fact that muslam extremists have tried several times lately to blow up planes. What probability does one have to have that their plane may be blown up in order to rationally be worried about the possibility?

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Is it rational to suspect every Muslim boarding a plane to be a terrorist ready to blow up that plane? You say yes; I say no.

                      Regardless, at the end of the day we both agree, I think, that we should not act on these suspicions (whether they be rational or irrational).

                    • Let me put it this way-I think it’s irrational to think that every muslam who boards a plane is probably a terrorist. I think it is completely rational to think that a plane which has muslams on board has a greater possibility of being blown up.

                    • V.H.

                      The first plane bombing was a man murdering his wife.

                      Therefore it is greater possibility that a plane with wives flying without husbands will be blown up.

                      Make sense to you?

                    • If men made a habit out of blowing up planes to kill their wives. Yea, I would be justified to be concerned.

                    • V.H.

                      So it must shock you that muslim’s don’t make a habit of blowing up planes either.

                    • Feel free to just go ahead and tell me why you think I’ve gotten it wrong. Out of a billion or so muslams I don’t believe that muslams percentage wise routinely blow up planes but muslam terrorist certainly do it enough to make one justified in worrying about it, without being called irrational, a bigot, or getting fired for admitting the fear.

                    • V.H.


                      Go and find out how many flights fly a day.

                      Multiply by 365.

                      Multiply by 5.

                      Go and find how many planes have been blown up by Muslim’s in the last 5 years.

                      Divide the former by the latter.

                      There is your “justification”.

                    • V.H.

                      So to help you,

                      There are 50 million departures every year.

                      Over 5 years, that is 250 million flights.

                      Over 5 years, zero planes bombed by Muslims.

                      To put your irrational understanding to a test.

                      There were 28 serious airline crashes last year.

                      In other words, V.H.

                      You are infinitely more likely to die by accident in an airplane than by a Muslim bomb in an airplane

                    • V.H.

                      Or, to put icing on this cake you’ve baked….

                      …you are more likely to be hit by lightening 5 times before you die in a plane crash.

                    • V.H.

                      …and then to overcook this cake.

                      Dying by Muslim bombs in an airplane is even less likely then being hit by lightening 5 times….

                    • Real large probability against winning a lottery too-but I have. 🙂

                      But we aren’t talking about how large a probability there is-we are talking about having honest, human feelings of fear which are based on recent activities-feelings that the politically correct seem to believe we have no right too feel without either being bigots or crazy.

                      Whether planes have been blown up or attempted to be blown up-both actions have happened recently coupled with 2 wars and attacks in other countries. So it is not irrational to worry more when muslams are on a plane with you. It would however be irrational to demand that muslams get off the plane.

                    • V.H.

                      Real large probability against winning a lottery too-but I have. :)V.H.


                      And those on the 28 plane crashes “won the lottery” too.

                      But that is a far cry from worrying about Muslims on airplanes

                      But we aren’t talking about how large a probability there is-we are talking about having honest, human feelings of fear which are based on recent activities-V.H.

                      I agree!

                      And it is completely insane and irrational – which is why it is so evil and dangerous.

                      When people start believing in lies about another people, millions die (see Nazi Germany).

                  • One can have a rational fear or caution based on reality. One can react irrationally to those fears-but one point being true does not make the other false. I wonder sometimes how many people told the Jewish population that they were being irrational.

                    • V.H.

                      If they were, would they listen?

                      I doubt it.

                    • No, I don’t think they would have listened-but claims of their fears being irrational or bigoted might well have silenced their voices.

                    • BF is right on the numbers…VH

                      Watch em anyway.

                    • If it helps, VH….I do the same everytime I see a Hispanic standing in groups around a Home Depot or Lowes….I aqssume that they are all illegal. Same difference I suppose.

                    • VH…just saw a poll mentioned on TV…same question asked of Williams…44,000 polled….82% said they agreed with Williams 18% or so did not…and two other answers got the rest.

                    • If it helps ?? I am having a hard time deciding whether you think I am right or wrong. 🙂

                    • AS far as your example-I suspect your thinking this is based on the current situation and on your experience-not because you are irrational or filled with hate.

      • Jesse Jackson said 17 years ago: “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

        Had not heard that one, chuckle, chuckle.

    • Bottom Line says:

      The world has become hypersensitive.

      And it’s not like he made those remarks on NPR. They were made on O’Reilly’s show.

  20. SCHOOL — 1970 vs. 2010

    Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

    1970 – Crowd gathers. Johnny wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best mates for life.

    2010 – Police called, arrests Johnny and Mark.. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Mark started it. Both children go to anger management programs for 3 months. School board hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programs

    Robbie won’t Keep still in class, disrupts other students.

    1970 – Robbie sent to office and given 6 of the best by the Headmaster. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

    2010 – Robbie given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. Robbie’s parents get fortnightly disability payments and School gets extra funding from state because Robbie has a disability.

    Scenario :
    Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

    1970 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

    2010 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Government psychologist tells Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.

    Scenario :
    Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

    1970 – Mark gets glass of water from Teacher to take aspirin with.

    2010 – Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

    Scenario :
    Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from Guy Fawkes, puts them in a model airfix paint bottle, blows up an ant’s nest.

    1970 – Ants die.

    2010- Police, Armed Forces, & Anti-terrorism Squad called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, MI5 investigate parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated. Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

    Scenario :
    Johnny falls while running during break and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher Mary . Mary hugs him to comfort him.

    1970 – In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

    2010 – Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

    • Sleeping With Bob

      The guys were all at
      a deer camp. No one wanted to room with Bob,
      because he snored so badly…
      They decided it wasn’t fair to make one of them
      stay with him the whole
      time, so they voted to take turns.

      The first guy slept
      with Bob and comes to breakfast the next morning
      with his hair a mess and
      his eyes all bloodshot. They said, “Man, what
      happened to you? He said, “Bob
      snored so loudly, I just sat up and watched him
      all night.”

      The next night it
      was a different guy’s turn. In the morning, same
      thing, hair all standing
      up, eyes all bloodshot.. They said, “Man, what
      happened to you? You look
      awful! He said, ‘Man, that Bob shakes the roof with his
      snoring. I watched
      him all night.”

      The third night was
      Fred’s turn. Fred was a tanned, older cowboy, a man’s man.
      The next morning
      he came to breakfast bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
      “Good morning!” he said. They couldn’t believe it. They
      said, “Man, what happened?”

      He said, “Well, we
      got ready for bed. I went and tucked Bob into bed,
      patted him on the butt,
      and kissed him good night.

      Bob sat up and
      watched me all night.”

  21. Barney Frank Flounders
    By Frank Crimi
    Congressman Barney Frank is in the fight of his political life. In the latest National Journal Political Insider’s Poll, surveying 111 Democrat operatives, over two-thirds of the respondents believed Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives after the November 2010 election. Underscoring the apprehension held by the polled insiders was their added belief that the losses would extend beyond moderate “Blue Dog” lawmakers to include a number of prominent progressive representatives.

    Conventional wisdom had long held the most likely Democrat victims in the House would come from the ranks of these forty or so conservative Blue Dogs. However, 2010 has proven to be a very unconventional political year. Keeping in line with the National Journal poll, political analyst Charlie Cook shows up to eighty congressional Democrat seats in serious play, which adds further proof that a good many progressive lawmakers seem destined to meet the same fate as their more moderate colleagues.

    “Tsunami” has been the word most often employed by pundits to describe the projected electoral beating Democrats are poised to suffer in November. Given both these survey and poll results, it’s now a particularly apropos term, as tsunamis don’t neatly discriminate about what, or in this case who, gets swept away in their path.

    Progressive Democrat electoral concerns are no more evident than in the race for Massachusetts’s 4th congressional district, which sees longtime ultra-liberal incumbent Barney Frank in dire political straits, squared off against a relatively unknown challenger, Sean Bielat, a thirty-five-year-old businessman and Marine Corps veteran.

    The cause of Frank’s concern is recent polling that shows him with an approval rating below 50%, a shocking and perhaps lethal position for a thirty-year progressive incumbent from the bluest of blue states to find himself in. The poll results led The Cook Report to downgrade Frank’s electoral chances from “solid” to “likely.”

    Adding to Frank’s electoral unease was the recent meeting held between Bielat and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) in which Bielat received assurances he would be receiving strong Republican financial support in the final weeks of his campaign, a prospect leading one GOP strategist to observe that the NRCC felt the race to be very “winnable.”

    Now, to some observers, the NRCC mulling over spending money against a longtime liberal congressman, in Massachusetts of all places, could be viewed largely as a frivolous use of money, wasting resources better spent elsewhere. However, for others, in a year of unbridled GOP optimism, the NRCC’s monetary support of Bielat may be better compared to a craps player laying chips on Twelve or Two. The odds may not be great, but a small bet can garner a huge payoff.

    For Republicans, nothing would be sweeter than seeing Frank’s career come to a blistering end. Already emboldened by the forced early retirement of Senator Chris Dodd for his involvement in the Countrywide mortgage scandal coupled with the defeat of turncoat Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democrat senatorial primary, Republicans are understandably wetting their lips at the prospect of adding Frank’s name to that ignominious list.

    While Frank still enjoys some great incumbent advantages over Bielat, namely money and strong name recognition, the chances of Frank’s ouster from office are still real. For starters, Frank is the poster child for what has roiled voter anger in 2010. In an anti-Washington and anti-incumbent year, with the public placing a premium on personal and political accountability, Frank strikes out swinging.

    The ultimate Washington insider, Barney Frank’s handprints are all over past and current legislative failings. From his perch as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank led the congressional charge to pressure private bankers and government mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to severely lower eligibility criteria for low-income home borrowers — dangerous lending practices that led directly to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in 2008.

    Since then, Frank has been a central player and advocate in pushing through the Democrats’ highly divisive and unpopular legislative agenda of health care reform, bailouts, stimulus packages, and financial regulatory reform.

    Lacking a popular legislative record to crow about, Frank now has the added misfortune to be campaigning in a year when a candidate’s personal character has more cachet with voters, who have seemingly reached the end of their tether with Washington’s culture of corruption.

    As such, voters in his district may no longer be willing to look the other way with regard to Frank’s own long record of ethical entanglements. Starting in 1990 with charges that his male lover ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s Washington home, they have morphed over the years to include influence peddling on behalf of OneUnited Bank to vacation treks on private jets of special interests.

    Adding to this gloomy portrait is the uncomfortable fact that Frank faces a young, successful, and articulate challenger in Bielat, who comes across as the “anti-Frank.” Long described throughout his career as acerbic, condescending, and entitled, Barney Frank has been forced to undergo a personality metamorphosis this campaign, trying desperately to turn himself into a more affable candidate.

    Unfortunately, the character transplant hasn’t fully taken, as Frank let the mask drop recently during a debate with Bielat, demanding eight times for Bielat to stop interrupting him, even though Bielat wasn’t speaking during any of those outbursts.

    Frank hasn’t kept his swipes confined to his opponent but has branched out to his own constituents, calling one woman’s views on his vote for health care reform “vile, contemptible nonsense,” adding that “having a conversation with you is like arguing with a dining room table.”

    What may prove, however, to be the final nail in Barney Frank’s political coffin comes from the belated realization that the 4th congressional district is not as safe as once believed. Exhibit A is Republican Scott Brown carrying the district, albeit narrowly, in his upset win over Martha Coakley in the state’s January 2010 special Senate election.

    The added problem for Frank is that many of those same Brown voters may be angrier now than in January, given that their vote for Brown was ostensibly cast so he could be the “41st vote” to kill health care reform — a prospect that never materialized, due in no small part to the diligent efforts of Barney Frank.

    Frank, however, is in no rush to remind voters of his involvement in health care reform — or his role in the subprime mortgage collapse, for that matter. He has been either studiously downplaying his own legislative part or striving mightily to airbrush himself completely out of the picture, apparently unaware that a skeptical and fully engaged electorate has access to the internet and YouTube and is possessed with memories longer than a gnat’s.

    But that’s really not too much of a surprise, because in the end, Barney Frank, like many of his liberal colleagues, has been too long accustomed to never being challenged, whether by capable political opponents, an objective media, or, until recently, the voters themselves.

    Finally forced to actually articulate and defend the full range of their unpopular decisions and abuses of power, Frank and his colleagues find themselves strangers in a new political world, speaking an unfamiliar dialect. So, it’s not too much of a shock to see their political skill sets dramatically atrophied and ill-equipped for the rigors of a 2010 campaign.

    Perhaps Barney Frank and other progressives, like Senators Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, will still somehow survive this particular election and serve on, but the more accurate reality will prove to be the reverse. Like the dinosaurs, once masters of their world, these politicians remain unaware of the approaching asteroid that will forever change the political landscape, rendering them extinct.

    • Fannie, Freddie bailout could double in cost
      Thomas Lifson
      Grab your wallet! Federal regulators warn that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government (not Wall Street) mortgage entities are going to cost lots more taxpayer dollars to fix. Zachary A. Goldfarb of the WaPo reports:

      Fannie and Freddie, the federally-controlled mortgage finance giants, will likely need at least another $73 billion and perhaps as much $215 billion from taxpayers in the next three years to meet their financial obligations, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said.

      The growing taxpayer infusions will cover losses Fannie and Freddie suffer on home loans, as well as payments the companies must make to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for a federal guarantee to provide cash to keep the companies solvent.

      In fact, over time, the majority of funds flowing to Fannie and Freddie from taxpayers will go to pay that dividend.

      To date, the Treasury has already injected $148 billion into Fannie and Freddie. Under the worst-case scenario, in which the country enters a second recession, the total infusion would equal $363 billion in three years.

      Richard Baehr notes: This will not help Barney Frank in his tight race with Sean Bielat. Frank was a staunch defender of Fannie and Freddie (his boyfriend-at-the-time — the one after the gay escort ring head, and before the harasser of Bielat — was an executive at Fannie). There is a real chance for Bielat to beat the veteran Frank. Scott Brown carried Frank’s district, and there seems to be a similar level of enthusiasm for Bielat on the ground, according to locals.


    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

      Wouldn’t it be nice to see him lose and then investigated and indicted?

      • It would be, and some Republicans are gleefully awaiting having the majority so they can hold the Democrats accountable for some of their actions. I just hope they don’t abuse it and turn it into a ongoing series of witch trials. While no fan of Clinton, I was not pleased with how they went after him.

        I think Franks has abused his power in ways likely to be illegal. It should be about the laws broken. Very few Republicans have any moral high ground in ethics violations.

  22. Bottom Line says:

    My Country My Ass

  23. Does somebody have an alter ego?

    • Eeewwwwh!

      Many try imitate.
      Very Few deliver.

    • Bottom Line says:

      I’m not sure how long BF has been using his name, but the band has been around since 1976.

      Both mean the same.

      From Wikipedia’s page for “Black Flag (band)” – under Iconography description:

      “When the band found it necessary to change their name from Panic in 1977, it was Pettibon who suggested the new name Black Flag and designed their iconic logo: four vertical black rectangles comprising a stylized rippling black flag. The logo evoked a number of meanings: it was the polar opposite of a white flag of surrender, as well as a symbol for anarchism and a traditional emblem of pirates.”


      • OMG! I remember when it was called Panic. Geez I’m getting old.

        • Bottom Line says:

          …Then I don’t suppose it would do you any good to tell you that I was wearing diapers.


        • A homeless Man’s Funeral:

          As a bagpiper, I play many gigs. Recently I was asked by a funeral director to play at a graveside service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper’s cemetery in the Kentucky back country.

          As I was not familiar with the backwoods, I got lost and, being a typical man, I didn’t stop for directions.

          I finally arrived an hour late and saw the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight. There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch.

          I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late. I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn’t know what else to do, so I started to play.

          The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no family and friends.
          I played like I’ve never played before for this homeless man.

          And as I played ‘Amazing Grace,’ the workers began to weep. They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished I packed up my bagpipes and started for my car. Though my head hung low, my heart was full.

          As I opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, “I never seen nothin’ like that before and I’ve been putting in septic tanks for twenty years.”

          Apparently I’m still lost…. it’s a man thing.

      • TexasChem says:

        A solid black flag with the Shahada in white on it is the RAYAH, the flag of the Jihad in Islam as well.

    • Bottom Line says:

      O’DONNELL: Everybody wants to know what I’m going to be for Halloween. I have some thoughts. I’m certainly not going to be a witch.


  24. Wikipedia Bans Radical Global Warming Propagandist From Editing All Pages

    Wikipedia is the most popular source of written information in the world. It is the third most popular non-search engine site on the web, bested only by Facebook and YouTube. In other words, it can be a potent ideological force.

    And it has been. The site’s administrators recently banned 16 users from editing any article related to global climate change. One user, William Connolley – also an active member of the UK Green Party – had been editing misinformation and propaganda into Wikipedia articles since 2003.

    Energy Probe executive director Lawrence Solomon wrote in December 2009:

    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site.

    He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling.

    On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age;

    on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.

    In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.

    He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    As NB’s Matthew Sheffield wrote at the time, “Such a horrendously biased and obsessed individual should not be allowed to decide what is neutral or fair, the ostensible guiding principle of Wikipedia.”

    Just this week, Wikipedia followed through on its commitment to that principle – in this instance at least – by banning Connolley from creating or editing any articles having to do with climate change.

    Connelley’s work on Wikipedia – in addition to the work of the 15 other users banned – had turned Wikipedia into a bastion of left wing misinformation on the climate change issue. The decentralized nature of Wikipedia makes it difficult to combat concerted efforts to maliciously alter content.

    Efforts to hijack Wikipedia pages bear a striking resemblance to plots unearthed by the so-called ClimateGate scandal of last year, which revealed that scientists were knowing falsifying or omitting information that undermined their climate change findings.

    While Connolley was ostensibly concerned with scientific truth, his Wikipedia campaign smacks of a very unscientific effort to distort the truth to promote a specific political agenda.

    Connolley complained to the New Yorker in 2006 that Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about.” But neither does the scientific method. You must prove your point if you want authority, not the other way around. Presumably, if anthropogenic global warming is “settled science,” as Connolley and so many others claim, one need not lie to argue that case.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all-pages#ixzz131qmiKUD

  25. Oh Boy! It’s getting hot now.. SMACKDOWN between O’Reilly/Juan Williams and NPR/Soros!

    Check out O’Reilly now or catch rerun at 11

  26. Update on Bell officials

    Eight California city officials plead not guilty to corruption charges
    By Michael Martinez and Stan Wilson, CNN
    October 21, 2010 5:24 p.m. EDT

    Los Angeles, California — Eight current or former Bell, California, officials pleaded not guilty to corruption charges Thursday morning in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    Former City Manager Robert Rizzo, 56, was also charged Thursday with two additional counts of malfeasance — for a total of 55 counts against him.

    The new charges allege that Rizzo took an additional $2.4 million in public funds by influencing a contract between the city and D&J Engineering. That firm’s owner and Rizzo were partners in a horse racing business, District Attorney Steve Cooley said.

    Rizzo, who drew controversy for his annual salary of nearly $800,000, was chauffeured to and from the courthouse in a limousine.

    Prosecutors unsuccessfully sought to have Rizzo, who is free on bail, held in jail Thursday.

    Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Lou Villar declined to add $2.4 million — matching the alleged theft in the new charges — to Rizzo’s current $2 million bond. The judge ordered Rizzo to continue wearing a 24-hour electronic monitoring bracelet. Rizzo was also ordered to surrender his passport on Thursday.

    Rizzo and the seven other defendants were then arraigned on charges they stole city funds. Another judge, Hilleri Merritt, presided over the arraignment.

    The original arraignment had been scheduled for September, but was postponed after a defense attorney asked for more time.

    The officials are accused of misappropriating more than $5.5 million, including being paid for phantom meetings, authorities charged.

    Among the charges against Rizzo are that he wrote his own employment contracts, which were never approved by the city council, and that he gave out nearly $2 million in unauthorized loans to himself and other city officials, prosecutors said.

    The other defendants are former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia, 52; Mayor Oscar Hernandez, 63; City Council members Teresa Jacobo, 52, and George Mirabal, 60; and former council members Luis Artiga, 49, George Cole, 60, and Victor Bello, 51, prosecutors said.

    Bell, in southeast Los Angeles County, had 36,624 residents as of the 2000 census. The median annual income is less than $35,000.

  27. I just wanted to applaude those of you that defend the cult of Islam!It’s just so great that we can have the freedom in this country for those such as yourselves that vehemently state your support for the causes of freedom, liberty and justice!Especially those of you that preach the ability to live your life without imposing violence upon the non-violent!Kudos!///Sarcasm off.How does your conscious allow you to do this?Are you ignorant of the teachings of the Koran and the base idealogy of Islams purpose and meaning?How well educated are you actually?

    It is simply amazing to me those of you that defend such an idealogically opposed juxtaposition as Islam/Freedom.
    16,256 attacks since 9-11 yet you still base your opinions on …what?

    Month of September worldwide Islamic Jihad attack statistics are as follows:

    Jihad Attacks: 172
    Countries affected: 23
    Religions involved: 5
    Dead Bodies: 703
    Critically Injured: 1454


    If I see a snake in the woods I try to identify it by its coloring or its head shape to determine its danger.Especially if I have my kids with me going fishing or hunting.Following along the same line of though:If I am riding an airplane I will identify those that contain potential to harm by the turbans on their head,the beards on their face, or the robes they are wearing.Here in Texas if I were in a border-town I would also look for threat from Mexicans loitering in a parking lot wearing a LaRaza T-shirt… etc.Lets not be stupid people.

    • Christian Nation at work.

      Iraqi deaths:107,000
      Vietnamese deaths:1,100,000

      • TexasChem says:

        So you’re implying the United States of America is leading a christian Crusade against the different religious peoples of the world?
        A regular Big Satan is America ehh!

        How about this:Islam is promoting itself throughout the world using every conceivable religious/political tactic as a Manifest Destiny!

        • Texaschem

          I am not implying anything.

          The fact is that the Nation has invaded (so far this century) two nations that were no threat.

          The fact that the Nation fought and killed millions in South East Asia against a nation that was no threat.

          …and this is merely the tip of an iceberg….

          • TexasChem says:

            The Vietnamese war was fought by America to hold the line against the spread of Communism;
            While North Vietnam was under communist rule and supported by China/Soviet Union, South Vietnam was under the capitalist system. The US intervened because they believed that should Vietnam fall completely to communism other neighboring countries, (Such as Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) would do the same, following the domino effect.

            Iraq-Saddam was a genocidal lunatic, already killed about 400,000 of his own people
            – He violated many of the Treaty agreement sign at the end of the Persian Gulf War
            – Strong evidence of him possessing nuclear weapons
            – Was a treat to the peace in the area
            – Make Iraq a democracy

            • Texaschem

              What a bunch of crap.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Just a little story that you actually may be able to verify. On the 10th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, ABC’s “Nightline” did a weeks worth of stories on the war and its aftermath from Viet Nam.

                On,I believe the last night there was an interview with the Prime Minister of Malaysia. He thanked America for their effort and sacrifice saying that because we held the line, the rest of Southeast Asia was able to get its house in order and resist the Communist subversion they knew was coming.

                At the time I thought that astounding. The domino theory had collapsed in the United States but apparently had been alive and well in that part of Asia.

                Make of it what you will, agree or disagree. In hindsight, I cannot see that it was worth it just like I cannot see that the current conflicts are worth it. What good does a “victory” serve you if you have no clue what to do with it?

                • SK,

                  Sure, I’d expect some politician just loved Americans dying for his people.

                  His people didn’t die.

                  The “Domino” theory was “deja moo” – a bunch of crap.

                  The reality was indigenous political movements were establishing to rid themselves of the slavery of colonialism, and the Eisenhower doctrine of “With us or against us” prohibited this.

                  Millions of dead because of it…..

                  • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                    Malaysia did their own thing in the forties and fifties if I remember correctly. I have a .303 “jungle carbine” from the era.

                    Scoff if you will but the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and others had first hand experience with overreach.

                    While the North Viets later demonstrated a lack of solidarity with their Russian and Chinese benefactors, they nonetheless have run a dictatorship since ’75 which does a fair amount of damage to their people. How many have died fleeing the “paradise”? Or, is that just self delusional propaganda?

                    As I said in the end of my 1st comment, can’t see from hindsight that it was worth it.

                    • S.K.

                      Whatever Malaysia does or does not, I do not care.

                      What the Czech, Huns, or Poles do or do not, I do not care.

                      What happens in Vietnam does or does not, I do not care.

                      None of them was worth war.

                • Next, the statesmen will invent cheap lies…and each man will be glad of these lies and will study them because they soothe his conscience; and thus he will bye and bye convince himself that the war is just and he will thank God for a better sleep he enjoys by his self–deception.”

                  — Mark Twain

      • TexasChem says:

        In my best Ghandi Indian voice impersonation:Sir you should not commit violence against the non-violent man, so that, when the non-violent man has you outnumbered through immigration and cultural assimilation he has an oppurtunity to annihilate you, he may do so with his Taqiyya ridden self!Just as he has done throughout Muslim history!

        • Texaschem,

          No matter how many may immigrate or live in my country, if they do not act upon me, then they are not doing anything to me – thus, whether they are there or not is the same to me.

          When they impose upon me regardless of their beliefs is when evil is done.

          Their beliefs do not make the evil.

          The violent imposition makes the evil.

          • TexasChem says:

            Depends upon your definition of impose I would assume eeh BF?

            If you want to immigrate to my country/community then you should adopt my customs and culture and not attempt to impose yours.
            If you want to be governed by Sharia law then you should live in an Islamic country.

            Yes their belief does make the evil.Islam is totally against freedom and liberty and is entirely devoted to subjugating their peoples.I am sure the elitists of the world would love to have it incorporated world wide to control the masses.

            • Texaschem,

              If you want to pervert the definition “impose” so to support your argument (shrug) – it does not fool anyone except those who want to be fooled.

              If you want to be governed by Sharia law then you should live in an Islamic

              I do not want to be governed at all by anyone. But that does not mean that I want to be governed by your “mess” either.

              Islam is totally against freedom and liberty and is entirely devoted to subjugating their peoples

              That has not been my experience with Islam – but certainly my experience in North America.

    • Texaschem

      …based on what?….

      The blindness you exhibit is the same as the nation, and has not changed since before 9/11 nor after nor now.

  28. American Thinker
    October 18, 2010
    It’s Logical to Be ‘Islamophobic’
    By R.C. Marsh

    From a utilitarian perspective, it’s simple. The average person faces greater danger from radicalized Muslims than from other dangers that we also fear, such as sharks or lightning.

    •According to the ISAF, in 2009, there were 61 unprovoked shark attacks worldwide, resulting in five deaths and 56 injured.
    •Lightning is more dangerous than sharks. According to NOAA, in 2009, 34 Americans died from lightning strikes. Worldwide, the estimate is about a thousand deaths and five thousand injuries annually.
    •But radical Islamic terrorism is even more dangerous. According to the U.S. State Department report on terrorist attacks in 2009, “about one half” of the 10,999 identified terrorist attacks worldwide were associated with Sunni Islamists. That’s the high end of the scale. By contrast, another list showing only attacks involving Islamic radicals indicates that they were only responsible for about 1,900 world-wide attacks in 2009. Still, those resulted in more than nine thousand deaths and 18,500 injuries.

    The average person is thirty times more likely to be attacked by a Muslim than a shark, and hundreds of times more likely to be killed by one. But it’s not wrong to be “Sharkophobic,” even though the risk is infinitely small. There are good reasons to fear sharks.

    •1) Predatory – Sharks are dangerous predators that attack when we are vulnerable. Their attacks are sudden, unexpected, and very hard to defend against.
    •2) Single-minded – Sharks are single-minded and pursue their own objectives. This predatory behavior is controlled by instincts and criteria that I don’t understand.
    •3) Uncaring – Sharks don’t care about me or my concerns. I cannot get a shark to accept me as a person of value worthy of life.
    •4) Fear – The shark’s reputation as a cold-blooded killer causes the mere appearance of one to produce fear.

    Unfortunately, the reality is that there are also some Muslims who fit the same basic criteria.

    •1) Predatory – Radical Muslims are also dangerous predators who attack when we are vulnerable. Their attacks are sudden, unexpected, and very hard to defend against.
    •2) Single-minded – Radicalized Muslims are single-minded and pursue only their own objectives. This predatory behavior is controlled by a worldview and a set of criteria that few of us understand. (Further, those who do understand it make it clear that we could not accept it as normative without massively disruptive changes to our lives.)
    •3) Uncaring – Radicalized Muslims do not care about me or my concerns. In fact, they do not value anyone who doesn’t precisely share their own specific interpretations of Islam. (As a result, the vast majority of their victims are also Muslim.)
    •4) Fear – It is the intent of these radicals to produce fear — that’s why we call them “terrorists.” Terror is part of the method they employ to get compliance to their demands. It should not surprise us when they succeed in generating fear that greatly contributes to “Islamophobia.”
    •5) Announced Intent — There is a fifth dangerous element unique to these people. They have repeatedly “declared war” on us, our religion, our political system, and our way of life. As proof of their intent, they have conducted violent attacks inside our country, using attackers who live among us and hide their malicious intent until it is too late. Their deception involves extensive lying and efforts to appear “normal” so that they can attack without warning.
    ◦Who would have thought that a mild-mannered Saudi national, who was college-educated in Germany and who had been in this country for more than a year learning to fly commercial jets, would have led the most vicious attack against civilians in U.S. history?
    ◦Who would have thought that a U.S.-born practicing psychiatrist, an Army officer, sent through medical school by the Army, would have unexpectedly attacked random soldiers in his own workplace, killing thirteen and wounding thirty?
    Therefore, it is logical to be fearful of Muslims because a tiny percentage of them, who deliberately deceive everyone about their intentions, might be extremely dangerous.

    Unfortunately, this is bad for the rest of the Islamic faith. We can’t tell them apart — until it is too late. It seems to me that this logical fear will cause the Muslim faith as a whole to suffer growing isolation. Since I fear sharks, I do not go into the water when they are around, and I get out if they show up. The same withdrawal reaction is rational when dealing with Islamic radicals.

    How do we counter “Islamophobia”?

    It has been thoroughly proven that prejudice is not helpful to our society. But addressing the five elements that cause rational “Islamophobia” will require at least two things.

    The most important thing will be for most of the leaders of the Muslim world to repeatedly make clear, public distinctions between those who are peaceful and those who are not. That’s the only way in which those of us outside of Islam can know whom we can trust and whom we should avoid. It will have to be done over and over. But to do it will call for tremendous bravery on the part of those who want to pursue peace. By repudiating radical Islam, those leaders will become instant targets for those who want to dominate the world. Those of us outside the Muslim faith need to recognize and respect that courage. Whoever takes the lead on this issue in Islam will be showing true gallantry to the entire world.

    The other important step will be for average people to experience frequent relationships with non-radical Muslims. Reality and experience show us that the most effective way to get over our “Islamophobia” is by building relationships among ordinary people, millions of times. That takes many years and cannot be rushed nor forced. Efforts to force that outcome will simply raise the walls of “Islamophobia” while denying its existence.

    I’ve always found that honesty is the best policy in any relationship.

    So, peaceful Muslims, please accept our apologies in advance.

    Let us honestly say that when we may appear “Islamophobic,” we think that we are actually just being “prudent.” Over time, a relationship will develop between us, and trust will build. But this will take time, probably years.

    Further, expect us to draw back each time the radicals trigger a surprise attack in the West. We will back off some because people like Major Hasan bring the danger to our minds again.

    But if you’re willing to take the time, I think you’ll find that most Americans are, too. I know that I will. We are a kind and generous people who are worthy of your time.

  29. Brought to you by the same Muslims who committed the most heinous crimes against humanity at Beslan.But hey it’s not a problem with Islam it’s just those durned Islamic extremists…

    Islamic militants attack parliament in Chechnya, leaving 6 dead, 17 wounded in brazen raid
    Musa Sadulayev,Simon Shuster, The Associated Press Oct 19, 2010

    GROZNY, Russia – Islamic insurgents including a suicide bomber stormed Chechnya’s Parliament on Tuesday, leaving six people dead and 17 injured in one of the most brazen attacks on the provincial capital in months, officials said.

    Ten years after the latest separatist war in the volatile region in southern Russia and after a decade of roundups and disappearances of Islamic suspects, it appears that Chechnya’s Kremlin-backed administration still can’t stop separatists from trying to blow up Parliament.

    Tuesday’s attack left a grim scene around the Parliament building, with body parts and a decapitated corpse lying on the ground near shattered window glass. Interior Ministry special forces paced the area in camouflage fatigues, wielding grenade-launching Kalashnikov rifles.

    Chechnya, part of Russia’s volatile North Caucasus region, has been battling an Islamist insurgency for years despite the iron rule of its Moscow-backed president, Ramzan Kadyrov. The exact motive for Tuesday’s attack was not known, but Russian Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev was in Grozny for talks with Kadyrov about recent violence.

    One militant set off a bomb Tuesday at the gates of the Parliament complex in Grozny, the Chechen capital, killing himself and wounding others, Chechen police spokesman Ramzan Bekkhoyev told The Associated Press.

    At least two other gunmen ran into the building shouting “Allahu akbar!” — “God is great!” in Arabic — as they opened fire on the people inside, he said.

    Two police officers and one parliamentary official were killed in the attack and at least two insurgents were slain in an ensuing firefight, officials said.

    Nurgaliyev said the insurgents had tried to get into the main parliamentary hall.

    “As always, they failed. Unfortunately, we were not able to avoid loss of life,” he said in a televised speech. “The situation we saw today is extremely rare. Here, there is stability and security.”

    Russian news agencies said six of the wounded were police and 11 were civilians.

    An AP reporter at Parliament saw ambulances take away two bodies, along with the severed head of an insurgent.

    The storming of Parliament appeared to be part of a larger, coordinated attack. Russian media reported that insurgents also attacked the Agriculture Ministry building in the same complex and shots were fired inside the office of the parliament’s speaker, Dukvakha Abdurakhmanov. The Interfax news agency said the speaker had been safely evacuated.

    Lawmakers decided not to cancel Tuesday’s parliament session in Grozny despite the attack. Nurgaliyev spoke before the lawmakers, insisting the rebels’ days were numbered.

    “The leadership of the insurgent underground has practically been taken out. A significant portion of its arms supplies and financial resources have been cut off. The work of emissaries from foreign terrorist centers has been contained,” he declared.

    Kadyrov recently has boasted that peace has returned to Grozny. Human rights activists, however, say the price has been too high, because Kadyrov’s administration has backed extra-judicial killings, kidnappings and torture under the pretext of fighting extremism.

    Russia fought two wars with Chechen separatists in the 1990s before finally installing a loyal government there in 2000. Since then, most of the Islamist insurgents have moved over into the neighboring Russian republics of Dagestan and Ingushetia, with terrorist attacks seldom striking at the heart of Grozny in recent years.

    In August, however, a shootout in Kadyrov’s home village between his guards and suspected insurgents left 19 people dead, including 5 civilians, raising fears of a reviving insurgency.

    The provinces make up Russia’s predominantly Muslim North Caucasus region, which separatists strive to turn into an independent emirate that adheres to Sharia law. The insurgents are thought to be in a sporadic network of cells that shelter in the region’s forested mountains.

    There has been a spate of attacks originating in the North Caucasus this year. In March, suicide bombers from Dagestan detonated explosives in the Moscow subway, killing 40 people. Days later, similar bombings in the province itself killed several police.

    Another suicide car bombing last month killed 17 people and wounded more than 140 in Vladikavkaz, another regional center in the North Caucasus.

    These follow a multitude of high-profile terrorist attacks by Chechen rebels since the 1991 Soviet collapse, including the Beslan school siege in 2004 that ended in a bloodbath in which more than 330 people — about half of them children — were killed.

  30. Should Democrats “pal around” with socialists?

    John Conyers Speaking at Democratic Socialists of America Meeting
    By Warner Todd Huston Thursday, October 21, 2010

    Should Democrats “pal around” with socialists? Whether it is a good idea or not here we have a sitting congressman actually going to a group of socialists and addressing them at one of their meetings. It wasn’t that many years ago that such a meeting would ring the death knell for a politician’s career.

    Today, though, it goes entirely without note.

    On October 5, 2010, Congressman John Conyers went personally to speak before a meeting in Michigan’s of members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

    The socialist that introduced Conyers reminded the gathered comrades that Conyers was a major sponsor of the single payer healthcare system. Amazingly Conyers noted that he was “honored” to be introduced by the socialist, too, and paid all due deference to those assembled.

    He also said that he was happy to be among people “progressive enough” to accept the propriety of a “one world” system. Then he extolled the farcical idea of a federal “Department of Peace.” But interestingly, he gently ripped into President Obama’s continuation of “other administration’s” war policy and urged the folks to picket Obama. He also ripped into Press Secretary Gibbs for “trashing progressives and the left.”

    Another of the farcical things this man said was that the Tea Party was “small and dismissible.” This is a fantastic statement. You may want to dismiss the Tea Party movement and its goals but to say that it is “small” simply flies in the face of reality.

  31. Oklahoma Gets set to Vote on Sharia—
    This stems from the Jersey ruling which was overturned but did have a judge rule that a sexual abuse case involving a muslim man raping his wife not being rape because his religion allowed for it!Sharia Law!

    Here is the latest update to the “Oklahoma Rep. Duncan calls for Preemptive Strike on Sharia!!~ Video” story. The people of Oklahoma get set to vote in less than two weeks, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose goal is to dominate us by Sharia is not happy.

    “It’s not about Shariah law at all. It’s really about anti-Muslim bigotry,” says Razi Hashimi, spokesperson for CAIR.

    Muslim Americans say the measure sends a message of hatred and intolerance and non-Muslims should not be concerned about Shariah law.

    “As long as it doesn’t affect you in any way, why should you be concerned how I solve a problem between me and my brother, or neighbor who is Muslim. I do not think it should be a matter of concern for a non-Muslim,” says Tulsan Mohamed Boudhhir.

    Nice try Razi, but it is about Sharia Law Did you forget this statement?

    Omar Ahmad
    Co-Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
    President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
    Former Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) Officer.

    “Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam … Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the
    only accepted religion on Earth.”

    It is nice to see a politician that knows what CAIR is all about. Will the people of Oklahoma do the right thing, and follow in the footsteps of Louisiana? Lets hope so.

  32. TexasChem says:

    By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 20, 6:36 pm ET

    Judge tells Interior to clarify polar bear status

    WASHINGTON – A federal judge is ordering the Obama administration to review whether polar bears, at risk because of global warming, are endangered under federal law.

    U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan wants the Interior Department to clarify a Bush-era decision that polar bears were merely threatened rather than in imminent danger of extinction.

    Sullivan’s request, made at a hearing Wednesday in federal court, keeps in place a 2008 declaration by the Bush administration that polar bears are threatened.

    Former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said in May 2008 that the bears were on the way to extinction because of the rapid disappearance of the Arctic sea ice upon which they depend. But he stopped short of declaring them endangered, a move that would increase protections for the bear and make oil and gas exploration more difficult.

    Scientists predict sea ice will continue to melt because of global warming.

    Along with the listing, Kempthorne created a “special rule” stating that the Endangered Species Act would not be used to set climate policy or limit greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and melting ice in the Arctic Ocean.

    The Obama administration upheld the Bush-era policy, declaring that the endangered species law can’t be used to regulate greenhouse gases emitted by sources outside of the polar bears’ habitat. If the bears are found to be endangered, however, that could open the door to using the Endangered Species Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

    Sullivan said he would issue a written order shortly, but said Wednesday that the government is likely to have about 30 days to explain how it arrived at its decision.

    A lawyer for an environmental group called Sullivan’s action “good news for the bear,” adding that the popular animal’s fate was now in the hands of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

    “The court is not accepting the Fish and Wildlife Service argument that extinction must be imminent before the bear is listed as endangered,” said Kassie Siegel, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based group that challenged the polar bear listing.

    Reed Hopper, an attorney for the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, which opposes protections for the bears, called the ruling disappointing.

    “We would have liked to have the case decided earlier,” Hopper said, noting that legal challenges have lingered in the courts for two years and are likely to be delayed at least several more months. Hopper’s group has filed a separate challenge to the polar bear listing, calling the bear a “thriving species” that now numbers about 25,000 from Alaska to Greenland, the highest total in history.

    The bear’s threatened status is due mainly to projections about declining Arctic sea ice, rather than a current decline in bear populations, Hopper said.

    A spokeswoman for Salazar declined to comment Wednesday. A Fish and Wildlife Service official referred calls to the Justice Department, which also declined to comment.

  33. A roommate-not an apartment building-a Roommate. People have completely lost their minds. Why argue this on freedom of religion-if I want a one legged pirate to share my residence-why is it anybodies business. Why would anyone question people’s total contempt for our government and legal system and especially the ignorant people who complain about everything to the point of absolute insanity.

    Michigan Woman Faces Civil Rights Complaint for Seeking a Christian Roommate

    Published October 22, 2010

    | FoxNews.com

    * Print
    * Email
    * Share
    * Comments (549)
    * Text Size

    A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

    The ad “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

    “It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”

    Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

    Harold Core, director of public affairs with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, told the Grand Rapids Press that the Fair Housing Act prevents people from publishing an advertisement stating their preference of religion, race or handicap with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling.

    NPR Fires Juan Williams; Fox News Expands His Role
    NBA Star Defaults on $1.5M Mortgage
    Nebraska Girl, 11, Kicked Off Cheerleading Team for Not Shaking ‘Booty’
    Killing Tunnel A Win For Chris Christie
    Mortgage Crisis Set to Kick Into a Higher Gear

    “It’s really difficult to say at this point what could potentially happen,” he told the newspaper, noting that there are exemptions in the law for gender when there is a shared living space.

    But Joel Oster, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the woman free of charge, describes the case as “outrageous.”

    “Clearly this woman has a right to pick and choose who she wants to live with,” he said.

    “Christians shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for being Christians. It is completely absurd to try to penalize a single Christian woman for privately seeking a Christian roommate at church — an obviously legal and constitutionally protected activity.”

    Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.

    The ad included the words, “Christian roommate wanted,” along with the woman’s contact information. Had the ad not included the word “Christian,” Haynes said, it would not have been illegal.

    “If you read it and you were not Christian, would you not feel welcome to rent there?” Haynes asked.

    Oster said he hopes the case will eventually be dropped and that he’s sent a letter to the state asking the authorities to dismiss the case as groundless.

    “The First Amendment guarantees us Freedom of Religion,” he said. “And we have the right to live with someone of the same faith. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is denying her rights by pursuing this complaint.”

    But Haynes said officials plan on pursuing the matter.

    “We want to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” she said.


%d bloggers like this: