Tuesday Night Open Mic for November 23, 2010

Good morning everyone! Let me just say that it feels pretty good just to have a little bit of time to sit down and write again today. This will be the only article I post this week. We have today to comment and have fun but then the rest of the week will hopefully find all of you relaxing and spending time with family members. I will be traveling Thursday and back on Friday, but I imagine there won’t be a whole lot of folks hanging out at SUFA. Allow me to also thank you all again for your patience over the last two weeks as I settle into a new career (while still working the old one at the same time!) and deal with the family stuff that kept me out of the loop for a bit. Over the next couple of weeks I should get settled down, and by the end of the year I should be back to writing as prolifically as I used to in the past (I stop working the old job at the end of December). For tonight’s topics I am going to again post some topics and attempt to add my thoughts throughout the day. I will also attempt to add some further topics throughout the day. Here is to hoping that I am able to do so as I plan. I expect that my new office will be a ghost town on Wednesday which may leave me fairly free to comment (fingers crossed).


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    North Korean Attack Comes Amid Regime Succession, as Obama Calls Act ‘Provocative’

    President Obama described North Korea’s attack Tuesday against a small South Korean island as a “provocative” show of force that “needs to be dealt with,” and it comes at a time when the country is preparing for a long-awaited leadership succession.

    The deadly strike came just six weeks after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il unveiled his youngest son Kim Jong Un as his heir apparent. Analysts described the attack, which followed a claim that the country has a new uranium enrichment facility, as a cry for attention at a critical juncture.

    “This is a — just one more provocative incident in a series that we’ve seen over the last several months,” Obama said in an interview with ABC, adding that he will be consulting with South Korea’s president about their response. “We strongly condemn the attack, and we are rallying the international community to put pressure on North Korea.”

    He wouldn’t comment on the likelihood of military action, but called it “a serious and ongoing threat that needs to be dealt with.”

    Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said the strike and its timing raises “serious questions” about Kim’s succession.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/23/condemns-north-korean-attack-south/#ixzz16AjRvUnG

    • It’ll probably blow over. We give them food and fuel and they behave for awhile. Maybe Obama will bow to Dear Leader. How about that? dear leader bowing to Dear Leader. What a photo op.

      • What is this obsession with bowing? It is good etiquette to observe the customs of your host and/or host country. Bush II bowed to foreign leaders as well. So did Clinton, Reagan, and I’m sure many others. Bush Sr. even threw up on a Japanese minister in observance of a traditional (if obscure) Japanese custom.

        Now can we try to be grown ups?

        • Funny, I don’t remember Bush bowing to the Saudi King. If he had the Lefturds would have used it as ‘proof’ that Bush is controlled by the Saudis, blah, blah, blah. Who did Bush bow to?

          And yes et’s be grown ups. I’ll show the courts my birth certificate and other docs if he’ll show his in court. He’d be a grown up if he did.


          • here he is bowing in China:

          • And let’s get over the Birth Certificate issue, shall we?


            • Looks like I posted too soon, lol. At least Ray was smrt enough not to take the bait! LOLOLOL.

              And as for that bowing I guess Bush was as great a President as you claim this fraud is because he’s doing the same exact crap as Bush and now its wonderful. So Obama=Bush. Good job Lefturds.

              • Respecting the cultures and traditions of host counties is a good thing. It is good for diplomacy. It is good for relations. It is good PR. Just because Bush did it doesn’t make it bad. Just because Obama did it doesn’t make him ‘submissive.’ It make them both realisitic enough to know that failure to do so could be perceived as a slight and undermine their goals.

                What? You think the President should only do thing the ‘merican way and the rest of the world can just suck an egg? When foreign diplomats come here, do they not stand up for the national anthem, call the President ‘Mr. President’? Foreign dignitaries (generally) try to respect our customs and we should return the favor.


                • Bowing with respect to different cultures is a good thing. Bowing so low one could be perceived as a pervert is not being respectfull, just willing to give of oneself for the “greater good” 😆

                  • etiquette is difficult. There is a lot more nuance than people grasp when the question is “how low to bow”. Especially when one person is tall and the other might be a hobbit.

                    Or, he might have just messed up, but I fail to see why that’s such a big deal either.

              • Ray may have been ‘smrt’ enough to duck the fight, but I’m ‘smrt’ enough to win it.

                Big it on, sister.

                • 4am central Pacific time = smrt

                  What are you doing at 4am?

                  • At 4AM, I was up with my puppy.. she just got spayed and is having some complications and is in a lot of pain. 😦 😦 😦 😦 😦

                    • Sympathies to yous..here’s to a speedy recovery.

                    • I’m sorry-Hope he/she feels better soon. Do vets ever give dogs pain medication? I’ve been searching my memory and I know once I asked for some for my dog, she jumped a wire fence and cut open her belly. I remember the vet saying that they don’t normally recommend pain pills for animals-but that’s all I can remember. I’m thinking they gave me some but I just can’t remember for sure.

                    • Yes. She’s on morphine right now, they gave us some pills to give her as needed over the next few days. Thank you for your kind words.

            • With a “Certification of Live Birth” it is possible to have been born outside of Hawaii and still obtain this document.

              A “Certificate of Live Birth” is a long form Birth certificate.

              Certification versus Certificate.

              Research it Mathius. You can find the info on the state website. I’m not gonna go into all the details of it.

              Who the hell spends 2 million dollars in legal fees to keep secrets anyways unless there is something to hide? I know I sure as hell wouldn’t. Obama is a Soros puppet plain and simple. The money never lies. It always leads you to answers if you follow it.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @TexasChem – the brilliance in Soros was in placing the birth announcement of Obama in that Hawaiian newspaper back in 1961 – absolute friggin’ brilliance eh?

                • My daughter was born in Germany. Her birth announcements appeared in California and Tennessee. What brilliance on my part!

                  • Ray Hawkins says:

                    @Cyndi – you’re not very brilliant if the CA and TN announcements didn’t list you as living in CA and TN respectively (and at the same time). Sorry – try again!

          • Damn it, Anita, they don’t seem to be taking the bait this time, LOL!


            • Bah. The courts have already weighed in on this one. Being born in the US (or territories) and/or having at least one citizen parent.

              Further, US law declares that a parent may not forfeit citizenship on behalf of a minor, but that the minor may only do so for himself at the age of 18.

              Remember that McCain was not born in the US. He was born at a military base abroad. The Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment defines him as a Natural Born Citizen as well.

              Additionally, Alaska (if we’re honest with ourselves) isn’t really part of America, so Mrs. Wasilla is out of the running as well.

              That leaves Biden as the only viable candidate under your theory.. well this could be interesting…

              • Hmmmmm You musta missed geography class that day when they taught you that Alaska became a state in 1959

                • That’s just what those liberal types would have you believe with their lamestream media so-called facts, dontcha know!

              • Bottom Line says:

                Mathius – “”Additionally, Alaska (if we’re honest with ourselves) isn’t really part of America, so Mrs. Wasilla is out of the running as well.

                BL – According to your logic, then neither is Hawaii.

                • Naw. I’ve spent a lot of time in Hawaii.. aside from having better weather (and great surfing), it’s a lot like the rest of the US.

                  Alaska’s like a whole other country where they shoot moose from helicopters and can see Russia from their front porch. I mean, come on, caribou lasagna? Not in my America.

                  • Bottom Line says:

                    Matt – “…it’s a lot like the rest of the US.”

                    BL – Yeah, like how popular luaus are in Iowa, black sand beaches of Montana, all those Texans walking around saying “Hang loose.”, and pineapple SPAM sandwiches in your average New York City delicatessen.

        • Mathius,
          Just a thought – Cyndi isn’t real good at etiquette – or acting like a grown-up (see any of her posts!!). Besides, she doesn’t care about the truth, she just wants to live in her little socialist paradise and bitch about Obama…

          • PASS THE POPCORN !!!!!!!!

            • Anita,
              Better make that a big bowl – it’s a long ride to the FEMA Concentration Camp. Or you could just wait for the “Dear Leader” popcorn and Pelosi Soda – the food service is really good in those railroad cars! 😉

          • oooh, this should be fun 🙂

            Todd, I agree, but it’s not really her fault. She’s a valley girl at heart.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Hey! You leave my Sweetums alone!

            (winks @ Cyndi) 😉

            Todd – “Cyndi isn’t real good at etiquette”

            BL – Oh, she gets it, but doesn’t over-value it. Instead of sugar-coating things, she just gets to the point…which is a quality I can truly appreciate.

            Todd – “Besides, she doesn’t care about the truth, she just wants to live in her little socialist paradise and bitch about Obama…”

            BL – I think you have it backwards. She sees the truth, and calls it how she sees it. If it has to be blunt, so be it. It’s better than rationalizing everything and fooling herself or anyone else.

            If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck…It’s a duck.

            Some people will try any angle to convince themselves that it’s a pigeon, goose, seagull, chicken, etc…anything but a duck, simply because they aren’t comfortable with it being a duck.

            Cyndi will call it a duck…even if she doesn’t like that it’s a duck.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I’m trying to stay out of this – I thought we were soon to send Anita, Kathy and Cyndi to the FEMA Concentration Camps anyway?

            • Of course! Ladies first! They send us first to set up the liberal’s bed-o-nails…..then we take the keys that JAC left us!

          • Hello pot, this is kettle…..


            • Don’t worry Ladies. I will protect y’all when we get to the Camps! 🙂

              As far as the Birth Certificate goes. You might as well drop that. Even IF, it were found out that he wasn’t born in the U.S. at this time, they would make special circumstances out of him since he’s already been Pres for 2 years (even you can call the mess he has made being President).

              IMHO, the Obama Administration doesn’t have the cojones to do anything about the NK’s to begin with. So NOTHING will happen. I don’t think anything is warranted at this time anyway.

              What concerns me is the Obama explaining to the SK govt that the shelling was their fault and they should apologize to the NKs for their aggression against the peaceful people of NK.

              • 🙂

              • YAY Esom!. I’ll make your bunk with a sleep # mattress. 🙂

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Esom – we’re not allowing you into the FEMA Camps – we’re sending you to the Isle of Beck – you’ll have to change your name to Glenn Beck; we’ll require you to convert to Mormonism; you’ll have to learn to cry on demand, you’ll not be permitted to speak unless you’re discussing some conspiracy theory that no matter how far fetched – must lead back to George Soros taking over the galaxy; oh – and one last thing – when Glenn Beck Uno visits the island, you’ll be his designated back washer on Mondays and Saturdays (just remember – don’t squeeze his back acne after you’ve conditioned his back hair). Good luck! 😉

                • That would be better than getting sexually molested by Geaorge Soros for not heeding Glenn Beck’s warnings.

                  Besides, I’m only going to the camps if they can capture me alive after the gun battle at my house when they come to get me.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      It is ridiculous that we are even still in that part of the world.

      • To an extent you are absolutely correct Ray. But at least in that situation we are there at the request of South Korea. I would still rather that we bring everyone home and go to a defense only mode, but if we are going to be somewhere I am a little less miffed knowing that the host country is begging us to stay.

    • Life of Illusion said
      November 23, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      My first thought was this is how they have extorted aid in the past, and their aid is being withheld. A dangerous game to play. If they attack the border, is the US response not automatic? Not needing Obama to give any orders?

      D13 said
      November 23, 2010 at 4:32 pm

      Good question, LOI. Yes, there is an SOP in place for defense. The truce brokered in 1953 is also quite explicit.

    • “Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said the strike and its timing raises “serious questions” about Kim’s succession.”

      As a Michigander I am sure glad we have an intelligent non-representing representative like Pete Hoekstra to let us know that Kim chose poorly, otherwise I would have just muddled on down the road thinking Kim’s son was an upstanding and compasionate person.

      Kind of funny one moron speaking ill of another moron.


      • I heard on the news last night -that some thought there was a power grab going on-that the military which supposedly already has alot of power may be trying to take over. The son is in his early 20’s so some think the attack was an attempt to consolidate his position with the people.

        • VH

          I’m not sure anyone “really” understands what goes on in the mind of maniacle morons.

          Here’s a thought: Maybe, if a war between those two countries is eminent, and I sure hope not, then hopefully we (US) can stay the hell out of it.


          • and hope that china can stay the hell out of it.

          • I understand very little about this whole situation. But I know the US won’t be staying out of it-war or no war. I find the situation complicated-I can’t say for sure if our being there stops the communist countries from taking over the whole area and actually stops WW3 from happening or not. But I suspect that it does. But on the other hand at what point are these people going to be able to take care of themselves-are they there already. Should we stay out of it, except as a friend standing in the wings as a deterrent to China stepping into the dispute. I don’t really go along with the idea of letting China or N.Korea take over S. Korea. So just label me confused.

          • If a war becomes reality between the two there is no reason to believe the US would stay out of it.

    • Peter B was looking for answers to the Korea situation yesterday. This might help:

      Scenarios: Why did North Korea launch its latest attack?


      • Another thought, what does the international community think of Obama?
        N. Korea may be acting now because they think in two years they might have to negotiate with a president more apt to fight than talk. He wants to be seen as a peacemaker, and Kim may be looking to take advantage of that while he can?

    • Why don’t we just Nuke em and get it over with?

      • Killing millions because of some out of control leaders. If that becomes the standard I dread to think what will happen to the United States.

    • All Kidding and goofing around aside, I don’t believe we SHOULD do anything but what we are already. Condemning the act in the strongest possible terms.

      While I am quite sure that is all that will come of it anyway, it is for the best. We sure as hell don’t need our boys sent to another country to defend THEIR people.

      I no longer believe we should have troops ANY PLACE but on our own borders, keeping out all the foreign invaders in our OWN Country. To hell with the rest of the world.

      Trade with all. Alliance with NONE. Our Foreign Policy should involve Trade ONLY. Putting our nose in other Nation’s business has us in the situation we are in now. This is a problem the US has had for a long time. Before Obama OR Bush were even born.

      We have ignored what the Founders had in mind for us for way to long. We need to get back to it.

    • D13 lurking in the shadows reading……observing…..realizing that his prediction on NOrth Korea several months ago has come true.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Lawmakers Warn $1.2 Billion Payout to Black Farmers Rife With Fraud

    A handful of Republican lawmakers is warning against Congress approving a massive discrimination settlement that passed the Senate last week despite concerns the claims process may have been marred by thousands of potentially fraudulent applications.

    Just before breaking for Thanksgiving recess, the Senate approved by voice vote a $4.6 billion package to settle claims against the government by black farmers and American Indians. The payments to black farmers account for $1.2 billion of that amount but have been the subject of intense criticism.

    Lawmakers raising alarm about the payments say whistleblowers from the Department of Agriculture have come to them in confidence to warn that the money is going to claimants who don’t deserve it.

    Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told FoxNews.com on Tuesday that she’s been told people who have no connection to farming are set to receive payments under the so-called Pigford settlement.

    Citing reports that Hispanic and women farmers are also seeking payments from the Agriculture Department, she said: “It looks like this has more to do with politically correct reparations.”

    Bachmann added that if the discrimination really was as widespread as the settlements suggest, “The USDA should just be completely shut down.”

    Bachmann, along with Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., point to a red flag in the numbers — while Census data pegs the number of U.S. farms operated by black farmers at about 33,000, close to 94,000 claims have been made so far in the discrimination case.

    The Agriculture Department disputes the allegations, noting that similar charges surfaced after an earlier round of settlements was announced in 1999. According to the department, the FBI in the end found just three fraudulent claims among the 15,000 recipients at the time. Part of the reason there are so many more claims than farmers this time around, according to the department, is because family members and retired farmers — who may have been forced out of business due to discrimination — are eligible.

    “These accusations are nothing more than an attempt to derail an effort to provide long-overdue compensation to thousands of farmers who were discriminated against over several decades,” a department spokesperson said in an e-mail, stressing that the claims process has “integrity” and safeguards against fraud.

    Read the rest of the article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/23/lawmakers-warn-billion-payout-black-farmers-rife-fraud/#ixzz16Ak9DQC4

    • Bottom Line says:

      Someone already posted this piece in here a few weeks ago. I forget who, but I do remember reading it. I found it on the Ohio Free Press website and decided to re-post as it is pertinent.

      From Ohio Free Press:


      Breitbart lays the trap for Sherrod’s fraud

      Posted by Sandy Downey, July 28, 2010
      Full credit goes to: Robert W. Fortner

      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 on 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 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.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Jesus H. Christ – an article quoting “Women of the Corn” leader Michelle Bachmann to BL posting a screed praising the genius of Andrew Breitbart. Am I still asleep and I’ll wake in a few moments to realize this is all a dream?

      So are we basing a lot of views here on the accuracy/efficacy/completeness of Census data? Is this the same SUFA board that has bashed the Census endlessly as corrupt, invalid, and illegal (usually be quoting subject-matter-idiots like Bachmann and Breitbart).

      Just remember folks, there is a newly minted GOP Congressman from NJ, former Philadelphia Eagle Jon Runyan who for years very unapologetic took many a tax break because he could register his land as a “farm” due to the five goats he has “grazing”. (I cannot make this shit up).

      Let’s look deeper at criteria before jumping to conclusions.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        That is still a helluva lot of money

      • Bottom Line says:


        I didn’t really post that article as a means of “praising the genius of Andrew Breitbart”, but to instead draw attention to the irony and corruption involved.

        The whole fiasco has had a few interesting twists.

      • I am surprised you took that tone around the article. I hadn’t even offered any thoughts on it yet. Who cares what the Bachman Strain says. I was interested in discussing the lawsuit itself and what people thought of it.

      • Why is it that the left tries to make anyone with the guts to stand up for conservative values seem like a nut when in reality it is the left that sits all day shelling their own nuts? Mind boggling thought process.

    • So, what else is new? (sarcasm intended)

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    San Francisco Bans Happy Meals With Toys

    San Francisco lawmakers voted Tuesday to override Mayor Gavin Newsom’s veto on a measure to ban fast-food restaurants from including toys with children’s meals that do not meet nutritional guidelines.

    The city’s Board of Supervisors gave the measure final approval with an 8-3 vote on Tuesday. It goes into effect in December 2011.

    The ordinance prohibits toy giveaways in fast-food children’s meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat.

    The law also limits saturated fats and trans fats and requirex fruits or vegetables to be served with each meal that includes a toy.

    Supervisor Eric Mar, the measure’s chief sponsor, says the ordinance will help create healthier choices to our kids.”

    Read the article in its original spot here:

  4. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/23/san-francisco-bans-happy-meals-toys/#ixzz16CgdpUbx
  • Lets see-they allow people to hang out in the parks smoking pot to the point that people cross the street because they don’t want their children to be near them. They allow people to have sex in the street and run around naked during parades. But they are offended that someone would allow a kid to eat a burger and get a free toy.

    • why didn’t they just tax the toy?

    • Displaced Okie says:

      Why oh Why are they against meals being happy…..

    • I don’t think it’s a question of being offended – to them it’s a question of the wellbeing of children and a large and growing concern about childhood obesity, diabetes, and health concerns.

      Whether we agree that it’s right or not for the government (in this case local) to pass such a law, can we all get together and agree that young children should not be eating meals with 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat?

      • Matt,

        At what point do we allow parents and children to decide how they want to live? Consider also, it may be a crime if a for fast food to be un-healthy, but when the government does it, it’s legal. Many schools serve chicken nuggets, pizza, etc., that is high calorie and sodium.

        Reality is most of those choices are economic. Mickey D’s is cheap, so are the generic hot dogs, bologna, etc., that I have seen many heavyweights eating. Like the take a horse to water, you cannot force people to make wise choices. It would be better to focus on education, setting examples. Get the schools to serve grilled chicken, not fried.

        • Not really what I asked.. but ok.

          I agree that schools should serve healthy food (I went to private school, so I don’t know what public schools serve).

          But I think the state is justified in protecting the health of a child where the parent is not willing/able to do so. Do I think this meets that criteria? No, not really. I think it’s a minor overstep. But I do agree with the general sentiment.

          Adding, I* went to McDonalds just a few weeks ago. It wasn’t that cheap – I could make food at home that’s twice as tasty, ten times as healthy, and a fraction of the price. I don’t see the appeal.

          *Yea, yea, yea.. Emilius could make it, not me.

          • Common Man says:


            When we allow the elected officials to dictate what we eat or how it is served, then we give up a right to make our own decisions. Once we have stepped over that boundry we are forced to endure whatever elected officials decide. This action also violates a fundimental principle of the free market, and is just another step closer to a socialist market.

            Taking the toy out of the happy meal is not going to prevent parents from feeding their kids junk food or from eating at junk food establishments. All this does is further enable an already constricting government to gain some additional ground. Ground that is slowly srinking from around our feet.

            It’s the old saying: Give an inch and they will take a mile.


            • Bottom Line says:

              I second that.

              It simply isn’t the right or responsibility of government, local or otherwise, to micro-manage people’s daily lives.

              It’s up to the parents to decide what is appropriate for their children.

              Where do you draw the line?

              “Give an inch and they will take a mile.” is right!

              IMHO, they’re already WAY past an inch.

              What’s next?

              • Care to answer my original question? Can you agree that children shouldn’t be eating meals that meet these criteria?

                Regardless of whether you think the state should be allowed to interfere, do you agree that it is (as a general rule) bad for children for parents to feed them this type of “food”?

                • Bottom Line says:


                  My point is that what I, or anyone else besides the parent thinks, is irrelevant, as it isn’t anyone’s right or responsibility to decide what someone else’s kid eats, or how McShit makes their “food”.

                  If you don’t like the food, don’t eat it or feed it to YOUR kids.

                  The second one decides what another eats, or how they run their business, they’re over-stepping their boundaries.

                  • McShit?

                    Hillarious 🙂

                  • Bottom Line says:


                    I can’t claim originality.

                    …saw it on a bumper sticker in L.A. a couple of years ago.

                    It simply read “McShit” with the “M” being in the form of the golden arches.

                  • Very true. But the line has to be drawn some where. Would you say its within parental rights to allow their children to shoot up heroine? San Fran drew it here, you might draw it elsewhere. Who is right is a question of extent, not absolutes.

                  • Bottom Line says:

                    Matt – “But the line has to be drawn some where.”

                    BL – The line is drawn where the rights and and responsibility of one ends and the other begins, regardless of the circumstance.

                    If you have the right to tell a business how to make their food, then you have the right to tell them what price to sell it for, what colors to make their logo, what their slogan should be, etc… and in turn, they have the right to tell you how to run your business.

                    If you have the right to tell someone what to feed their kid, then you have the right to tell them how to dress them, what school to send them to, how to cut their hair, what religion to teach them, etc… and in turn, they have the right to tell you how to raise YOUR kid.

                    Matt – “Would you say its within parental rights to allow their children to shoot up heroine?”

                    BL – Yes.

                    I don’t agree with it at all, but my opinion is irrelevant, as it is not my right to decide what is best for THEIR child as THEIR child is not MY responsibility.

                    Matt – “San Fran drew it here, you might draw it elsewhere. Who is right is a question of extent, not absolutes.”

                    BL – Who is right is subjective.

                    WHAT is right is dependent upon rights and responsibilities as it relates to freedom.

                    What is absolute is freedom.

                    It has to be consistent with freedom. You cannot just say that it applies here but not there. You can’t have it both ways.

                    Either you have the right or you don’t…and your right is relative to your responsibility.

                    If you are responsible for other people’s children, then you are responsible for their marriage, job, etc… and have the right to tell them how to live, and they are responsible for your life and have the right to tell you how to live.

                • I buy my kids a happy meal once or twice a year. If I thought it was harmful I would not do it. If I fed them that every day it would probably be harmful, but that is true for lots of things, not just happy meals.

                  Should the law prevent people like me from giving my child an occasional treat because some people are dumb enough to feed their kids McDonald’s three times a day?

          • This is where I shake my head. Liberals will defend this move because (Per Mathius) “the state is justified in protecting the health of a child where the parent is not willing/able to do so” and yet will support abortion at will. Huh?

            • Objection. Move to strike. A fetus is not a child.

              • Overruled

                • I’m sorry, but to act as Judge, you must have a law degree. I suggest we defer to the opinion of the esteemed and honorable Judge Wala.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Matt, if a fetus is not a child, then what is it?

                • How would you define a cluster of cells which attaches itself to a host organism and robs it of nutrients while giving nothing back?

                  Sounds a lot like a common parasite, no?

                  • Pass the popcorn, again 🙂

                  • Judy Sabatini says:

                    Down at bottom

                  • I doubt popcorn will be needed-I for one have stopped arguing with anyone who describes an unborn child as a parasite-such a description applied to the miracle of life makes any discussion pointless.

                  • Bottom Line says:


                    There is a distinct difference.

                    Parasites invade the body of a host to it’s detriment.

                    It is the natural function of a woman’s body to procreate.

                    The origin of a parasite is OUTSIDE the body…while the origin of a baby is INSIDE the body.

                    Both parasites and babies are attached…But parasites attach themselves TO a host, while babies grow FROM the womb.

                    …But you already know this and I suspect you’re just pushing these women’s buttons.

                  • A parasite? Now I get it! You are describing a liberal fetus!!!

                    No wonder most of us here couldn’t grasp your logic. You guys are born that way (if, that is, the mother describes to allow her parasite to live).

                • LMAO !!!!!!!!!

                  Thousands of Anita points..and you know how I don’t want to do that..:) 🙂

        • Whoa there LOI! While I agree with what you are saying, the amount of food fed to a child at school, while perhaps unhealthy, would not keep a pissant healthy.

          My kid comes home every day starving to damn death. I have to keep food for AFTER school for him.

      • Good morning, Matt. I know you are not serious about this…but you did rile everyone. HOw are you today?

  • And what else would you expect from the land of fruits and nuts . . . after all, they just re-elected “Moonbeam McBrown” as their governor . . . . . . .

  • My brother sent me this link. It’s pretty interesting regarding the Icelanic people refusing to pay for their government’s bank bailouts. As you’ll see they voted after the fact, but it seems like their people have more guts than we the people.


    From that link I looked around that website and found these videos about the underhandedness of our own government in regards to our bailouts.Looks like Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke are the fall guys.


    So when do we get to vote?

  • Everyone:

    The sun came up again this morning, but I was already wide awake and on my second cup of coffee long before then; thanks to my neighbors dog running amoke and barking at 4:30 am. Damn ears, I hear everything. I did get a chance though to look at the moon and stars in between the clouds. And since I was up an hour earlier this morning I also had more time to think about the days activities. After making some notes about what I needed to accomplish, who to call and what to say I started thinking about tomorrow’s activities and Thanksgiving.

    A time to reflect on our bounty, benefits and blessings:

    I am blessed that I am able to rise each morning and continue life’s journey.
    I am blessed that when I wake my best friend and soul mate lies next to me lightly snoring.
    I am blessed by the fact that I have two children who are kind, considerate, charming and live close enough that Janet and I get to visit with them weekly.
    I am blessed that I have a handsome, smart, energetic grandson who adores his ‘Papa’ and will one day share a tree stand and fishing boat with me.
    I am blessed that I have two ‘Blood Brothers’ who I can depend on, enjoy my company (most or the time) and help keep me grounded, guided and balanced.
    I am blessed that I have a sister who thinks I am great (most of the time) and that we have as many things in common as we do.
    I am blessed that I have a brother that even though we live a few hours apart, would drop everything and come to my aid if I called him.
    I am blessed that I have friends that I can laugh at, with and also laugh at me.
    I am blessed that I believe and understand that there is a Creator and that he still points the way even though I tend to veer off the path from time to time.
    I am blessed that I had the love of two caring parents and that I was able to learn from them.
    I am blessed that I am a ‘Freeman’ and live in a country where that is an option.
    I am blessed that I was given the intelligence to know when I am wrong and how to apologize and not make the same mistake twice.
    I am blessed that I inherited the passion I have for the woods and water. The time I spend there strengthens my soul, refreshes my mind and enables me to understand.
    I am blessed that I have learned all that I have and am capable of learning more.
    I am blessed that I can hear, see, touch and love all those that have come into my life as family and friends.
    I am blessed because I have all of this

    Each day is a challenge, sometimes a heartache, but always an opportunity to reflect on our blessings and the bounty/benefits those blessings provide.

    I want to extend many thanks to all of you at this blog. I have learned a great deal these past several months and all of your thoughts and ideals have helped enabled me to do so.

    I wish each and everyone of you blessed days, prosperity and continued and abundent joy.



    • Very nice Common Man. Happy Thanksgiving to you to! For some reason I think your dinner will include venison. 🙂

      • Anita;

        Yes it will along with some smoked pheasant, and salmon as an apitizer.

        Enjoy your Thanksgiving.


    • Wanted to second Anita’s comment-well done-I too am very grateful for my blessings. Must go now-have to shop, cook and clean. Just in case I can’t come back, I wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving now. Hope the Good Lord will watch over all of you and your families.

    • Very nice CM. I love Thanksgiving because it’s all about being together with family and friends and makes us pause from our often crazy schedules to just “be thankful”.

      Have a Happy Thanksgiving SUFA!

  • Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone

    Just want to take this time, to wish each and everyone of you a very Happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy your day.

    Take Care


  • Hey Matt! And All! Can’t do Thanksgiving without this song…

  • I got an idea . . . . . . . . .

    Why don’t we all just put all this crud out of our minds for the next few days and just give thanks for those few good men who envisioned a free society and called it a constitutional republic . . . “If you can keep it!”

    Count your blessings . . . If you wake up breathing, everything else is workable, negotiable, shootable, or it just doesn’t matter much!

    My Granddaughter got married yesterday, her older sister got engaged the day before, their brother enlisted in the Air Force, my Nephew is back from his second tour in Afghanistan and able to spend these holidays with his wife and five children, I am alive and well, and my wife has stuck with me for all of these 41 years and she still loves me even though I have gotten all fat wrinkly in my old age.

    It just don’t get any better than that!

    Have a great thanksgiving all!!!!!!!!

  • I’m going fishing this weekend because it seems that no matter what
    bait I use I get a bite! LOLOLOLOL Thanks for playing!

    • For Todd

    • Cyndi,
      So all the crazy stuff you’ve posted over the past 2 years was just for fun???? Wow, you certainly did have me fooled!!

      But looking back, it does makes sense. I mean, you’d really have to be crazy to believe all the stuff you’ve posted!!

      I can’t imagine anyone that could be that crazy!! 🙂

  • TSA fails to spot two 12 inch long razor blades and lots of nuts and bolts carried by one of the Mythbuster guys


    • I accidentally brought a pocket knife on my last flight. I got on the plane and was digging around in my purse for something, and there was my pocket knife. It went through the x-ray machine unnoticed.

      • Bottom Line says:


        Do you think that you could have hijacked the plane with it, and rammed it into buildings?

        Me either.

        …which makes one wonder…what’s the purpose this nonsense screening for small knives and fingernail clippers and such?

        If someone tried to hijack a plane I was on with a box-cutter, knife, or fingernail clippers, …I’d laugh at them, just before beating them unconscious with a piece of luggage or whatever was handy at the time.

        How do four men subdue a couple hundred people and hijack a plane with box cutters?

        Box cutters my ass.

  • From John Stossel:

    A Lost Thanksgiving Lesson
    By John Stossel

    Had today’s political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow’s holiday would have been called “Starvation Day” instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn’t be alive to celebrate it.

    Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn’t happen.

    Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.

    The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.

    That’s why they nearly all starved.

    When people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.

    “So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented,” wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, “began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (I) (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land.”

    In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

    “This had very good success,” Bradford wrote, “for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many.”

    Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

    What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. The problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, “That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.”

    If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free-rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty.

    What private property does — as the Pilgrims discovered — is connect effort to reward, creating an incentive for people to produce far more. Then, if there’s a free market, people will trade their surpluses to others for the things they lack. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit makes the community richer.

    Here’s the biggest irony of all: The U.S. government has yet to apply the lesson to its first conquest, Native Americans. The U.S. government has held most Indian land in trust since the 19th century. This discourages initiative and risk-taking because, among other reasons, it can’t be used as collateral for loans. On Indian reservations, “private land is 40 to 90 percent more productive than land owned through the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” says economist Terry Anderson, executive director of PERC. “If you drive through western reservations, you will see on one side cultivated fields, irrigation, and on the other side, overgrazed pasture, run-down pastures and homes. One is a simple commons; the other side is private property. You have Indians on both sides. The important thing is someone owns one side.”

    Secure property rights are the key. When producers know their future products are safe from confiscation, they take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

    That’s the lost lesson of Thanksgiving.

    Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.

  • Happy Thanksgiving to All 🙂

  • Judy Sabatini says:

    Down here Matt

    Is that what you actually believe it is? Come On Matt, it’s the beginning of a life being formed, by 2 months, it’s pretty well formed, and everything starts to go into the right places, the heart starts beating by the 3rd week, it begins to move by the 2nd month, although quite faintly, 4th month, starts moving more, sucking it’s thumb, hiccuping,and so on. All it needs to do is to continue to grow until it’s ready for birth. Maybe you might want to take a look at pictures of a developing fetus, and you tell me it’s not a child. Although the eyes are still fused together, they become unfused before it is born. Shine a light up there, and it will try to protect it’s eyes from that light, it can feel, when being touched, can hear the mothers voice, as well as other outside noises, can be startled as well. I think I know what I’m talking about here, been through it 4 times. So, please, don’t say that a fetus is nothing but a gobb of cells, and yes, they have now discovered, by the 4th month, it can feel itself being ripped apart through an abortion, can also feel when saline solution is being put on it, and it’s skin being burned. Maybe once you discover that someday you’re going to be a father, I hope you have a change of heart and mind.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Matt is a cluster of cells…but I suppose it “is a question of extent, not absolutes”…which makes it about HOW MANY cells.

      Right, Matt?


    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Judy – I think its weeks 5-6 when the heart is forming and beginning to pump blood. Its is somewhat thereafter (usually definite by week 8) that you can hear the heartbeat on the ultrasound (just experienced this again this week with number 2 we are expecting). In my evolving opinion on the subject I’d hold that a beating heart is as sure a sign of life that you’re going to have.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        that should be weeks five slash six

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Ray, may I say congratulations to you and your wife, and of course the little guy. That is just wonderful news Ray. What a great Thanksgiving you and your wife are going to have.

          Take care my friend

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Congratulations to you and your wife, Ray!

        I must say here that Thanksgiving has a deeper meaning than ever this year for several reasons…..my life is better than it has ever been and I am VERY thankful for that……

        But on this subject of babies, I have another reason to be thankful….my youngest son and his wife were expecting a son in January, but he was born Nov 12 after a scare of her suddenly hemorrhaging and having an emergency C-section…..4lbs 8 oz, still in NICU but doing well and mom is doing great also. He is beautiful and I can’t wait to hold him….gives new meaning to Thanksgiving…

        hope all of you at SUFA have a wonderful Thanksgiving also!

      • Congrat’s Ray!

        Wonderful news for a Thanksgiving. Maybe a very special 4th of July?

      • Hey Ray, Congratulations to you and your wife. Kids just make life sweeter.

  • Judy Sabatini says:

    One more thing Matt, No, it doesn’t rob the host of nutrients either, you build up more for that purpose.

  • A Puritan Descendant says:

    There are millions of Mayflower Descendants alive today, few of them are aware of it. In 2009 the Society of Mayflower Descendants had only about 28,000 members in the U.S.A. and Canada.

    Both my wife and I are members. We both found our Mayflower ancestry because of our interest in our own genealogy. It took a lot of time and effort, mostly online, but we were both well rewarded in discovering our roots.

    Have a Happy Thanksgiving!


    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      🙂 correction: Few are aware of their descendancy, but they should be aware they are alive! LOL

  • Happy Thanksgiving, my crazy friends on the right … I’m still trying to get the Doc here but he says the posts are sometimes too long (he’s grumpy, you know) …


    Have a safe, healthy, happy one …

  • I hope everyone here has a safe and wonderful Thankgiving.

    And to all the naysayers and Angelina Jolie wet blanket Thanksgiving indian murderer theorists, I say Phhhhhttttt!!!!! 😀

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      In all seriousness Esom – hope you and yours had a great Thanksgiving down in the Peach State – I still miss that place.

  • Bottom Line says:


    OF ARTICLE II “natural born Citizen”




    I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, concerning the meaning and definition of “natural born Citizen” within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that many of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper know as Barack Obama have not described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories. I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that clearly defines “natural born Citizen” within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

    First, let us examine the works of attorney Orly Taitz. To the best of my knowledge, she has never stated a correct legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, but rather she just asserts facts and draws wrong conclusions based upon failed legal hypotheses. Her arguments go something like this: She claims or believes that the term “natural born Citizen” from Article II is an undefined legal term for which the courts must determine the meaning, because somehow the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ has changed over time by precedents from U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and therefore there is some conflict or confusion that has led to the “natural born Citizen” in Article II losing or changing its meaning and interpretation over time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What she fails to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II, and they could not, even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

    Another misconception on her part is that U.S. case law from the Supreme Court has changed the definition of “natural born Citizen” at all. All the Supreme Court cases have done is just reiterated what the definition(s) of natural born citizen(s) has been for thousands of years that existed in other legal jurisdictions long before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The only relevancy of the U.S. Supreme Court cases is that their decisions form part of the relevant case law for the U.S. legal system because the pre-existing definitions of ‘natural born citizen’ were created in legal jurisdictions outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, that had existed long before the formation of the U.S. government. Finally, it is totally bizarre to conceive that the Framers of Article II would be able to write into the Constitution the qualifications for the highest political office in the land with undefined legal terms that they themselves could not have known, and which were subject to the whims of judicial interpretations, and subject to change by stare decisis, or by the whims of Congress with a simple statute. What an incredibly impossible task it would have been to write Article II under those circumstances. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

    Here are the facts encountered by Orly Taitz. She looked back in time to the encyclopedia of law known as The Law of Nations written by Emerich de Vattel. Mr. Vattel reports that one definition of ‘natural born citizen’ means “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (interpreted by Taitz to mean plural or both parents).

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212)

    She then moves the clock forward a bit, after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and she encounters a statement by Judge John Bingham who said that ‘children who are born in the country, of parents who do not owe any political allegiance to other countries, are in the language of the Constitution itself, natural born citizens’. Mrs. Taitz then asserts from these facts that that is what Article II means and why it requires BOTH parents to be citizens and also that one must be born on U.S. soil in order to qualify for the office of President. This is her legal hypothesis which is easy to debunk.

    Forget about the fact that Orly has just disenfranchised any and all children born of military parents on foreign shores, contrary to U.S. case law, and forget about the fact that there have been many examples of Presidents, after the Sunset Clause expired, who did not have U.S. citizen mothers but the validity of their Presidencies were never in question. Let’s just look at the one giant glaring mistake that crashes her hypothesis. The definition she uses says ALL children born of citizen parents are natural born citizens, which includes males and females, but Article II is only talking about free-born MALES because females had no political rights recognized for almost 150 years after the adoption of the Constitution (Minor v Happersett), and it took the 19th Amendment to recognize the natural inherited political rights of women. Isn’t it bizarre to think that, prior to the 19th Amendment, a female could be President, which is a political right, but females could not even vote and the Minor court case could find no political voting rights for women within the Constitution?

    Obviously the “natural born Citizen” in Article II does not mean ALL children born of citizen parents, since females were originally excluded from the sovereign body politic even though they are natural born citizens the same as males. So much for her hypothesis. Her hypothesis has just gone down in flames, because we have shown that not all ‘natural born citizens’ are created to have the same political rights recognized under the law. Obviously, Article II “natural born Citizen” cannot mean what she contends because it never was originally intended to include females.

    If I were to give a letter grade to Orly Taitz, it would have to be an F+ for failing to state a valid legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, and for failing to apply any legal principles or other observations of history and Nature to validate her hypothesis. Why the “+”? She gets a plus for her efforts and having her heart in the right place. Orly Taitz has worked very hard to bring the issue to people’s attention, even though she has not been explaining the issue correctly. She has had to put up with a lot of grief for her efforts.

    Let’s move on to Philip Berg who scores much better.

    Attorney Philip Berg uses a different approach than Orly Taitz. Phil uses the approach of a prosecutor who is trying to prove criminal intent by removing all of the possibilities and what is left must be the truth. This is a valid approach to proving that Obama is not qualified and is a criminal fraud. Berg achieves this goal in my estimation. However, his approach does not include the declaration of any valid theory of law that shows what is the meaning and definition of Article II. It is not surprising that Berg would use this approach, because it is my understanding that he was a former Assistant Attorney General, which is one of the branches of government that is responsible for prosecuting violations of the laws of a State. Thus he is trained to think like a prosecutor, probably also influenced by years of experience in the role of a prosecutor in his law practice and other years of similar experience.

    Berg’s reasoning seems to go something like this: He believes that under the laws of the U.S., there are basically three ways to be considered a ‘natural born citizen’. You can be a ‘natural born citizen’ by just the soil jurisdiction, even if both parents are foreign citizens (anchor babies for example), or you can be a ‘natural born citizen’ by just your mom being a U.S. citizen, even if you have a foreign dad, as long as your mom is old enough and meets other statutory conditions, or you can be a ‘natural born citizen’ as long as your dad is a U.S. citizen when you are born. He then proceeds to show that each element is not possible for Obama to achieve.

    Berg first eliminates the soil jurisdiction as a pathway, by asserting that Barack was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii, which is a very convincing argument based on the evidence that he can show and the circumstantial evidence of Obama’s behavior surrounding this issue. He then eliminates Barack’s mother as a pathway to natural born citizen status by showing that she cannot meet the statutory requirements to pass on a natural born citizenship status to her son. However this is a rather weak technicality of the law that would not be sufficient enough to convince one that Obama should be considered not to be qualified under Article II. Finally, Berg then eliminates Barack’s dad because obviously he was never a U.S. citizen, so his father cannot be a pathway to ‘natural born’ citizen status. With all three avenues eliminated, the only conclusion one can make is that Obama cannot possibly be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S., therefore he obviously is unqualified by Article II requirements.

    I must admit that Berg can probably convince any jury that this is the case and he can be said to have achieved the goal of proving that Obama is not a valid President, but that is not the same thing as putting forth a theory of law that shows what Article II “natural born Citizen” means, or how it is properly defined within the political context and within the intent of Article II. Berg almost gets there because he does go a bit further and makes a point that Barack’s citizenship status is controlled by Kenya and Britain, and not by the laws of the U.S., which seems like he implies that there is no political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, although I am not quite sure that he states it quite that way, and I have not seen him relate the full ramifications and implications of this into a coherent theory of law that explains Article II.

    I have never heard Phil Berg speak to what would happen if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and his mom was indeed old enough. Then what? He does not seem to go that extra mile and explain that Article II does not prohibit dual citizenships under all circumstances; it only prohibits dual political allegiances that are inherited and requires that your inherited political allegiance belong to the U.S. and not some other jurisdiction or country. He does not explain that Barack actually is potentially born with the legal privilege of three possible citizenships, one from Kenya and one from the British commonwealth or Britain, and one from the U.S., but Barack only potentially inherits either one or two political allegiances depending on the recognition of the monarchy form of government in England. Barack would inherit a political allegiance to Kenya from his dad and he might inherit a political allegiance to England via the soil jurisdiction since the form of government in England is that of a monarchy and monarchies create automatic political allegiances at birth just by being born on the king’s soil jurisdiction. In either case, whether Barack had one or two inherited political allegiances at birth, neither one would be an inherited political allegiance to the U.S. I will give Phil Berg a B or B+.

    This is where I now add my contribution to this issue by describing the correct theory of law that shows the true meaning and interpretation of Article II, that will show that even if Obama was born on U.S. soil to a fully-aged legal U.S. citizen mother, that he still would not qualify because the soil jurisdiction and your mother’s citizenship are irrelevant for Article II purposes. I will now describe the theory.


    Article II “natural born Citizen” is fully defined by the Natural Law jurisdiction and natural circumstances, and does not mean just any person who is a ‘natural born citizen’ by statutory privilege or definition. Rather, it requires conditions of your birth that create a specific ‘natural born’ citizen at birth, one who inherits their political right to be President as a Natural Right and not one who obtains their political rights as a legal privilege from the Positive Law jurisdiction. The natural political right to be President is an unalienable natural right recognized under the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence that is obtained by inheritance only from a citizen father, because that is where both males and females get their natural political rights from. The natural political rights of both males and females are only recognized and realized as ‘legal rights’, which are privileges, that are created in the Positive Law jurisdiction by males, not females. This logical order is a natural objective self-evident truth and consequence of Nature that is caused by the fact of a male’s natural superiority in physical strength and aggression. This is why the Declaration of Independence says that it is a ‘self-evident truth that all MEN are created equal and that they are endowed with political rights (Liberty) that come from the Laws of Nature (endowed by their Creator means as a function of the Natural Law jurisdiction and Nature’s Laws), and that governments are instituted among MEN deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’, meaning the male voting members of society. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about the political rights of females and the Constitution did not originally recognize women to be part of the sovereign body politic (Minor v Happersett) until the 19th Amendment almost 150 years after the Constitution was adopted.


    There exists a Natural Law jurisdiction from where we get our Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature, and Natural Rights are unalienable.

    There exists a Positive Law jurisdiction from where we get our Legal Rights from, and legal rights are privileges. Positive Law means man-made statutory law from the Latin root “posit” which means that which is declared and agreed to. It is sometimes referred to as ‘decreed law’ under a monarchy political system.

    Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.

    Political Rights are Natural Rights which are Inherited from our Fathers (Declaration of Independence).

    The legal context of Article II is a Political context because the Office of President is the highest Political Office in the land.

    The Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776 secured the sovereign political authority of the former citizen ‘subjects’ of the King of England who were not born having their natural sovereign political authority or natural sovereign political rights to be recognized by the King.

    With the successful conclusion of the War of 1776, the colonies, and later the U.S., no longer recognized the automatic inherited political allegiances from soil jurisdictions which had been the case in the colonies under the monarchy form of government of England. U.S. law does not recognize there to be political allegiances owed due to being born on soil jurisdictions.

    The U.S. Constitution establishes a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens.

    A Sovereign authority is the author and source of the law.

    A Sovereign citizen takes his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes.

    Natural Rights are Inherited from other human beings and are not obtained from soil jurisdictions which are just artificially created legal fictions.

    Article II is meant to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and nation by ensuring political allegiance to a Sovereign Republic form of government by preventing a monarchy, because the original intent was that Article II should bar Titles of Nobility from attaining the office of President, which would create a Monarchy and not a Sovereign Republic.


    1) Article II “natural born Citizen” is describing a member of the Sovereign Body Politic from among the natural born citizens of the country, which did not originally include females even though they were also natural born citizens.

    One need only examine Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ….”. Notice that “natural born Citizen”, and “Citizen” and “United States” are all referring to sovereign political entities that have their sovereign status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction. “United States” is a sovereign political entity formed from the States of the Union which are Sovereign States. The “Citizen of the United States” is referring to the sovereign male citizens from the Sovereign States that were not born having their sovereign political status recognized by the King at birth because they were former colonies of the Monarchy. It cannot be claimed that “Citizen” is referring to just any citizen, because the female citizens of the States did not have their sovereign political status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction because none of the States recognized females to have any political voting rights. That is the purpose for capitalizing “Citizen” to indicate a certain specific citizen or political condition. The reference is to former males who were born as citizen ‘subjects’ of the King due to the soil jurisdiction of the King which caused those male citizens to owe a political allegiance to the King at birth.

    An exception had to be made to accommodate these male citizens since they were not born without inherited foreign political allegiances. This part of Article II is called the Sunset Clause and indicates that “natural born Citizen” is referring to the future naturally created members of society, after the adoption of the Constitution, who are born with an inherited sovereign political authority recognized in the positive law jurisdiction who will not owe a political allegiance at birth due to soil jurisdiction, but will have to inherit their sovereign political status, which implies males who are created by citizen fathers, since both males and females inherit their political condition from their citizen fathers. The capitalization and the logic of the sentence construction indicates specific citizens, i.e. males, and specific political conditions that occur naturally at birth.

    2) There are many different natural conditions or circumstances that can create a ‘natural born citizen’ status but only the correct natural conditions can create a ‘natural born citizen’ that will prevent titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President. The place of your birth and the citizenship status of your mother are irrelevant for Article II purposes.

    Under the laws of the United States, there are several permutations or pathways to claim a natural born citizen status. You can be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ if you are just born on the soil jurisdiction of the U.S. even if you have two parents that are not U.S. citizens. We call those citizens created solely from the soil jurisdiction ‘natural born citizens’ because during the days of the English Common Law when there was a Monarchy form of political system controlling the Colonies, any person born on the King’s soil jurisdiction was naturally born subject to the King’s jurisdiction (citizen ‘subject’ of king George), and those persons were born inheriting a duty to owe a political allegiance to the King that the King demanded of them because he controlled the soil jurisdiction that the King claimed dominion over, and also over all subjects within the soil jurisdiction. Strictly speaking however, those citizens are not ‘natural born’ by the Laws of Nature to inherit a political allegiance from their fathers due to natural laws, but rather just due to circumstances because the King’s jurisdiction is a Positive Law jurisdiction of legal privileges, not a Natural Law jurisdiction, and the King is not the source of natural inherited rights. The King dictates to those born on his soil what political rights they may have, and they do not include the right to claim an inheritance of a sovereign political authority from one’s father because then an individual would be in direct conflict with the King. The King was the only person with the privilege to be permitted to claim a sovereign political authority under a monarchy form of government. That was the entire issue with the Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776, when our colonial forefathers declared that political rights do not come from the King or his soil jurisdiction, but are actually endowed to males from the Laws of Nature and come to both males and females from our fathers, not from the soil, nor from a king, nor the king’s parliament in England.

    We fought and won the war of 1776 and secured to ourselves the recognition of our own natural sovereign political authority inherited from the natural law jurisdiction from our fathers. Since that time, we have abandoned the notion that soil jurisdictions cause one to owe a political allegiance to the state, and one now owes political allegiance directly inherited through one’s father. That was the entire point of the Revolution. People need to wake up and read the memo that we are no longer a monarchy and U.S. law does not recognize the soil jurisdiction as a determination for political allegiances. This is why it makes no difference where you are born for Article II purposes because it is not possible to owe any political allegiance to a foreign state or to the U.S. just by being born on their soil jurisdiction. That ended 250 years ago! The government is not our king! It serves us, not the other way around! If we still recognized the soil jurisdiction to cause one to automatically owe a political allegiance to the U.S. just by being born on the soil jurisdiction of the U.S., then there would be no way to prevent a foreign king from attaining the office of President because any foreign king could just come to America with his wife, she could give birth on U.S. soil, and then that child would inherit a political allegiance to his foreign father. He would thus be a royal prince with a title of nobility who could then also claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. due to the soil, and then we could have a monarchy again because a title of nobility could then qualify under Article II and become President.

    What is confusing people is that they fail to realize that there is a huge difference between owing a political allegiance at birth due to inheritance and natural laws, and just being entitled to the privilege of citizenship which is just a legal right of the soil and not a natural right due to parents. Just because you are born with the privilege of citizenship from multiple jurisdictions does not mean that you are born with multiple owed allegiances. There is no allegiance owed at birth for privileges that you do not accept. For example, my father was in the Air Force and he was a U.S. citizen when I was born in Japan. I did not inherit a political allegiance to Japan at birth but I was entitled at age 18 to receive the privilege of Japanese citizenship, which I declined. I can still qualify for the Office of President because I inherited my political allegiance to the U.S. at birth directly from my citizen father. The Japanese soil cannot prevent the Laws of Nature, or my owed political allegiance to my father and his country, from being passed on from my father to me. I did not owe any allegiance to Japan due to their soil jurisdiction because the U.S. does not recognize its citizens to owe allegiances to a state due to their soil jurisdiction, ever since we won our independence 250 years ago! This is why the place of your birth is totally irrelevant for determining who qualifies under Article II. You must have a citizen father to qualify. A similar argument proves that your mother is also irrelevant.

    Another way to be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ of the U.S. is to just be born to a U.S. citizen mother as long as she is old enough and meets other statutory requirements. At least with your mom or dad we can move beyond the Positive Law jurisdiction of legal rights and legal privileges of soil to actually consider the Natural Law jurisdiction and what natural rights are inherited from your parents. By having a parent who is a citizen, then it can strictly be interpreted that we are talking about Natural Rights because natural rights are inherited from one human being to another, not from soil.

    However, a ‘natural born’ citizen status from just your mom fails to meet Article II requirements on two fronts. By looking at both the political context of Article II as well as its purpose and intent, which is to ensure political allegiance to the U.S. by preventing titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President, we can see that one’s mother cannot be a determining factor for Article II purposes. First, just look at the political context. Since the office of President is a political right and political rights are natural rights that are inherited from males under the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, one cannot inherit from one’s mother who is a female, the natural political right to be President. Both males and females inherit their political rights from their fathers, not their mothers. Next, look at the intent to prevent titles of nobility and it is obvious that if any foreign king can impregnate a female U.S. citizen, then you would have a child born who inherits a title of nobility and a political allegiance to a foreign country through his father who cannot even claim an inherited political allegiance to the United States, even though he would be a ‘natural born’ citizen by his mother, because we do not inherit political allegiance through our citizen mothers. Clearly your mom alone makes it impossible to qualify under Article II.

    We have now proven that both the soil jurisdiction and one’s mother are not even part of the consideration of Article II and what is being referred to in Article II as a “natural born Citizen”. Article II is clearly only talking about a “natural born Citizen” that is created by a male, one’s father. Both the soil and the mother fail on two fronts. They fail because they cannot prevent titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President, and they fail because both males and females inherit their political rights and owed allegiances directly from their citizen fathers, not from soil jurisdictions, nor from their mothers who are females.

    3) The office of President is not supposed to be an office that a person is born into the PRIVILEGE of qualifying for. It is supposed to be that a person must be born qualifying as a NATURAL RIGHT, not a legal privilege.

    The term ‘natural born citizen’ from the soil jurisdiction, is a legal privilege only, and it refers to a citizenship that is recognized solely by the soil jurisdiction without regards to the citizenship of the parents. Also, if you have a foreign father, then a ‘natural born citizen’ status from a citizen mother is also a legal privilege defined in statutes with strict conditions placed on age and residency requirements of the mother before one can claim a natural born citizen status as a U.S. citizen. Both conditions are LEGAL PRIVILEGES and not the recognition of a NATURAL RIGHT to be a citizen. To the best of my knowledge, there are no statutory requirements if you are created by a citizen father you are automatically recognized to be a natural born U.S. citizen, no matter the age of your citizen father, as a natural right and not a legal privilege. The Office of President is supposed to be one that you inherit the natural right to qualify for and it is not supposed to be that you are born into qualifying as a legal privilege like a noble title.

    That was the entire problem with the monarchy form of government in England that the founding fathers were trying to avoid. In England, under the English Common Law and monarchy, there was an elite group or privileged class of natural born citizens who had titles of nobility (royalty). They were the only natural born citizens of England that could claim the political right to be the head political leaders of their country. The commoners were also natural born citizens but they were not members of the sovereign body politic that was exclusively for those with titles of nobility. The commoners originally could never serve in the House of Lords (why do you think it is called the House of Lords?) or claim a sovereign political authority to be a king. Our founding fathers wanted to move away from this elitism of the nobility and permit any natural born citizen male who inherits a political allegiance from his citizen father to have the opportunity to hold the highest political office in the land.

    Furthermore, they did not want to entrust Congress to be in a position to grant a privilege of a title of nobility to a citizen or non-citizen that was not born inheriting a political allegiance to the United States, who could then be a king and take over the office of President and create a monarchy. If the office of President was just a privilege and not a natural right, then Congress and the courts could just create a Presidential privilege statute for their friends, and interpret it with the courts, to create a special privileged class that would overturn the Constitution, and the sovereign People of the country could just be disenfranchised from their natural political rights by Congress and the Courts. With Article II “natural born Citizen” meaning you must inherit your political allegiance from your citizen father; this places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts and forces the jurisdiction to be the Natural Law jurisdiction which is opposite and outside of the Positive Law jurisdiction of Congress or the Courts. This is why Article II is totally defined under a Natural Law jurisdiction by natural conditions of having a citizen father to inherit your political rights and owed political allegiance from, so Congress and the Courts will have no lawful jurisdiction to create a privilege or title of nobility that would disenfranchise the people from their own government. This is in fact what has now happened with Obama because the Congress and Courts have conspired together to exceed their authority and grant the privilege of a sovereign political authority to Obama when he never had the natural right to claim an inherited sovereign political authority, nor claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, inherited also from his citizen father.


    We have now discovered and proven what actually is the true meaning and definition and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”. It is clear that it has nothing to do with your place of birth nor your mother, but just means a natural born citizen created by a citizen father. The utter contempt of the Congress, and the Courts, and the Department of Justice, and the FBI, Military, News Media, etc., for the Constitution and the sovereign political rights of the People, is now blatantly clear. There can be no question that there is no political representation of the citizens, or recognition of the natural sovereign political rights of males, or any legal recognition of the freedoms and liberties of We the People. With Obama installed as a usurper, we have now gone back in time to the identical political conditions that existed prior to the Declaration of Independence under the tyranny of the monarchy of King George and his Parliament. We now live under tyranny and involuntary servitude to Congress and their statutes that cannot possibly be valid law with an illegal President signing them.

    The Courts of course, are going to expect the citizenry to accept the validity of the statutes, and the courts’ authority, when in fact the statutes are completely without validity and the courts lack authority and proper jurisdiction to enforce the statutes signed by Obama. The judges will no longer be judges but instead they will become prosecutors, usurping authority that they do not have to prosecute political tyranny with lies, forcing people against their rights of conscience to accept lies and false laws, and they will ignore the natural sovereign political rights of the citizens that are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the U.S. Constitution. A condition of involuntary servitude, which is the essence of SLAVERY, will now be the law of the land. It is ironic that in 2008 a black man and the Supreme Court are responsible for reviving the condition of slavery in America. It is unconscionable that the FBI and Justice Department and Courts just sit on their hands and lack the political will to enforce the laws and Constitution and they will just stand by and watch the courts become corrupted and the citizenry abused and violated. We might as well be living in Nazi Germany. The Republic is lost. All hail King Obama and the 50 State Plantation of America. I hope you enjoy being a slave.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I add this for those who don’t want to take the time to read the above post by Bottom Line >

      “Next, look at the intent to prevent titles of nobility and it is obvious that if any foreign king can impregnate a female U.S. citizen, then you would have a child born who inherits a title of nobility and a political allegiance to a foreign country through his father who cannot even claim an inherited political allegiance to the United States, even though he would be a ‘natural born’ citizen by his mother, because we do not inherit political allegiance through our citizen mothers. Clearly your mom alone makes it impossible to qualify under Article II”.

      I say >
      So if Barrack was born in the U.S.A. and his father was not a citizen of the U.S.A., Barrack would not be eligible to be President……

      Quite interesting ……, maybe now you want to read the above post?

      Also this >

      We have now discovered and proven what actually is the true meaning and definition and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”. It is clear that it has nothing to do with your place of birth nor your mother, but just means a natural born citizen created by a citizen father. The utter contempt of the Congress, and the Courts, and the Department of Justice, and the FBI, Military, News Media, etc., for the Constitution and the sovereign political rights of the People, is now blatantly clear. There can be no question that there is no political representation of the citizens, or recognition of the natural sovereign political rights of males, or any legal recognition of the freedoms and liberties of We the People. With Obama installed as a usurper, we have now gone back in time to the identical political conditions that existed prior to the Declaration of Independence under the tyranny of the monarchy of King George and his Parliament. We now live under tyranny and involuntary servitude to Congress and their statutes that cannot possibly be valid law with an illegal President signing them.
      The Courts of course, are going to expect the citizenry to accept the validity of the statutes, and the courts’ authority, when in fact the statutes are completely without validity and the courts lack authority and proper jurisdiction to enforce the statutes signed by Obama. The judges will no longer be judges but instead they will become prosecutors, usurping authority that they do not have to prosecute political tyranny with lies, forcing people against their rights of conscience to accept lies and false laws, and they will ignore the natural sovereign political rights of the citizens that are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the U.S. Constitution. A condition of involuntary servitude, which is the essence of SLAVERY, will now be the law of the land. It is ironic that in 2008 a black man and the Supreme Court are responsible for reviving the condition of slavery in America. It is unconscionable that the FBI and Justice Department and Courts just sit on their hands and lack the political will to enforce the laws and Constitution and they will just stand by and watch the courts become corrupted and the citizenry abused and violated. We might as well be living in Nazi Germany. The Republic is lost. All hail King Obama and the 50 State Plantation of America. I hope you enjoy being a slave.”

      I say > As I said in the past “Our constitution has become worth less than used toilet paper”.

      Have a great weekend everyone.

  • Happy Thanksgiving to all here. I hope with all sincerity that you all have as much to be thankful for as I do. Enjoy your food coma’s, if indeed that is part of your Turkey day traditions.

    Love all you guys,

  • BLACK FRIDAY LOOMS!!!! Is there anyone on here that really does this?

    • Not a chance! I don’t like shopping to begin with unless it’s Cabela’s or Camping World. 🙂 I’ve decided most of my gift giving this year will be silver!

    • I actually like to shop-but not today-wayyyy to many people-just going into the parking lots is asking to have a wreck. My daughter told me the other day, HEe HEE, that she just didn’t understand what happened to me when I was driving. Seems she thinks I am a very nice, even tempered person until I get into a car.

    • I will be working it…. 😦

    • My wife and my women kinfolk do Black Friday EVERY year. But it’s more like a women’s trip than a shopping trip.

  • I hope everyone survived their turkey overdose. My condolences to any brave fools going shopping. And an article to reflect on being thankful…..

    On Thursday, CNN contributor Paul Begala wrote a piece for the Huffington Post extolling the “quintessentially liberal virtue” of generosity despite conservatives giving far more to charity:

    I am grateful for the liberal generosity of the poor and working people. […]

    Turns out that poor people, like the widow in Christ’s parable, give a larger percentage of their income to charity than the rich. As Judith Warner wrote in the New York Times Magazine in August:

    A number of other studies have shown that lower-income Americans give proportionally more of their incomes to charity than do upper-income Americans. In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.

    This is remarkable. And it is important to remember the liberal generosity of most Americans, especially when we are confronted with such hateful examples of the worst in us: Like the ugly image of Tea-Party activists hurling dollar bills and invective at a man with Parkinson’s Disease who was calling for health-care reform. Or when Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck mocked a woman who was forced to wear her dead sister’s dentures because she couldn’t afford proper dental care. Or the conservative Republican Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina who compared poor people to “stray animals” who should not be fed. “You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce… ”

    Those conservatives are the outliers. Most Americans give and give liberally.

    Actually, it’s liberals that are the outliers, for conservatives give far more money to charity as a percentage of their income than their left-leaning brethren. As Beliefnet.com reported in April 2008:

    In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), [Arthur] Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.”

    This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.”

    When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, “The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”

    Indeed. As the Catalogue for Philanthropy consistently finds, red states regularly top the “generosity index” meaning that they give more as a percentage of income than blue states.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/25/paul-begala-extols-liberal-generosity-thanksgiving-despite-conservati#ixzz16OX8Tw3f

  • Great article-Especially love this line. ” SAR: No, he’s not. You’ve got to understand that. Everyone’s got an Inner Duke, even grandma.”

    The Special Assistant for Reality
    Obama needs to hear a voice from outside the presidential bubble.


    A reporter covering the president’s trip to Indiana this week said Mr. Obama was visiting the heartland in part to get out of the presidential bubble. I’m sure this was true. Presidents always get to the point where they want to escape Washington, and their lives, and their jobs. But they never can. Because when you’re president and you go to Indiana, you take the bubble with you. Your bubble meets Indiana; your bubble witnesses Indianans. But you don’t get out of the bubble in Indiana. Once you’re in the bubble—once you’re in the midst of a huge apparatus, once you have the cars and the aides and the security and the staffers—there is no getting out of it.

    You cannot shake the bubble. Wherever you go, there it is. And the worst part is that the army of staff, security and aides that exists to be a barrier between a president and danger, or a president and inconvenience, winds up being a barrier between a president and reality.

    You lose touch with America and Americans in the bubble, no matter who you are, or what party. This accounts for some of the spectacular blunders presidents make.

    Because of the bubble, successful presidents have to walk into the presidency with an extremely strong sense of the reality of their country. In time, with the wear and tear of things, this sense of How Things Really Are may dissipate, disappear or remain stable, but it won’t get stronger. It never gets stronger. High political office is like great affluence: It detaches you. It separates you from normal life.

    Once you’re president, you’re not going to be able to change the features on your famous face; you’re not going to be able to escape security, grab a fishing rod, and go sit on the side of a river waiting for normal Americans to walk by, settle in, fish with you, and say normal American things, from which you will garner insights into what normal Americans think.

    What a president should ideally have, and what I think we all agree Mr. Obama badly needs, is an assistant whose sole job it is to explain and interpret the American people to him. Presidents already have special assistants for domestic policy, for congressional relations and national security. Why not a special assistant for reality? Someone to translate the views of the people, and explain how they think. An advocate for the average, a representative for the normal, to the extent America does normal.

    If Mr. Obama had a special assistant for reality this week, this is how their dialogue might have gone over the anti-TSA uprising.

    President: This thing is all ginned up, isn’t it? Right-wing websites fanned it. Then the mainstream media jumped in to display their phony populist street cred. Right?

    Special Assistant for Reality: No, Mr. President, it was more spontaneous. Websites can’t fan fires that aren’t there. This is like the town hall uprisings of summer 2009. In the past month, citizens took videos at airports the same way town hall protesters made videos there, and put them on YouTube. The more pictures of pat-downs people saw, the more they opposed them.

    President: What’s the essence of the opposition?

    SAR: Sir, Americans don’t like it when strangers touch their private parts. Especially when the strangers are in government uniforms and say they’re here to help.

    President: Is it that we didn’t roll it out right? We made a mistake in not telling people in advance we were changing the procedure.

    SAR: Um, no, Mr. President. If you’d told them in advance, they would have rebelled sooner.

    President: We should have pointed out not everyone goes through the new machines, and only a minority get patted down.

    SAR: Mr. President, if you’d told people, “Hello, there’s only 1 chance in 3 you’ll be molested at the airport today” most people wouldn’t think, “Oh good, I like those odds.”

    President: But the polls are with me. People support the screenings.

    SAR: At the moment, according to some. But most Americans don’t fly frequently, and the protocols are new. As time passes, support will go steadily down.

    President: I’ve noted with sensitivity that I’m aware all this is a real inconvenience.

    SAR: It’s not an inconvenience, it’s a humiliation. In the new machine, and in the pat-downs, citizens are told to spread their feet and put their hands in the air. It’s an attitude of submission—the same one the cops make the perps assume on “America’s Most Wanted.” Then, while you stand there in public in the attitude of submission, strangers touch intimate areas of your body. It’s a violation of privacy. It leaves people feeling reduced. It’s like society has decided you’re a meat sack and not a soul. Humans have a natural, untaught understanding of the apartness of their bodies, and they don’t like it when their space is violated. They recoil, and protest.

    President: But you can have the pat-downs done in private.

    SAR: Mr. President, you don’t know this, but when you ask for that, a lot of TSA people get pretty passive-aggressive. They get Bureaucratic Dead Face and start barking, “I need a supervisor! Private pat-down!” And everyone looks, and the line slows down, and you start to feel like you’re putting everyone out. You wait and wait, and finally they get another TSA person, and they take you into the little room and it’s embarrassing, and you start to realize you’re going to miss your plane. It’s then that you realize: all this is how they discourage private pat-downs.

    President: I’ve wondered if this general feeling of discomfort might be related to a certain Puritan strain within American thinking—a kind of horror at the body that, melded with, say, old Catholic teaching, not to be pejorative, might make for a pretty combustible cultural cocktail. This heightened consciousness of the body might suggest an element of physical shame we hadn’t taken into account.

    SAR: Mr. President, the rebellion isn’t shame-based, it’s John Wayne-based.

    President: I don’t follow.

    SAR: John Wayne removes his boots and hat and puts his six-shooter on the belt, he gets through the scanner, and now he’s standing there and sees what’s being done to other people. A TSA guy is walking toward him, snapping his rubber gloves. Guy gets up close to Wayne, starts feeling his waist and hips. Wayne says, “Touch the jewels, Pilgrim, and I’ll knock you into tomorrow.”

    President: John Wayne is dead.

    SAR: No, he’s not. You’ve got to understand that. Everyone’s got an Inner Duke, even grandma.

    President: What should I do?

    SAR: Back off. Say you spent a day watching YouTube. You’re not giving in to pressure, you’re conceding to common sense. “Free men and women have a right not to be trifled with. We’ll find a better way.”

    President: If I don’t?

    SAR: Well, every businessman in America already thinks you’ve been grabbing his gonads. You’ll continue that general symbolism.

    President: Janet Napolitano won’t like it. Drudge is always after her. He’ll get all “Big Sis Bows Now.” She might quit.

    SAR: Oh God, yes. A twofer!

    President: I’d look like I got rolled.

    SAR: Then look strong. Fire her. She’s been a disaster from day one. Now she’s the face of the debacle.

    President: Won’t they think I’m weak?

    SAR: No. They’ll think you returned to Earth. They’ll think ground control broke through to Major Tom. They’ll think you took a step outside the bubble.


  • Ray,

    My parents and Jims parents submitted the birth announcements. My point is that a birth announcement doesn’t prove anything except that the child was probably born somewhere on the planet. Why are you so determined to believe the myth of the Hawaiian birth? Its like those who believe in the virgin birth of Christ. If its a religous matter of faith, just say so and be done with it.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Cyndi – did the separate birth announcements state that you and Jim lived in both areas at the same time (in addition to living in Germany)? I highly doubt it. It may not prove anything with 5 9’s of accuracy – but why there is no faith involved in assessing the announcement. What is your theory then on placing the announcement in the paper? Who knew what back then the necessitate build a conspiracy of such proportions? (Welcome to my boat btw – looks like you were the one that took bait! Hahahaha!)

      • “It may not prove anything with 5 9′s of accuracy”

        That’s my point EXACTLY.

        I can’t speak for other parents and grandparents but I know my parents were very excited about becoming grandparents for the first, and as it turns out, the only time. They wanted to share the good news with friends and neighbors.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Cyndi – hate is confusing you again. The newspaper announcement alone does not prove 100% that he was born in Hawaii – it is however a compelling and significant fact that support he was.

          I’m sure your parents were excited – but did they post in the article that you lived anywhere other than Germany at the birth of your child? I doubt it.

          • Hate?? What are you talking about?

            As for the birth announcement, you’re the one who offered it as proof.

            As I recall, my daughter’s birth announcemnet did not include the location of birth, just the proud grandparents, parents and date. The reason I remember it is that I was surprised at how brief it was. The way my parents carried on about her I figured there would be a big to do about it.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @Cyndi – I have never offered the birth announcement as sole proof of anything. I offered TexasChem a joking rebuttal to this ongoing idiocy of Obama not being legally qualified to serve because he was born in Kenya or he didn’t have the right sperm donor or whatever nut-job-excuse-du-jour is out there. You interjected with a poor example that only marginally related to what I was saying. I pointed this out to you, and in sure Cyndi fashion, you just deflect and dig yourself a deeper hole. Supporting evidence such as the birth announcement seem to be casually ignored by birther idiots else they are convinced it was a plant, a different Obama, or who-the-hell-knows.

              So you took the bait, I caught you, I’ve already filleted you, fried you, now I’m feeding you to my dogs…. 😉

              • Before you fry me and feed me to your dogs, you might want to convince the Kenyan government your president was born in Hawaii. Last I heard they claim him as their own. Once they admit he was born to a Hawaiian virgin, THEN you can fry me.

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  Too late Cyndi – my dogs have already, um, “processed” you. You made their tummies a little upset. Just hope the grass doesn’t die; and I’m not reusing you as fertilizer. 😉

                  The Kenyans can claim him as their cultural heir/descendant all they want. Doesn’t change the fact he is your American-born President. Won’t make the next two years go any faster.

                  • I may be stuck with your Kenyan born traitor for another tow years, but I’m looking forward to your eight years of Presidnet Palin. I can’t wait to vote her. It’ll make blood squirt from all Obamatard eyes. Payback is a bitch, and her name is Palin….

                    • Ray Hawkins says:

                      @Cyndi – planning on hell freezing over? Or donkeys flying?

                      She may make President of the Wasilla Fish and Game Club. Her career is already toast Cyndi – I know it takes news a while to reach you – but trust me on this one.

                      Palin as the GOP nominee could result in the biggest landslide in history – and not in her favor.

    • Black Order says:


      All things considered, he was more than likely born in Kenya. For the most part, I think we can agree on this.

      However, It isn’t necessarily about being born in America, but rather being born an American which qualifies you to hold the office of president.

      If you haven’t already done so, read post #20, as it explains the legal theory behind this concept. I know it’s kinda lengthy, but it’s worth the read.

      The founders recognized that natural law exists independent of political law, and tried to form the constitution in concert and recognition of natural law. They understood that all men are created equally, that there are no such thing as lords that were better than the next man or in any position to dictate how we are to live as individuals, and that it is a self evident truth that we are individual free men with natural inalienable rights endowed to us by our creator.

      In other words, natural law is self evident, and isn’t something that has to be taught or prescribed by political laws, it is simply understood, inherent in all of us, and cannot be taken away.

      They understood that a sitting president must have an inherent biased and un-shared/undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. that could only come from someone who has a natural tendency to consider the US their home.

      This could come from any American, but they set the bar a little higher as they understood the dangers of someone with a noble or royal bloodline getting into office and turning the US into a monarchy under foreign rule.

      This is why it is required that your FATHER must be an American citizen, because otherwise, a king could impregnate an American woman to have a son with a birthright to a thrown as well as be eligible to become president.

      Aside from the royal bloodline issue, the reason why it’s so important to make the distinction between men/women or mother/father is that in accordance with tradition and natural law, we take on our father’s name, and it is the natural order for men to adamantly defend and nurture the circumstances of our legacy. It is the natural order for men to be in charge as we are the ones to often take the brunt of a bad situation.

      In other words, by order of nature, it’s potentially the man’s ass first if things should go wrong, so we’re the ones to have the say. And what we have to say is primarily relative to protecting our legacy. Ask any man with a family what his top priority is. It’s almost always his children first, then his wife, then lastly himself.

      It’s always been women and children first. It is just as much a man’s nature to protect as it is a woman’s nature to nurture babies.

      Think about it…all throughout history, even back to early civilization, men were the ones to fend off the predators while the women and children found safety. Men have always been the ones to go to war while the women and children stayed at home in relative safety. When the titanic sank, women and children had priority of the lifeboats. When a divorce happens, who often gets the alimony, primary child custody and support, the house, etc., and who’s shit out of luck eating ramen and living in a crappy studio apartment?

      If you’ve payed attention, On several occasions I’ve preached that “it’s all about the babies” that everything about mankind is trans-generational. When I do my “Youth is King – Learning is Fun – Teaching is a Reward – Knowledge is Power – Truth is Freedom – Order out of chaos” thing, notice that “Youth is King” is the first listed.

      I can go on and on, but you get the point.

      It’s all about natural law, natural order, and legacy…hence why you must be born to an American FATHER to be president…which Obama is NOT.

      His father was NEVER an American. He has NEVER possessed the NATURAL inherent biased and allegiance to the US.

      So it is no surprise why he’s screwing it up more than any other president. He’s well versed in constitutional law. He cannot claim ignorance or incompetence.

      He knows damn good and well what he’s doing…he just doesn’t care. He is deliberately in violation of his oath and responsibility of office.

      Impeach the Kenyan turd.

      • Bottom Line says:


        I really need to change it back to “Bottom Line” after posting elsewhere.


      • +1,000,000,000

        I agree!

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-you-more-anarchist-street-cred

        There isn’t a shred of evidence that he was born in Kenya. None. Zero. There isn’t even enough circumstance to give this an ounce of conspiracy credibility.

        The “theory” you espoused from above is garbage pure and simple and irrelevant. Funny how you keep repeating competing non-congruent “Obama is not-legit to be President” viewpoints.

        • Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred says:

          …and so the battle ensues. Yeah, I’ll take the bait.

          To use the phrased popularized by chief statist turd #43…”Bring it on.”

          Ray – “@Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-you-more-anarchist-street-cred”

          Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred – So you think I Have clever names, huh? Can I take that as a compliment? ROFL!

          Ray – “There isn’t a shred of evidence that he was born in Kenya. None. Zero. There isn’t even enough circumstance to give this an ounce of conspiracy credibility.”

          Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred – This coming from the same guy that claims the Black Panthers, witnessed by many, caught on tape standing outside of the polling stations with knight-sticks spewing racial hatred, scaring away potential voters, weren’t committing the crime known as “voter intimidation” because there wasn’t enough evidence? …even though they were already found guilty in court until the attorney general had the case dismissed.

          Actually, there is PLENTY of evidence, just no definitive proof. Do the research, it’s all over the net. The questions regarding his place of birth are legitimate and perfectly reasonable.

          His family claims he was born in Kenya, His wife has been caught on tape calling it his “home country”, There is legitimate questions surrounding his legal citizenship and whereabouts during his upbringing, etc, etc, etc…

          (need I demonstrate by going “link-happy”?)

          …but instead of just proving he was born in Hawaii (as a gesture of good will to the people he is supposed to be serving) with something other than a birth certificate(not live certificate of birth) from a state that gives them to non-residents, instead of taking on a transparent approach that he so eagerly promised during his ‘Hope-n-Change Kool-Aid sales pitch’, he spends millions on legal fees to have all of his records showing his whole life’s history sealed tighter than a hummingbird’s twat.

          Nooooooo, he’s got nothing to hide.

          THINK, Ray. Quit rationalizing. I know it’s difficult to accept the possibility that a foreign usurper may have actually taken the highest office of your statist paradise,

          …but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck…

          Ray, you kinda remind me of the guy I had a debate with months ago about whether or not the ancient Mayans knew the sun didn’t orbit the Earth.

          He kept arguing that there’s never been any artifacts found that specifically mention their knowledge that the Earth orbits the sun.

          My response was that if they were able to quite accurately map out the path of the sun over a period of thousands of years, relative to the entire galaxy, and predict when it would align with the galactic equator…then they knew it didn’t orbit the Earth.

          But according to him, because they didn’t bother to be so redundant as to state the obvious, they couldn’t possibly have known.

          Ray – “The “theory” you espoused from above is garbage pure and simple and irrelevant. Funny how you keep repeating competing non-congruent “Obama is not-legit to be President” viewpoints.”

          Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred – So you’d be okay if a king took control of your statist paradise and turned it into a monarchy?

          So you have no belief in the legitimacy of, or respect for your constitution?

          And how is it non-congruent for me to espouse that even if he WAS born in Hawaii, he STILL isn’t eligible to hold the office of president as defined by the founders…according to the well thought out and researched legal theory of Mr. Pauly?

          Please, Ray, enlighten me

          • Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred says:

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred – (I prefer the abbreviated version = BLOW)


              @BLOW – this video is old news pal – first, second and third generation Americans throughout my family will still from time to time refer to their country-of-origin or home-country. First and foremost and always, they, as Obama, are Americans. Nothing to see here – move right along…….

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @BLOW – I think you’re confused as to why you think he is not American or not a Natural Born Citizen or not an Extra-Terrestrial Lizard or…….oh F it…..I think you’re just confused.

            We’ve covered this time and time again.

            (1) There is not a shred of evidence that proves your hypothesis. Not one bit.

            (2) There is a reason not to respond to ever crackpot conspiracy theory out there. Because once you respond to the theory you give it legitimacy. Now – can a CT become something other than late night TV fodder or a new way for a loser like Jesse Ventura to make money? Sure. But it requires facts. Giving the CT legitimacy only encourages more of the same. So let’s say, for shits and giggle, that video was produced of Obama being born in a Hawaiian hospital – the actual live birth caught on tape. I doubt even then you’d believe it. We’d hear shit like “the tape was doctored!” or “they used stunt doubles”. Maybe you do believe it – but step 2 then is some other crazy-ass theory absent facts that you’d insist they need to prove (gee, I dunno, like the whole Infragard thing).

            At the end of the day you’re going to believe whatever you want. The theory from above was simply rubbish and full of contradiction (it was not written objectively either). I’ll right a response to it later this evening.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Ray – “@Bottom Line / Black Order / Whatever-clever-name-gives-more-anarchist-street-cred – (I prefer the abbreviated version = BLOW)”

              BL – Actually, it would be “BLBOWCNGMASC”, but you go ahead and see things however you want to see them. Make up something that vaguely and subtly resembles something derogatory to nurture your sensitive ego. Whatever makes you feel better is fine by me, Ray.

              Ray – “@BLOW – this video is old news pal – first, second and third generation Americans throughout my family will still from time to time refer to their country-of-origin or home-country. First and foremost and always, they, as Obama, are Americans. Nothing to see here – move right along…….”

              BL – Your statement demonstrates the above theory of natural inherent allegiance rather well. If they are first and foremost Americans, …then why is AMERICA not referred to as their “home country”?

              My lineage primarily comes out of northern Europe, but you don’t ever hear me refer to Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany, or Belgium as the home country. And if I were president(imagine that, an anarchist president) during a military conflict with one of them, I wouldn’t hesitate to annihilate any one of them if need be…because I have a natural inherent biased, and consider America to be my home land…in spite of the way I abhor what we have become.

              Ray – “@BLOW – I think you’re confused as to why you think he is not American or not a Natural Born Citizen or not an Extra-Terrestrial Lizard or…….oh F it…..I think you’re just confused.”

              BL – I think you’re confused as to my perspective. I think you’re lumping me into the same camp of conspiracy theorists that disregard reason and let their imagination run wild. I think you do this because it makes it easier for you to be dismissive.

              If you re-read my statements above, you will notice that I use language like…”likely”, “evidence, just no definitive proof”, “questions regarding his place of birth”. This should be considered indicative that I am still reserving judgment in spite of all that is contrary to him being born in the US. I tend to be more logical and scientifically oriented than that, Ray.

              In terms of the inherent biased and allegiance issue, we know for a fact that his father has never been a US citizen. There is no debate here. Besides, it is glaringly obvious that he could give a shit less about this country or the principles on which it was founded.

              Ray – “(1) There is not a shred of evidence that proves your hypothesis. Not one bit.”

              BL – Proves? I never said that there was proof. I already acknowledged that Ray. That’s what I meant when I said “no definitive proof”.

              But there is a plethora of suggestive evidence. My hypothesis is not just my own. There are MANY people that have been digging, only to find that the evidence suggests the very real possibility that he may have been born somewhere else. It has only managed to raise more questions. And when taking his reaction into consideration, it only supports the theory.

              Ray – “(2) There is a reason not to respond to ever crackpot conspiracy theory out there. Because once you respond to the theory you give it legitimacy.”

              BL – If there is sufficient evidence to reasonably call something into question, It isn’t a “crackpot conspiracy theory”. It has a premise.

              Ridicule is not a good argument, Ray. What is your argument to the contrary? …denial of the evidence? …it’s crazy because you think so?

              Ray – “Now – can a CT become something other than late night TV fodder or a new way for a loser like Jesse Ventura to make money? Sure. But it requires facts.”

              BL – Exactly! When there are facts that support something that sounds crazy on the surface, it only lends to the legitimacy of the claims. And when, by using deductive and inductive reasoning, it is examined far enough, you can eventually come to a point where you have a definitive answer.

              Ray – “Giving the CT legitimacy only encourages more of the same.”

              BL – A fact-based premise is what gives a hypothesis legitimacy. And in turn, facts to the contrary is what takes away from it’s legitimacy. You have to use inductive and deductive reasoning as it pertains to the scientific method to narrow it down to find some determinable and/or definitive answer. You cannot just illegitimate something with ridicule and denial as it is baseless.

              My reasoning for the doubts surrounding his eligibility are not based on what I want to believe. It’s not because I have a problem with him because he’s half black, or has a funny name, or any of that irrelevant inconsequential bullshit. It is because I examine the evidence and apply critical thinking.

              A general outline of the process looks something like this:

              * Ask a Question –

              Is BHO eligible to be president in accordance with the requirements as defined by the founders in Article II of The US Constitution?

              * Do Background Research –

              Article II of the US Constitution states that: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

              * Construct a Hypothesis –

              Yes, he is eligible to be president in accordance with the requirements as defined by the founders in Article II of The U.S. Constitution?

              * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment –

              He has been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States as multiple records and countless witnesses clearly demonstrate.

              He is at least the Age of thirty-five Years as all reasonable research and facts demonstrate.

              Research demonstrates a conflicting and undeterminable answer as to whether or not he is a natural born Citizen of the United States as defined by the founders in the U.S. Constitution.

              * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion –

              While BHO has been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, and is at least the Age of thirty-five Years as all reasonable research and facts demonstrate, It cannot yet be definitively confirmed that BHO meets the requirement of being a natural born Citizen …Therefore he is NOT eligible to be president of the United States.

              * Communicate Your Results –

              While BHO has been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States, and is at least the Age of thirty-five Years as all reasonable research and facts demonstrate, he is NOT eligible to be president of the United States as it cannot be definitively confirmed that he meets the requirement of being a a natural born Citizen.

              Ray – “So let’s say, for shits and giggle, that video was produced of Obama being born in a Hawaiian hospital – the actual live birth caught on tape. I doubt even then you’d believe it. We’d hear shit like “the tape was doctored!” or “they used stunt doubles”. Maybe you do believe it – but step 2 then is some other crazy-ass theory absent facts that you’d insist they need to prove ”

              BL – I wouldn’t make that determination until I applied logic and reason in a scientific manner.

              What I wouldn’t do is rationalize the situation and blatantly disregard that which I did not want to believe, simply because I didn’t want to believe it.

              Just because you’re dismissive of things and ridicule them without critically examining the evidence, doesn’t mean that I do. Not everyone thinks like you, Ray.

              You appear to be making a projection.

              Ray – “(gee, I dunno, like the whole Infragard thing).”

              BL – Your solipsism denies you the ability to take into account and even consider the experiences of others, Ray.

              You were once a member of Infragard. And because you, nor your colleagues, were involved in any corrupt surveillance based shenanigans, you assert that such corrupt activities do not exist within the organization.

              I, on the other hand, discovered quite the opposite from a completely different avenue through a rather bizarre sequence of events spanning over more than a decade.

              I played cat and mouse with intel idiots for years, eventually discovering Infra-tard involvement(among others).

              I straight up busted them. It is confirmed. Now they leave me alone.

              In spite of what you want to believe, there are thousands of people with experiences strikingly similar to my own. I’ve talked to many of them. Most are confused stupid people, easy targets, but some are quite knowledgeable and keen as to what is actually going on. Mr. Ventura is just one of them.

              For decades, the government has been performing all sorts of covert operations and experiments on US citizens, using a compartmentalized command structure through private contractors, the defense industry, and organizations like Infra-tard.

              It’s well documented. You just have to look for it.

              Do the research and you will see for yourself.

  • Mathuis,

    I hope your puppy is feeling better soon….


    • Thank you. I hope so as well. She’s in a lot of pain and she doesn’t understand why it’s happening to her. If she were a human, I could explain, but she’s scared and confused and I feel awful not being able to do anything about it.

      Nothing to do but listen to the vet and wait it out..

  • I love this one-higher intelligence = stupidity in actions and supposedly it’s because of evolution.

    Smart People Do More Drugs–Because of Evolution

    By Heather Horn | November 01, 2010 12:23pm
    Smart People Do More Drugs–Because of Evolution digitalbob8/Flickr under a CC license

    * Print Print Comments (99)
    * More

    Presented By
    Click here to find out more!

    Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has this theory, which he calls the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. Here’s how it goes: intelligence evolved as a way to deal with “evolutionary novelties”–to help humans respond to things in their environment to which they were, as a species, unaccustomed. Thus, smart people are more likely to deal with new things and try them. Those new things seem to include drugs.
    Why? Because, as Kanazawa explains, while “the use of opium dates back to about 5,000 years ago … Other psychoactive drugs are ‘chemical’ (pharmacological); they require modern chemistry to manufacture.” Psychoactive drugs, therefore, are evolutionarily pretty new to humans. Which means that smart people, according to the theory, will be more likely to take psychoactive drugs. That’s true even if the drugs are bad for them: “[the Hypothesis] does not predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to engage in healthy and beneficial behavior, only that they are more likely to engage in evolutionarily novel behavior.”

    Kanazawa even finds a study with support:

    Consistent with the prediction of the Hypothesis, the analysis of the National Child Development Study shows that more intelligent children in the United Kingdom are more likely to grow up to consume psychoactive drugs than less intelligent children. … “Very bright” individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than “very dull” individuals (with IQs below 75).

    If that pattern holds across societies, then it runs directly counter to a lot of our preconceived notions about both intelligence and drug use:

    People–scientists and civilians alike–often associate intelligence with positive life outcomes. The fact that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume alcohol, tobacco, and psychoactive drugs tampers this universally positive view of intelligence and intelligent individuals. Intelligent people don’t always do the right thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.


  • Go Penn State!

    • FINE!

      • *********** GO GREEN ****************

        PRESSURE’S ON !!!!!!!

        • Well, those Nitany Lions didn’t come through so it looks like we are in a 3-way tie for Big 10 title championship BUT, BCS rankings will be used to determine who is running for the roses…..

          Too bad MSU didn’t play OSU – looks like Bucky will be heading to Pasadena!

          • I was sure pulling for my Lions during their almost comeback this afternoon. I thought Wisconsin had the higher BCS ranking?

            • I just checked. Wisconsin has the #7 and OSU has the #8 so Wisconsin gets the Big Ten Championship bid for the BCS game. I am sure OSU will still get a BCS bid though. MSU will get left out of the BCS games. But 3 Big Ten teams in the top 10 is nothing for us to be ashamed about. I would really like to see Auburn lose the SEC championship game so that TCU can play for the title. Let’s see if they are as good as they think they are.

            • Yep..The interception in the endzone turned fumble had me nervous. Luckily Sparty came up with the onside kick. First time since ’90 they had a share of the Big Ten title.

              Now..just in case you think I’ve been sleeping..you two..my “also rans” overall record this year is 45-27. You “other guys” overall record (not including Illinois on Dec 3) is 44-27! Thank God for Nebraska!

              To the BCS we go. Let’s Go Badgers!

            • We did going into this weekend, but final BCS rankings come out December 5th. There should be no reason for us to drop, so expecting we will be headed to the Rose Bowl.

  • Ray Hawkins says:

    GOP Deploying New Tactics to Hurt Obama

    Literally. It isn’t enough that his party took a beating in the mid-terms – now the GOP/Conservatives are resorting to new lows to literally hurt and injure the President.

    During a pickup basketball game Obama received a well-placed elbow and ended up 12 stitches for the worse from it. It make take some time, but I’m certain we’ll see some GOP operatives behind this one.


  • Ray Hawkins says:

    Recommended reading (sort of): http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America/dp/0385529953/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290872747&sr=8-1

    Griftopia, Matt Taibbi

    Am still reading this one – very interesting book. I didn’t realize Greenspan was quite the Randian.

    More to come…….

  • I kept hearing about the currency in relation to trade-thought the argument had some credibility but not enough to outweigh the negatives. Thinking about our future prosperity being decided by “Playing Chicken” puts thinks into perspective. There has to be a better way to make trade fairer without creating trillions of dollars out of thin air.

    Playing Chicken With China

    By John Lott

    Published November 26, 2010

    | FoxNews.com

    The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of new dollars into the economy since the recession started. Normally, when the government prints up more money, dollars are worth less and that is what we call inflation. But inflation has been surprisingly low.

    One measure of the money supply, M1, which includes currency as well as checking accounts
    , soared by 26 percent between August 2008 and September this year. The amount of currency more than doubled. But prices barely changed.

    As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke goes forward with plans to print up another $880 billion, someone has to ask why the past increases didn’t produce the inflation that everyone thought they would.

    So where did all that new money go? Many blame businesses for hoarding cash. Obama recently said: “corporate profits are doing just fine. [But] they’re holding onto a whole bunch of cash — they’re kind of sitting on it.”

    But that isn’t happening. Companies don’t just keep huge piles of cash lying around. Even if they aren’t spending the money, they are putting it in the bank or they buy bonds. In either case the money is recirculated to others, not hoarded. Companies are indeed wary of starting projects and with all the uncertainty they face. And who can blame them? Yet, they are not the ones making the money disappear.

    It turns out that the culprit is not so close to home. China is trying to keep the U.S. dollar more valuable than the Chinese currency, the Yuan. That sounds counter-intuitive, but a more valuable dollar means that it is relatively cheap for Americans to buy Chinese products – and that helps Chinese manufacturers’ sales.

    The problem for the Chinese government is that when we print more dollars, the opposite happens.

    So if the Chinese want to keep the dollar relatively expensive, what can they do? They buy up the newly printed dollars that are causing the dollar to depreciate.

    While the M1 money supply has soared by $364 billion since August 2008 and the new currency we have printed up grew by over a trillion dollars, China alone has accumulated almost $500 billion in U.S. currency reserves, about $200 billion after netting out changes in China’s U.S. Treasury bond holdings. The exact increase in China’s dollar reserves isn’t precisely known by anyone outside of the Bank of China, but it is probably pretty close to the exact total. Other countries have also increased their reserve holdings of dollars.

    The problem is that holding on to all this cash is really very costly for the Chinese. They can’t turn around and spend the dollars, or all the additional dollars in circulation will again lower the value of the dollar — defeating the very reason that the Chinese accumulated the dollars to begin with.

    Yet, keeping a lot of cash around that doesn’t even earn interest means that the Chinese are giving up a lot of money just to keep the price of their products relatively cheap. They don’t even spend it on buying American goods. The more money that Federal Reserve puts into circulation, the more money that the Chinese have to buy up.

    In a speech last week, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, pointed to this huge increase in reserves by the Chinese. “Foreign exchange
    reserves by selected major emerging market economies . . . have risen sharply since the crisis and now surpass $5 trillion–about six times their level a decade ago,” he said at a central bank conference in Frankfurt Germany.

    “China holds about half of the total reserves of these selected economies
    , slightly more than $2.6 trillion.”

    It may seem like a pretty good deal for Americans. We give the Chinese pieces of paper (or their equivalent) and they give us goods. But no one, not even the Chinese, are going to be willing to do this forever. It would be great for us if they would let this go on, but at some point just piling up dollars and giving us products is going to be too costly for them. And when they dump all those dollars, the real problem starts. All that pent up inflation is going to be released.

    Indeed, the process may be starting. Just this last Wednesday, the Chinese and Russians announced that they would quit using the dollar for trade
    between their two countries.

    The U.S. is playing a high stakes game of chicken. Will the Chinese want to hoard more dollars as the U.S. government prints up nearly a trillion more dollars? Money that will just sit around and not even earn interest? The irony is that despite the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration attacking the Chinese propping up the value of the dollar, we must hope that they continue doing just that. If the Chinese start dumping dollars, not only will the $880 billion come back, but so might all the other money that the Chinese have been absorbing over the years.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/26/playing-chicken-china/#ixzz16V7gCZBE

  • Wow, Ray,

    You sure sound smug and oh, sooo, mcuh smarter than me.

    When you come down from high Obma given unicorn you might want to consider that Mrs. Palin has a rather large nubmer of ‘teabagger’ (as the Obamatard contingent calls them) supporters. If this country manages to survive it’s self inflicted mortal wound known as Obama, to the next election, you can be sure that Palin will recieve the votes of all those PO’d teabaggers. She will also recieve the votes of people like me who just out of spite will vote for her. Our numbers are growing. As more and more people become disgusted with what’s happening and also have nothing left to lose, you will see your worst nightmare realized. So the next time you feel like showing your hatred for women who don’t know their place, just remember that someday, its very likely that you will be ruled by one of them. Just like all those white people now being ruled by a black man. You will be ruled by a woman who doesn’t know her place. Karma baby. 🙂

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Cyndi – I’m not smarter than you. I just use spelling and grammar check from time to time. 😉

      When I think of statements like “She will also recieve the votes of people like me who just out of spite will vote for her” (I’ll leave your errors in place so you don’t think I doctored your words) – I would think almost anyone reading that would say “Wow!”. I suppose it is your right to throw away a vote. A vote – that one thing that people today still die over, that concept so ingrained in our heritage and DNA – you of all people that have served to protect the right of U.S. citizens (and in many cases open up that right to citizens of other Nations) to vote. What a miserable existence you must have if such a monumental thing you once served for you now cast aside like trash. I’d rather you just didn’t vote Cyndi. Do us a favor and remain in your personal exile deep in the South Pacific – folks like you are as dangerous as those you may wish to take away our right to vote.

      And btw jackass – there is no “place” for women. Only a person of supreme ignorance would float such shit. I would happily vote for a woman to be POTUS if I felt she were the best for the job. 😉

      • Looks like I touched nervous there woman hater. You called me a jackass, lol. My feelings are hurt. NOT. I guess you can prove you aren’t a woman hater similar to the way you proved you aren’t a racist. HAHAHA!

        So you vote for a Kenyan community organizer and then turn around and say a vote for a former state governor is trash. Got it.

        I plan to stay in exile where chumps like you pay high taxes so I can get my free housing, free food, and US tax free paycheck of several thousand dollars a month. And yes, to top it off, I will sit on the beach chuckling, looking forward to making Obamaland that much more effed up when I ‘throw’ away my vote for Sarah Palin just out of pure spite. Yes I Can, because I know it wasn’t like that when people voted against Bush and picked a black man, lol. At least I won’t be doing it for free stuff. I’m already getting that from you, and millions of other Obama voters. I really should say thank you but I’m an entitled little bitch, not like those folks who voted for Obama so they could get free health care, free mortgage, free gas, etc.

        I’m also a veteran, so I kind of earned the right to vote as I please. And I’ll do it from afar, and not have to set foot in the police state your president is building. Just think, someday, Sarah Palin may be in charge of it all. She can appoint her own czars, her our Homeland Security people and her own justice department. Do you think she might pull a Joe McCarthy and go after commies? That could be interesting what with all the power grabs your president is making. All that power in the hands of an unqualified and incompetent woman. Hmmmm, and to think, I can help make it happen and never leave my ‘exile’. Do me a favor and keep paying those taxes, eh?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Cyndi – my objective was not to hurt your feelings. If you were sitting directly in front of me I’d still tell you to your face what a jackass I think you are:

          (1) Odd that you live in a controlled environment by choice – and then bitch about the perception of a “police state” you’re thousands of miles away from and do not live in. You’re akin to a looter Cyndi – you know better (eek – giving you credit for something here) – you just consciously elect to take on and become the lowest common denominator.

          (2) I’m not that concerned about the notion of Sarah Palin as President. I do give the American people some credit – we don’t take well to quitters. That would include you Cyndi – one of those thankfully few who have assed out on America – ready and willing to throw away a vote just because they think they are getting back at someone. What a fool.

          (3) Most of your remarks reek of ignorance I can hardly fathom a response to. If there is a better candidate than Obama for 2012 then let them present themselves and they’ll get my vote.

          (4) I’m a huge advocate for cutting Defense spending and cutting it deep. That would hopefully eliminate those far-off bases like where you work. Unfortunately that means, maybe, bringing someone like you back to the States. Sometimes we have to take the salt with the sweet.

          • ROTFLMAO. You do you know your betters are just using you right, Ray? Why do you think they’ve spent the last three years ginning up hatred for Palin? Oh they’ll run her for president alright. They really don’t care who wins because the only thing that matters is that they can contiune to loot the country of its wealth. The best way to do that is to keep the peons fighting each other. If Palin runs, the hope is that the sheeple will vote for more hopey-changey BS than the eeeeviiillll Sarah, lol, giving the current puppet more time to assist the looting. If Sarah wins it might even be better because Leftists will probably become violent giving the PTB a perfect excuse to grab even more power and wealth. So do your part Ray. As for your compassion about my hopefully loosing my job due to budget cuts, I’m preparing for that and fully expect it when the economy collapses a bit more. It coulnd be a couple of months or a couple years, who knows. Don’t worry, I won’t foul your workers paradise of Obamaland with my presence if I can help it. There’s a whole world out there where the people have a clue, and I plan to be a part of it. So call me all the names you can think of, call me a quitter if you like. I really don’t care what Obamatards think of me because I have a very low opinion of them too. So its all good. Happy Hope-N-Change. And keeping serving the powers that be.

            Palin 2012!

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @Cyndi – you make a lot of erroneous and ill-informed assumptions about those who voted for Obama in 2008 and how they’ll lean in 2012 (there are innumerable scores of independent voters and moderates who don’t regret the 2008 vote and are not sold on 4 more years automatically). For every new slip Sarah makes there is another waiting Obama (e.g. a certain judge in Virginia). My distaste for your approach is that if I don’t like what is on the menu – blind folding myself ans wandering into the fridge and randomly grabbing anything to eat is not really a strategy, its just a cop out. You can still be a responsible voter Cyndi w/o liking to current guy in office.

              • I see that you still don’t get it. Keep playing them game then.


                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  Oh I get it Cyndi – I recognize you for the same faults you see in your idols. It is your right to live without integrity – at the end of the day you’re the same as the chump who games the welfare system and brags about it. How sad you take your citizenship for granted.

      • Way to go Bully Hawkins! Typical. But to resort to calling someone a jackass? Real nice!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Anita – you’re more than welcome to join the fray if you feel like sticking your nose in it. I do not take kindly to the position she attempted to attribute to me. That’s all.

          • It really might be wise at this point for you both to just let this Fight end. It isn’t a conversation anymore. You disagree, you will never agree on this issue-just except that and PLEASE stop trying to one up each other on the insults. At this point it really doesn’t matter who started it-just end it. I’m sure there’s something you two agree on. 🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @VH – I’m fine with that. Just FYI – there is probably nothing we agree on. Just the way it is.


    • I are too stoopid to spell ‘much’ or ‘Obama’ butt I can see the letrz SARAH PALIN an make my “X” az my vote. Can u tel I a stuupid teabagging racist?

      Rush Limbaugh likes to remind his tens of millions of listeners that Leftists will tell you who to vote for. Can you guess how?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @Cyndi – so what does the good Rush recommend Cyndi? He is no less a Messiah to the fringe than anyone the left could dream of.

        • Rush to vote for the person most demonized by the Left because that’s the one they fear most.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I’d suggest he is just filling air time given where we are in relation to 2012. The closer it becomes I’d think he’d be stronger on an actual candidate. We’ll see…..

  • A Puritan Descendant says:

    See where your state ranks for business and career climate. My state of Maine is dead last.


    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Puritan – do you think a lot of that has to do with the beating the Lobster industry has taken?

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        No Ray. I think it comes from the idea that business is evil and needs to be punished, along with a strong entitlement mentality.

  • Don’t agree with alot in this article as far as all the control and forced pictures on cigarettes and such. But the information was good and the selective targeting is infuriating. I’ve already noticed that people scream in protest if anyone even thinks about showing a person thinking about an abortion pictures of what they are going to do. But horrible pictures on cigarettes that’s just fine.

    GIROUX: Giving a pass to the pill
    Death labels for cigarettes but none for hormones

    By Jenn Giroux

    The Washington Times

    2:15 a.m., Saturday, November 27, 2010
    MugshotIllustration: The pill

    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg says “some very explicit, almost gruesome pictures may be necessary” on cigarette labels. The FDA is concerned about serious medical consequences of smoking, such as cancer, heart disease and strokes – and for good reason. Cigarettes have proved deadly. The images are part of a new campaign launched by the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services in response to the 443,000 deaths per year caused by cigarette smoking.

    Shouldn’t the same standards and cautions be applied to warning labels to alert women about diseases caused by “the pill” and all other forms of harmful hormonal contraception? After all, these deadly hormones are placed in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos by the International Agency for Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization. According to this same research arm, any form of estrogen-progestin-combination birth control – including the pill, the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Evra patch or any others on the market – can increase risk for breast, cervical and liver cancer.

    Young corpses in coffins, emaciated cancer patients and college-age stroke victims are among the graphic images the FDA should mandate on the pill and all hormonal-birth-control prescriptions if it is to be consistent with its own warning practices, especially given the upcoming mandate on all cigarette packs.

    The medical evidence is daunting. Recent studies indicate that any woman who takes the pill for four years before her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk of breast cancer by 52 percent. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently confirmed that the hormones given to women in menopause have been found to cause deadly breast cancer.

    However, it stopped short of saying that the same hormones are also given to women and young girls in the form of the pill – only the doses are much higher. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data at the National Cancer Institute, the inconvenient truth is that there has been a 400 percent increase in noninvasive in situ breast cancer in premenopausal women since 1975. It’s also a nondiscriminatory disease. Breast cancer is now listed as the No. 1 cause of cancer death among Hispanic women and the No. 2 cause of death among white, black, Asian Pacific and American Indian/Alaska native women. That certainly begins to make me hum a tune from my childhood, “You’ve come a long way baby, to get where you got to today … you’ve got your own cigarette now, baby, you’ve come a long, long way.”

    Shouldn’t women – and parents of young girls – be alerted? Isn’t it time to ask if the pill and other forms of hormonal contraception are a prescription for breast cancer? The parallel paths between cigarettes and the pill are downright scary. The fact is that experts were aware of the health dangers of cigarettes long before they pierced through to the general public. It took six decades for the physical effects and the voluminous numbers of lawsuits to catch up with the multibillion-dollar industry that profited from the pain and suffering of those they targeted in their heavy advertising campaigns. Finally, in the interest of health and safety, cigarette ads were driven off the airways.

    It is uncanny that our nation has just entered its sixth decade of the pill. Who among our health, legal and political leaders will have the courage to sound the alarm bells this time around? It’s popular to oppose cigarette ads, and those who participate in the Great American Smokeout are admired. Will this be the case with the pill? Those brave enough to recognize its link to deadly cancer will risk relentless ridicule from the deniers within the feminist movement and the industries that stand to lose billions of dollars by its exposure.

    It’s time for hormonal-birth-control ads to be questioned and for champions of women’s health to speak up. Legislators should call for public hearings to evaluate the content of these ads. And the FDA needs to wake up and realize that women should be warned about more than cigarettes. We deserve to know the truth before we, too, find ourselves pictured on one of its warning labels.


  • You’ve Got Options, Mr. President
    1:49 PM, Nov 24, 2010 • By JOHN NOONAN

    Both U.S. military and civilian leaders seem a bit nonplussed about the North Korean attack on a South Korean fishing village. With the American Armed Forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House is reluctant to up the ante in the highly militarized Korean peninsula. So the American response has been rather tepid. The administration accelerates the schedule on pre-planned U.S.-South Korean naval exercises, essentially the same response to the sinking of the Republic of Korea’s Cheonan that killed 46 sailors earlier this year.

    Yesterday, we saw how Kim Jong-Il regime interpreted our response to the Cheonan incident: toothless.

    Despite the fact that two South Korean marines lay dead and a village is still smoldering, we’re pressing ahead with the precise course of action that did nothing to deter this hostility in the first place. A better solution to North Korean aggression is needed.

    In the Air Force, our warfighting doctrines dictate deterrence of hostile powers by holding their mechanisms of power at risk. The idea is that dictators like Kim Jong-Il value their authority above all else, so constantly reminding them that we can sever their lines of communications, crater their palaces, and swiftly decimate their security forces is an effective way of encouraging good behavior.

    Kim Jong Il cracked this nut a long time ago. We have our technological superiority, but he has 10,000 artillery tubes within range of Seoul. Targeting his vehicles of power is a gnarly issue. We can hit him, but he can hit our South Korean friends back. It’s the Gordian Knot of our far east policy, one that doesn’t seem like it will be unraveled anytime soon.

    So what can the president do absent diplomacy-by-aircraft-carrier, all out war, or sitting quietly on the sidelines?


    The North Korean regime is shaky and concerned about the upcoming transition of power. President Obama should attack those fears directly. America must foster the idea that we can hurt Kim Jong-Il at will, both internally and externally. Messaging into a regime that goes completely dark at night due to lack of power is difficult, but it’s not impossible. We have psychological warfare tools at our disposal. They should be used aggressively. Jam his communications, interfere with radio broadcasts, seize cargo shipments — do anything and everything available to make life for the Hermit Kingdom’s power brokers miserable.

    Most importantly, remind Kim Jong Il that we have the means to bypass his massive military infrastructure. A flight of stealthy F-22s, likely to breeze past the antiquated North Korean air defense network, would send a very strong message flying over Pyongyang at noon. The jets wouldn’t have to drop anything, just serve as a gentle, non-kinetic reminder that next time we buzz Jong-Il’s house, we might be packing iron. Sometimes a scalpel can send just as strong of a message as a broad sword.

    Bottom line: there’s been a bipartisan failure on the North Korea issue that dates back to the Bush administration. After a long string of half-measures and lukewarm responses to North Korean acts of war, there’s a case to be made that we’ve invited this pain on ourselves. This is an excellent opportunity for President Obama to live up to the muscular rhetoric espoused during his recent Asia trip, and reassure nervous southeast Asian allies that the United States, not a North Korean-Chinese alliance, is still the powerbroker in the region.


  • Afraid of Palin and/or Bachman? How foolish!

    This is what everyone should be afraid of:


    This is the “new” democrat party.

    • Kathy

      Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh. No reason to try and wake them up.

      • Exactly. There’s no getting through to 300 million Rip Van Winkles.

        And yes Kathy, that is definitely something to fear. Or embrace depending on your point of view.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Kathy – well – to be fair that’s not even a mildly funny insult to Democrats. The Workers World Party? Cannot even say I’ve heard of them. Has anyone else? Remember – money wins (usually) – and George Soros doesn’t even have enough money to fund slanted ideology like that. The money sits on the right – plain and simple. Nothing there. Moving right along……

      • Ray, you always look at the messenger and decide if you agree or not. I have no idea who this woman is or her group, but her message is becoming familiar – we are hearing it more and more from those on the left, ie the “new” democrat party.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Kathy – I must have missed the invite for………..

          “A nationwide strike and march on Washington”


          “A call for a campaign to abolish Capitalism and embrace worldwide socialism”

  • Ray Hawkins

    First of all, congratulations on your latest coming attraction.

    On your comment: “Am still reading this one – very interesting book. I didn’t realize Greenspan was quite the Randian.”

    Greenspan was one of Rand’s “insiders” for quite some time. He even contributed articles to her newsletters. Rand is the closest thing the modern “free marketers” had to a popular philosopher that supported “free market” thinking.

    Interestingly, when asked why he stopped supporting Rand’s philosophy his reply had nothing to do with serious philosophical flaws. He said he moved away from Objectivism when he realized that no American would pay “income tax” on a strictly voluntary basis.

    Of course, this one comment revealed his inner contradictions, and I would say dishonesty, that would later rationalize the destruction of the U.S. economy.

    Congratulations again and hope your Turkey Day was filled with food, fun, football and family.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @JAC – thanks – and all the best to yours. Turkey Day was a hit – just bummed that an ‘evil” Uncle has my little one saying “No” to everything. 😉

      My next read might need to be a deeper tome on Greenspan. Let me know if there are any suggestions.

      I’m still consuming Taibbi’s book. I’m a little disappointed that wherein he could have written a great & detailed work it reads more like a really long Rolling Stone article (still his main stomping ground). If anything it raises more and more questions that one will have to look elsewhere for answers.

      • Ray Hawkins

        I recommend you read Greenspan’s book, if you haven’t already. I think it gives a good summary of the man’s career, his thinking and the events to which he was part.

        It was in his book that I found the truth that the “Clinton” surplus was gone by mid 2001 and that the FED neither saw the surplus coming or its ending so abruptly. Meaning of course that those who are supposed to be all wise aren’t any better than you or I.

        Is Taibbi’s book supposed to be a non-fiction account of what happened or is it just a collection of his views/beliefs?

        Greenspan’s book should also be considered a “starting point” for further investigation. In fact I have found many truly good sources/reads from the citation list in the more popular works. They may not have been the media darlings but often the citations are far more full of good information. As in more accurate and less biased in its presentation.

        Wait until that same evil Uncle teaches the child to say “WHY?”. That single word marks the beginning of the end of your “intellectual” existence. 🙂

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          JAC – Taibbi does not write w/o injecting his opinion and frat-boy jokes/insults/etc – its funny in a short piece but tiresome in a longer read. The core is there for a really good work – I just don’t think he has it in him to write something deeper and longer – when he encounters a difficult or heady topic he’ll typically shut it down for brevity and pull one of these “you’re too dumb or lazy to understand this boring shit so let me summarize in a couple of one-liners”. If you’re going to title a chapter on Greenspan “The Worst Person in the Universe” then you’ll need to educate me and take some time to do so. Just bitching about Rand and Objectivism and generally about Greenspan’s decisions doesn’t cut it.

          • Ray

            Kind of sounds like Ann Coulter’s style. I bought ONE book of hers because the beginning was filled with good stuff and I admit to appreciating her cutting sarcasm at times.

            Every time she got to the edge of revealing some good information she would go back to the one liner insult.

            As I said, ONE book was enough. Although I must confess that I would pay money to see her and Jon Stewart do a whole half hour together.

            Based on your comment I second my recommendation for you to read Greenspan’s book. It also makes a good primer on how the world is tied together by finance.

  • What goes on between Governments is often NOT what we think, based on the News coverage.

    I urge everyone to read the following NY TIMES article on revelations from the Wikileak files.

    Very, very interesting stuff about Iran, the Arab World, N. Korea etc.


  • Anita!!

    Hey, maybe Conyers can join his wife! And if the son can’t explain why he’s holding $27,000 worth of concert tickets maybe they can get a cell for three.


    • HA! Haven’t heard that one yet! So the apple doesnt fall far from the tree. Hey! They can get a hood going in Jackson State Pen..Kwame can be their neighbor. Mrs.K is not outta the woods yet either. Seems she had a stripper ‘clocked’ for lap dancing for Kwame.

      Congress & Brush St is not the best neighborhood to be in at midnight. It’s either crack or females..Hmmm. Maybe Conyers III is our own BDN! Remember him?

      Jessee Jackson also had his Escalade stolen from downtown when he was here a few months back.

  • %d bloggers like this: