To: My Endearing Fans (all 4 of you)
As you know, this is the site where I write my ideas, thoughts, communiques, critiques, rantings, ravings, and other crap I deem worthy. This one is destined to be a classic, though I encourage you to read one or two months at a time and come back for a couple of more.
Dave Barry's year in review: 2009
By Dave Barry
It was a year of Hope -- at first in the sense of ``I feel hopeful!'' and later in the sense of ``I hope this year ends soon!''
It was also a year of Change, especially in Washington, where the tired old hacks of yesteryear finally yielded the reins of power to a group of fresh, young, idealistic, new-idea outsiders such as Nancy Pelosi. As a result Washington, rejecting ``business as usual,'' finally stopped trying to solve every problem by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it and instead started trying to solve every problem by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it.
To be sure, it was a year that saw plenty of bad news. But in almost every instance, there was offsetting good news:
BAD NEWS: The economy remained critically weak, with rising unemployment, a severely depressed real-estate market, the near-collapse of the domestic automobile industry and the steep decline of the dollar.
GOOD NEWS: Windows 7 sucked less than Vista.
BAD NEWS: The downward spiral of the newspaper industry continued, resulting in the firings of thousands of experienced reporters and an apparently permanent deterioration in the quality of American journalism.
GOOD NEWS: A lot more people were tweeting.
(Geum's note: Actually, wasn't it the apparently permanent deterioration in the quality of American journalism that resulted in the firings of thousands of experienced reporters?)
BAD NEWS: Ominous problems loomed abroad as -- among other difficulties -- the Afghanistan war went sour, and Iran threatened to plunge the Middle East and beyond into nuclear war.
GOOD NEWS: They finally got Roman Polanski.
In short, it was a year that we will be happy to put behind us. But before we do, let's swallow our anti-nausea medication and take one last look back, starting with. . . .
JANUARY
. . . during which history is made in Washington, D.C., where a crowd estimated by the Congressional Estimating Office at 217 billion people gathers to watch Barack Obama be inaugurated as the first American president ever to come after George W. Bush. There is a minor glitch in the ceremony when Chief Justice John Roberts, attempting to administer the oath of office, becomes confused and instead reads the side-effect warnings for his decongestant pills, causing the new president to swear that he will consult his physician if he experiences a sudden loss of sensation in his feet. President Obama then delivers an upbeat inaugural address, ushering in a new era of cooperation, civility and bipartisanship in a galaxy far, far away. Here on Earth everything stays much the same.
The No. 1 item on the agenda is fixing the economy, so the new administration immediately sets about the daunting task of trying to nominate somebody -- anybody -- to a high-level government post who actually remembered to pay his or her taxes. Among those who forgot this pesky chore is Obama's nominee for Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who sheepishly admits that he failed to pay $35,000 in federal self-employment taxes. He says that the error was a result of his using TurboTax, which he also blames for his involvement in an eight-state spree of bank robberies. He is confirmed after the Obama administration explains that it inherited the U.S. Tax Code from the Bush administration.
Elsewhere in politics, a team of specially trained wildlife agents equipped with nets and tranquilizer darts manages, after a six-hour struggle, to remove Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office. He is transported to an undisclosed swamp, where he is released into the wild and quickly bonds with the native ferret population.
On a more upbeat note, the nation finds a new hero in US Airways Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, who, in an astonishing feat of aviation, manages to land a US Airways flight safely in the Hudson River after it loses power shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia. Incredibly, all 155 people on board survive, although they are immediately taken hostage by Somali pirates.
In entertainment news, an unemployed California mother of six uses in-vitro fertilization to give birth to eight more children, an achievement that immediately catapults her to a celebrity status equivalent to that of a minor Kardashian sister. But even this joyous event is not enough to cheer up a nation worried about the worsening economy, which becomes so badin . . .
FEBRUARY
. . . that Congress passes, without reading it, and without actually finishing writing it, a stimulus package totaling $787 billion. The money is immediately turned over to American taxpayers so they can use it to stimulate the economy.
No! What a crazy idea THAT would be! The money is to be doled out over the next decade or so by members of Congress on projects deemed vital by members of Congress, such as constructing buildings that will be named after members of Congress. This will stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs, according to estimates provided by the Congressional Estimating Office's Magical Estimating 8-Ball.
Despite this heroic effort, the economy continues to stumble. General Motors, which has sold only one car in the past year -- a Buick LaCrosse mistakenly purchased by an 87-year-old man who thought he was buying a power scooter -- announces a new four-part business plan, consisting of (1) dealership closings; (2) factory shutdowns;(3) worker layoffs; and (4) traveling backward through time to 1955.
The stock market hits its lowest level since 1997; this is hailed as a great investment opportunity by all the financial wizards who failed to let us know last year that the market was going to tank. California goes bankrupt and is forced to raise $800 million by pawning Angelina Jolie.
The Obama administration's confirmation woes continue as Tom Daschle is forced to withdraw as nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services following the disclosure that he, too, failed to pay all of his federal taxes. He blames this oversight on the fact that his tax returns were prepared by Treasury Secretary Geithner.
The Academy Awards are a triumph for Slumdog Millionaire, which wins eight Oscars, only to have them stolen by Somali pirates.
In sports, the Pittsburgh Steelers win the Super Bowl, defeating some team in a game that we have all completely forgotten. Michael Phelps is suspended from competitive swimming following publication of a photograph clearly showing that he has gills. Baseball star Alex Rodriguez admits that from 2001 through 2003 he used steroids, which he claims he got from Treasury Secretary Geithner.
And speaking of shocking disclosures, in . . .
MARCH
. . . an angry nation learns that the giant insurance company AIG, which received $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts and posted a $61 billion loss, is paying executive bonuses totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. This news shocks and outrages President Obama and members of Congress, who happen to be the very people who passed the legislation that authorized both the bailouts and the bonuses, but of course they did that during a crisis and thus had no time to find out what the hell they were voting for.
To correct this situation, some congresspersons propose a 90 percent tax on the bonuses, followed by beheadings, followed by the passage of tough new financial legislation that nobody in Congress will read or understand.
In other economic news, the CEO of GM resigns under pressure from the White House, which notes that it inherited the automobile crisis from the Bush administration. GM is now essentially a subsidiary of the federal government, which promises to use its legendary business and marketing savvy to get the crippled auto giant back on its feet, starting with an exciting new lineup of cars such as the Chevrolet Consensus, a ``green'' car featuring a compressed-soybean chassis, the world's first engine powered entirely by dew, and a 14,500-page owner's manual, accompanied by nearly 6,000 pages of amendments.
Businessman Bernard Madoff pleads guilty to bilking investors out of $65 billion in a Ponzi scheme, forcing the Obama administration to withdraw his nomination for secretary of commerce.
The annual observance of Earth Hour is observed with one hour of symbolic energy conservation as hundreds of millions of non-essential lights and appliances are turned off. And that's just in Al Gore's house.
In sports and entertainment news, former NFL great Lawrence Taylor, appearing on Dancing With the Stars, accidentally rips off his partner's arms during the cha-cha competition. The judges award Taylor 453 points out of a possible 30, citing his ``energy'' and ``proximity.''
Abroad, North Korea, in what many observers view as a deliberate act of provocation, calls Domino's and, posing as the United States, orders 23 million pizzas delivered to Japan.
International problems continue to dominate in . . .
APRIL
. . . as leaders of the world's powers, looking for a way out of the worsening world economic crisis, gather in London for the G-20 summit, which ends abruptly in a violent argument over the bill for the welcoming dinner. A short while later, in what many economists see as a troubling development, the International Monetary Fund moves into a refrigerator carton.
In other international bad news, North Korea launches a test missile that experts say is capable of hitting Hawaii, based on the fact that it actually hits Hawaii. The United States swiftly pledges to issue a strongly worded condemnation containing ``even stronger words than last time.''
On the domestic front, the struggling Chrysler Corp. declares bankruptcy, but its CEO confidently predicts that the company will come back ``bigger, better and stronger than ever'' thanks to its 2010 product line, spearheaded by the all-new Dodge Despair.
The big health story in April is the rapid spread of swine flu, a dangerous new virus strain developed by the makers of Purell. Public anxiety over the flu increases when Vice President Joe Biden, demonstrating his gift for emitting statements, declares on the Today show that he would not recommend traveling by commercial airplane or subway. A short while later, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs assures reporters that he is ``not aware of any `Vice President Joe Biden.' ''
In another embarrassment for the White House, New York is temporarily thrown into a panic when Air Force One flies low over Manhattan for a publicity photo shoot. Responding to widespread criticism, Gibbs notes that President Obama inherited Air Force One from the Bush administration.
On a more positive note, an American ship captain is dramatically rescued from Somali pirates by a team of Navy SEAL sharpshooters, who are immediately hired by Dancing With the Stars to assist with the judging of Lawrence Taylor.
Speaking of drama, in . . .
MAY
. . . the finale of American Idol produces a shocking outcome that sends shock waves of shock reverberating around the planet when the winner turns out to be -- incredibly -- that guy singer, whatshisname, despite the fact that the overwhelming favorite was that OTHER guy singer. Congress vows to hold hearings after reports surface that, of the nearly 100 million votes, 73 million were phoned in by ACORN.
But the big political drama takes place in Washington, where David Souter announces that he is retiring from the Supreme Court because he is tired of getting noogies from Chief Justice Roberts. To replace Souter, President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor, setting off the traditional Washington performance of Konfirmation Kabuki, in which the Democrats portray the nominee as basically a cross between Abraham Lincoln and the Virgin Mary, and the Republicans portray her more as Ursula the Sea Witch with a law degree. Sotomayor will eventually be confirmed, but only after undergoing the traditional Senate Judiciary Committee hazing ritual, during which she must talk for four straight days without expressing an opinion.
In crippled U.S. auto giant news, General Motors announces a new business plan under which it will fire everybody but Howie Long, who will continue to make what GM calls ``some of the most popular commercials on the market.'' Meanwhile Chrysler, looking to the future, invests $114 million in an Amway distributorship.
On the international-tension front, a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss possible sanctions against North Korea is forced to adjourn hastily when the council chamber is penetrated by a missile.
In sports, Helio Castroneves wins the Indianapolis 500, although his victory is somewhat tainted by the fact that all 32 of the other cars were hijacked by Somali pirates. Major League Baseball suspends Dodger slugger Manny Ramirez for 50 games after his urine sample explodes.
But all of these stories suddenly seem unimportant in . . .
JUNE
. . . when pop superstar Michael Jackson dies, setting off an orgy of frowny-face TV-newsperson fake somberness the likes of which has not been seen since the Princess Diana Grief-a-Palooza. At one point experts estimate that the major networks are using the word the word ``icon'' a combined total of 850 times per hour. Larry King devotes several weeks to in-depth coverage of this story, during which he conducts what is believed to be the first-ever in-casket interview; this triumph is marred only slightly by the fact that the venerable TV personality apparently believes he is talking to Bette Midler.
On the economic front, California is caught on videotape attempting to shoplift 17,000 taxpayers from Nevada. General Motors files for bankruptcy and announces a new sales strategy under which it will go around at night leaving cars in people's driveways, then sprinting away.
In political news, the Minnesota Supreme Court, clearly exhausted by months of legal wrangling, declares Al Franken the winner of American Idol. Meanwhile the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, goes missing for six days; his spokesperson tells the press that the governor is ``hiking the Appalachian trail,'' which turns out to be a slang term meaning ``engaging in acts of an explicitly non-gubernatorial nature with a woman in Argentina.'' The state legislature ultimately considers impeaching Sanford, but changes its mind upon discovering that the lieutenant governor, who got into office through some slick legal maneuvering when nobody was paying attention, is Eliot Spitzer.
Political news continues to dominate in . . .
JULY
. . . when Sarah Palin unexpectedly announces that she will not complete her term as elected governor of Alaska, explaining, in a prepared statement, that she has a hair appointment. Asked by reporters if she plans to seek the Republican presidential nomination, she replies, ``You leave my personal life out of this.'' Elsewhere in state politics, the FBI arrests pretty much every elected official in New Jersey on suspicion of being New Jersey elected officials.
On Independence Day the nation takes a welcome break from its worries to celebrate in traditional fashion with barbecues, parades and -- as night falls -- spectacular aerial North Korean missile detonations.
In government news, top Washington thinkers, looking for a way to goose the economy along, come up with the ``Cash for Clunkers'' program, under which the federal government provides a financial inducement for people to take functional cars, which are mostly American-made, to car dealers, who deliberately destroy these cars and sell the people new replacement cars, which are mostly foreign-made. This program, which was budgeted for $1 billion, ends up costing $3 billion and is halted after a month. The administration declares that it has been a huge success, which everybody understands to mean that it will never, ever be repeated. With this mission accomplished, the top Washington thinkers are free to train all of their brainpower on the nation's health-care system.
President Obama becomes embroiled in controversy when, commenting on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, he states that the police ``acted stupidly.'' This comment angers many in the law-enforcement community, as the president discovers the next day when his motorcade is cited for more than 3,000 moving violations. To resolve the situation, the president invites both Gates and Crowley to the White House for a ``beer summit,'' which is described later by White House spokesperson Gibbs as ``very amicable'' except for some ``minor tasering.''
Speaking of conflict, in . . .
AUGUST
. . . President Obama, in the first serious test of his presidency, announces that he will send U.S. troops to rescue Democratic members of Congress pinned down in town hall meetings by constituents firing hostile questions concerning the administration's health-care plan, which turns out not to be wildly popular outside of the immediate Capitol Hill area. The president dismisses concerns that his health-care agenda is in trouble, observing that ``there's something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up.'' White House spokesperson Gibbs explains that the ``vast majority'' of the wee-wee was inherited from the Bush administration.
In foreign affairs, former president Bill Clinton goes to North Korea to secure the release of two detained American journalists who purely by coincidence happen to be women. Fidel Castro, after nearly a year out of the public eye, appears on the popular Cuban television show Bailando con Cadáveres (``Dancing With Corpses'').
California, in a move apparently intended to evade creditors, has its name legally changed to ``South Oregon.''
In an alarming technological development, hackers shut down Twitter, leaving a desperate and suddenly vulnerable America with no way to find out what the Kardashian sisters are having for lunch. The Federal Emergency Management Agency urges the nation to ``remain calm'' and ``use Facebook if you can.'' Twitter service is eventually restored, but most of the estimated 875 million thoughts that went untweeted during the outage will never be recovered, making it the nation's worst social-networking disaster ever.
Speaking of disruptions,in . . .
SEPTEMBER
. . . President Obama, speaking on health care before a joint session of Congress, is rudely interrupted by Kanye West, who grabs the microphone and declares that Beyoncé has a better health-care plan. No, wait, sorry: The president is rudely interrupted by Republican congressperson Joe Wilson, who shouts ``You lie!'' Wilson later apologizes for his breach of congressional etiquette, saying, ``I should have just mooned him.''
With public support for the administration's health-care plan continuing to slip, the president orders U.S. troops into Fox News, then goes on a media blitz, appearing, in a three-day span, on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, Meet the Nation, Face the Press, Press Your Face Against the Nation, Letterman, Leno, Judge Judy, Iron Chef and Dog the Bounty Hunter. The president also delivers a back-to-school speech to the nation's students, telling them to work hard and get a good education. Fortunately, thanks to the vigilance of the talk-radio community, many parents realize that this is some kind of secret socialist code message and are able to prevent their children from being exposed to it.
In international news, Iran shocks the world by revealing the existence of a previously secret uranium enrichment facility. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists that the uranium will be used only for ``parties.'' United Nations nuclear inspectors note, however, that ``Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'' can be rearranged to spell ``Had Jammed a Humanoid'' and ``Hounded a Jihad Mamma.''
On the international-finance front, leaders of the world's economic powers gather for the G-20 summit meeting in Pittsburgh, where, in a rare display of unity, they vote unanimously to fire whoever is responsible for selecting their meeting sites.
Speaking of questionable site selection, in . . .
OCTOBER
. . . the International Olympic Committee meets in Copenhagen to choose whether Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo or Madrid will host the 2016 summer games. Chicago is considered a strong candidate, but despite personal appeals for the city from President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Mayor Richard Daley, Oprah Winfrey and the late Al Capone, the committee -- in an unexpected decision -- votes to hold the games in Pyongyang, North Korea. The head of the IOC insists that the decision was ``made freely and without coercion,'' adding, ``for the love of God please abort the launch.''
On a happier note for the White House, President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, narrowly edging out Beyoncé.
In the Middle East, hopes for peace soar when Iran announces that it will allow U.N. inspectors to visit its nuclear-enrichment facility. Hopes plunge soon after when the inspectors report that they were taken to what appears to be a hastily abandoned kebab stand with a hand-painted sign that says ``NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT,'' as well as what the inspectors describe as ``numerous health-code violations.''
In Afghanistan, U.N. investigators raise questions about the recent national election, noting that a third of the votes cast for President Hamid Karzai came from Palm Beach County.
On the celebrity front, a remorseful David Letterman confesses to his stunned audience that he has been hiking the Appalachian Trail with female staff members.
But the big story in October, the story that grips the nation the way a dog grips a rancid squirrel, is the mesmerizing drama of a silver balloon racing through the blue skies above central Colorado, desperately pursued by police, aviation and rescue personnel who have been led to believe that the balloon contains O.J. Simpson.
No, that would have been great, but the authorities in fact have been led to believe that the balloon contains 6-year-old Falcon Heene, the son of exactly the kind of parents you would expect to name a child ``Falcon.'' It quickly becomes clear that the boy is not in the balloon, and the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by attention-seeking reality-show-wannabe idiots. In other words, nothing really happened, so naturally the media go into a weeklong Category 5 frenzy so intensive that Larry King is forced to temporarily interrupt his ongoing postmortem coverage of the Michael Jackson funeral.
Speaking of attention-seeking reality-show-wannabe idiots,in . . .
NOVEMBER
. . . a Washington couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, penetrate heavy security and enter the White House, a feat that Joe Biden has yet to manage. As details of the incident emerge, an embarrassed Secret Service is forced to admit that not only did the couple crash a state dinner, but they also met and shook hands with the president, and they ``may have served briefly in the cabinet.''
In other White House news, the president, in a much-debated post-Thanksgiving decision, announces that he is sending U.S. troops into the electronics departments of 1,400 Best Buy stores to prevent Black Friday shoppers from killing each other over flat-screen TVs. Hours later the president withdraws the troops, calling the situation ``hopeless.'' Press Secretary Gibbs notes that the president inherited Black Friday from the Bush administration.
Attorney General Eric Holder announces that, to maintain the principle of due legal process, alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York City, but as a precaution, ``he will be executed first.''
In sports, the New York Yankees, after an eight-year drought, purchase the World Series. But the month's big sports story involves Tiger Woods, who, plagued by tabloid reports that he has been hiking the Appalachian trail with a nightclub hostess, is injured in a bizarre late-night incident near his Florida home when his SUV is attacked by golf-club-wielding Somali pirates.
In science news:
• The Large Hadron Collider is restarted after a 14-month delay caused by squirrels stealing the particles.
• Elated NASA scientists announce that they have discovered ice on the moon, although their excitement fades when they calculate that getting it back to Earth will cost $185 million per cube.
• Researchers from MIT and Harvard announce that they have sequenced the genome of a horse. They are arrested when police discover that ``sequencing the genome'' is the scientific slang equivalent of ``hiking the Appalachian trail.''
In a troubling economic development, the U.S. dollar, for the first time in history, falls below the lentil.
Speaking of troubling, in . . .
DECEMBER
. . . President Obama, after weeks of pondering what to do about the pesky war situation he inherited, announces a decision -- widely viewed as a compromise -- in which he will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but will name their mission ``Operation Gentle Butterfly.''
On the economic front, the nation's unemployment rate remains stubbornly high as it becomes clear that the $787 billion stimulus package has created a total of only eight jobs, all in the field of highway-construction flagperson. Looking for solutions, the president hosts a White House ``jobs summit'' attended by political, business and labor leaders, as well as 23 Portuguese tourists who got lost while trying to visit the Washington Monument and somehow penetrated White House security. Meanwhile, in what is believed to be the largest Craigslist transaction ever, California sells San Diego to Mexico.
On the environmental front, Copenhagen hosts a massive international conference aimed at halting manmade global warming, attended by thousands of delegates who flew to Denmark on magical carbon-free unicorns.
In the Middle East, U.N. nuclear inspectors become suspicious when Iran attempts to ship to Israel, via UPS, a large crate labeled ``HARMLESS ITEMS -- DELIVER BEFORE TIMER REACHES 00:00.''
There are other troubling year-end developments:
• In a setback for U.S. interests in Central America, voters in Honduras elect, as their new president, Rod Blagojevich.
• The International Space Station is taken over by Somali pirates.
• In sports, roughly 40 percent of the U.S. bimbo population announces that it has at one time or another hiked the Appalachian Trail with Tiger Woods.
Also, as the year draws to a close, the Centers for Disease Control releases an urgent bulletin warning of a new, fast-spreading epidemic consisting of severe, and in some cases life-threatening, arm infections caused by ``people constantly sneezing into their elbow pits.''
But despite all the gloomy news, the holiday season brings at least temporary relief to a troubled nation -- especially the children, millions of whom go to sleep on Christmas Eve with visions of Santa in his reindeer-powered sleigh flying high overhead, spreading joy around the world.
With a North Korean missile flying right behind.
Try not to think about it. And happy New Year.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The Cloward-Piven Strategy
From discoverthenetworks.org
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.
The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."
Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.
This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.
Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.
Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.
The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.
Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."
Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.
In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.
All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.
The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.
The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."
Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.
This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.
Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.
Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.
The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" -- the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.
Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."
Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.
In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.
All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.
The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
From August 31, 2009 American Thinker
Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly
30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in
the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research.
____________________________________________________
An article by Geoffrey P. Hunt
Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.
But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it:
He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in
the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research.
____________________________________________________
An article by Geoffrey P. Hunt
Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.
But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it:
He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
My Latest Letter to Brad
What about the Climate(gate) leaked documents? Shouldn't those be investigated? As you know there has been a decrease in temperature over the last decade. Please quit the politicalization of issues like this and do what's best and should be done FIRST for us citizens. Looking into the possible scam presented to us via the global warming backers would be huge. Isn't it funny, strange, (and a public disservice) that ABC, NBC, and CBS have not run any stories about the emails? I guess the debate is NOT over, and Al had a hit with his fictional account of the future! Climategate, Brad, check out the facts. Let the police check out any possible breach of law, but Congress should check out the facts of the emails, and perhaps thank the whistleblower for saving us taxpayers trillions of wasted dollars!
Sincerely,
Jim Locke
STAY TUNED FOR BRAD'S RESPONSE! IT'S SURE TO BE A DOOZY!
Sincerely,
Jim Locke
STAY TUNED FOR BRAD'S RESPONSE! IT'S SURE TO BE A DOOZY!
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Great Pretenders
The President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell, said a couple of days ago, “The networks’ silence on ClimateGate is deafening. Scandal, cover-ups and conspiracy are the bread and butter of the media. Yet they have selectively and deliberately decided not to report this bombshell – or any of the incriminating details surrounding the scandal – because it goes against their left-wing agenda.
“To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism. The so-called ‘news’ media are protecting scientists because it exposes their underbelly. That’s not journalism. That’s a cover-up. And we will continue to call them out for ignoring these allegations and the mounting, inconvenient evidence against them.”
Now come on, folks, this is merely more proof of the left wing, ideological, Democrat-leaning, liberal agenda of the mainstream media. This is a non-story to them?!? Also, the White House, United Nations, and Congress are refusing to investigate the misrepresented, misstated, and eliminated data that does not support the Global Warming theory and in fact describes the decrease in temperature over the past decade!
There are two principles in play here: one of them is being mistaken -- "mis" followed by "taken." Apparently the Liberals have been taken, duped, and led to err on the part of silly science purporting a theory that the world's temperature is rising and they want to spent a boatload of our money to 'fix' it.
The other principle is being wrong. The wrong here is deliberately choosing a side and steering all stories to that side. The mainstream media are mistaken about the science and are wrong for not presenting both sides. If journalists would stick to journalism we would have honesty in the press. Up until Fox news came to be there was an unwritten rule that the press had a liberal slant. Spiro T. Agnew had a hate-hate relationship with the press and shared on it whenever he got a chance. Ahhh, those were the days!!
But Fox, now that is a name that reaps contempt from every liberal from every persuasion of the left. Isn't it funny, though, how Fox is only viewed by 2 to 4 million people? ABC and NBC each have about 7 million viewers of their news programs, and CBS has about 5 million, according to the "TV by the numbers" website. And the Democrats want to implement the "Fairness Doctrine"???!?!? Is that hilarious or what?!?
The Great Pretenders, ABC, CBS, and NBC.... fair and balanced.
“To pretend this story simply doesn’t exist is damning to journalism. The so-called ‘news’ media are protecting scientists because it exposes their underbelly. That’s not journalism. That’s a cover-up. And we will continue to call them out for ignoring these allegations and the mounting, inconvenient evidence against them.”
Now come on, folks, this is merely more proof of the left wing, ideological, Democrat-leaning, liberal agenda of the mainstream media. This is a non-story to them?!? Also, the White House, United Nations, and Congress are refusing to investigate the misrepresented, misstated, and eliminated data that does not support the Global Warming theory and in fact describes the decrease in temperature over the past decade!
There are two principles in play here: one of them is being mistaken -- "mis" followed by "taken." Apparently the Liberals have been taken, duped, and led to err on the part of silly science purporting a theory that the world's temperature is rising and they want to spent a boatload of our money to 'fix' it.
The other principle is being wrong. The wrong here is deliberately choosing a side and steering all stories to that side. The mainstream media are mistaken about the science and are wrong for not presenting both sides. If journalists would stick to journalism we would have honesty in the press. Up until Fox news came to be there was an unwritten rule that the press had a liberal slant. Spiro T. Agnew had a hate-hate relationship with the press and shared on it whenever he got a chance. Ahhh, those were the days!!
But Fox, now that is a name that reaps contempt from every liberal from every persuasion of the left. Isn't it funny, though, how Fox is only viewed by 2 to 4 million people? ABC and NBC each have about 7 million viewers of their news programs, and CBS has about 5 million, according to the "TV by the numbers" website. And the Democrats want to implement the "Fairness Doctrine"???!?!? Is that hilarious or what?!?
The Great Pretenders, ABC, CBS, and NBC.... fair and balanced.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Mad, I Tell You, Mad
There is now no question about it, the world has gone mad. Yes, mad I tell you, mad.
Now, I don't know if part of that madness is what follows or not but it seems when an issue arises anymore sides are immediately chosen. That starts the personal attacks and changes of arguments on the part of the Democrats; the defensive posturing and kowtowing from the Republicans. Oh, you can forget about the goal of whatever is going on because to get lost in the means is much more fun -- and expensive. The means requires investigations, committees, panels, discussion, debate, and finally legislation that has no resemblance to a cure for the ills. What the legislation does do is regulate the means to the point where the road seems to narrow. Actually, the road is the same size it's always been, the politicians just close any other route available that might reach the goal sooner, cheaper, and better.
One of the most blatant examples of the picking of sides is regarding the War on Terror. We are at war, folks. There are people that want to kill us because we ARE us. They want to, they have, and they will slice through our necks and joyously celebrate our deaths. After all their interpretation of God is the only one that matters.... just like Jesus is the only one that matters to Christians... but I digress...
The Republicans have chosen the side of defense (surprise-surprise) and the Democrats have chosen the side of tolerance (surprise-surprise ). Dems think that if we just talk with the muslim/jihadists we will understand where they're coming from and vice versa. They think the enemy will understand and accept us if we show them how much we're willing to give aid to them. They think the 20-something Arabs will take a liking to us if they could only look into our hearts.
In the 1950s and 60s the United States' civil rights issue exploded. Should we have listened to the people that attacked blacks when they tried to live their lives in society? Would they have changed their opinions if we "understood where they're coming from?"
And now there is the 'global warming' supporters who are embarrassed by the revelation of suppressed evidence that gw isn't happening. They are not calling for an investigation of the United Nations' committee chairman but he is calling for an investigation into the hacking of their computers! Guess which side the mainstream media will take a liking to?! Soon we'll know the possible sentences and fines for hacking but we will not know how scientific facts were swept under the rug and ignored to prop up junk science.
I think we ought to listen to the hacker.
Now, I don't know if part of that madness is what follows or not but it seems when an issue arises anymore sides are immediately chosen. That starts the personal attacks and changes of arguments on the part of the Democrats; the defensive posturing and kowtowing from the Republicans. Oh, you can forget about the goal of whatever is going on because to get lost in the means is much more fun -- and expensive. The means requires investigations, committees, panels, discussion, debate, and finally legislation that has no resemblance to a cure for the ills. What the legislation does do is regulate the means to the point where the road seems to narrow. Actually, the road is the same size it's always been, the politicians just close any other route available that might reach the goal sooner, cheaper, and better.
One of the most blatant examples of the picking of sides is regarding the War on Terror. We are at war, folks. There are people that want to kill us because we ARE us. They want to, they have, and they will slice through our necks and joyously celebrate our deaths. After all their interpretation of God is the only one that matters.... just like Jesus is the only one that matters to Christians... but I digress...
The Republicans have chosen the side of defense (surprise-surprise
In the 1950s and 60s the United States' civil rights issue exploded. Should we have listened to the people that attacked blacks when they tried to live their lives in society? Would they have changed their opinions if we "understood where they're coming from?"
And now there is the 'global warming' supporters who are embarrassed by the revelation of suppressed evidence that gw isn't happening. They are not calling for an investigation of the United Nations' committee chairman but he is calling for an investigation into the hacking of their computers! Guess which side the mainstream media will take a liking to?! Soon we'll know the possible sentences and fines for hacking but we will not know how scientific facts were swept under the rug and ignored to prop up junk science.
I think we ought to listen to the hacker.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Jerry.... Jerry..... HEY, JERRY!! LISTEN UP!!
Jerry.... Jerry... JERRY!!... Put down the bong, step away from public service. What do you mean we have an expectation of privacy of our trash when you won't protect our privacy by keeping illegals out of the state?!? Oh, I'm sorry... I'm talking a little over your pay grade. I know you're the Attorney General and it's up to you to enforce the laws but there are just some laws that don't need enforced -- and YOU get to be the guy to decide which!! Certainly I want you to keep my trash sacred.
Well, we just glossed right over the fact that they're under investigation so what are they doing throwing any-fucking-thing away anyway?!?! He mentions that 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the election for Obama. And what, pray tell, does that have to do with ACORN destroying documents??
You know, Jer, you might want to consider giving up the hallucinogens, too...
Well, we just glossed right over the fact that they're under investigation so what are they doing throwing any-fucking-thing away anyway?!?! He mentions that 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the election for Obama. And what, pray tell, does that have to do with ACORN destroying documents??
You know, Jer, you might want to consider giving up the hallucinogens, too...
Monday, November 23, 2009
This Is Your President or This Could Be Your President
There was a story in the Spiegel Online International about President Obama's trip to Asia and the rewards he reaped for us. This is an independent German media news outlet, beholding to no one political faction or stated ideology.
The lead on the US Foreign Policy page reads, Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage.Other stories are: on the Opinion page, 'Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change; in The World from Berlin section: 'Obama's Soft Approach on China Won't Succeed'; Reluctant Partners: Global Crisis Makes US More Dependent on China than Ever.
Let's just suppose that those articles were published by say, the New York Times, or on MSNBC, or even in the Wall Street Journal. Would American politicians have the temerity to take a stand, to be..... a .... rogue? Gosh, who is in that role now? (Nice segue, huh?)
Sarah Palin calls herself a rogue. Rogue is defined as a vagrant, tramp, a worthless person, (now we're getting to the good stuff) a mischievous person, or a scamp. It's also a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave and I think that's just what folks have in mind when they call her a rogue. She doesn't answer questions put to her like a politician -- she actually gives an answer. She doesn't hide and to other politicians that's frightening.
The left is afraid of her and it's hilarious! Even though Obama's rhetoric was about change, he did not even posture for a second once he took office. It has been nothing but literally a sham to see the corruption in his administration. Stupid, preposterous ideas such as: spending our way to prosperity and printing money to do that; an idea like paying for health care in part by eliminating fraud in Medicare. [Hey, Barry! What's to stop you from battling that fraud today?!?]
Can you imagine the spin and positions the left would have to come up with if Sarah Palin and Ron Paul got together? Talk about rogues.....
The lead on the US Foreign Policy page reads, Obama's Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage.Other stories are: on the Opinion page, 'Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change; in The World from Berlin section: 'Obama's Soft Approach on China Won't Succeed'; Reluctant Partners: Global Crisis Makes US More Dependent on China than Ever.
Let's just suppose that those articles were published by say, the New York Times, or on MSNBC, or even in the Wall Street Journal. Would American politicians have the temerity to take a stand, to be..... a .... rogue? Gosh, who is in that role now? (Nice segue, huh?)
Sarah Palin calls herself a rogue. Rogue is defined as a vagrant, tramp, a worthless person, (now we're getting to the good stuff) a mischievous person, or a scamp. It's also a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave and I think that's just what folks have in mind when they call her a rogue. She doesn't answer questions put to her like a politician -- she actually gives an answer. She doesn't hide and to other politicians that's frightening.
The left is afraid of her and it's hilarious! Even though Obama's rhetoric was about change, he did not even posture for a second once he took office. It has been nothing but literally a sham to see the corruption in his administration. Stupid, preposterous ideas such as: spending our way to prosperity and printing money to do that; an idea like paying for health care in part by eliminating fraud in Medicare. [Hey, Barry! What's to stop you from battling that fraud today?!?]
Can you imagine the spin and positions the left would have to come up with if Sarah Palin and Ron Paul got together? Talk about rogues.....
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Hey! Those Senators Are Smarter Than We Are!!
Here's a portion of the health care bill now before the Senate:
SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.
Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and 2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.
‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.
‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.
‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS LEGALESE, SENATESE, CONGRESSESE, POLITICIANESE FOR....
LOUISIANA.
That's it... all of that language to say Louisiana.... and it's going to cost us $100,000,000.00. Oh, yeah, this is just so a Senator from Louisiana will vote for this stinking piece of crap legislation.
Also, there is the rumbling to make the Senate clerks read the entire bill aloud, perhaps as many as three times before it's finally brought to a vote. Hell, no Senator is going to sit and READ the entire bill let alone listen to it. In fact NONE OF THEM EVEN WROTE THE THING. It was written by the Apollo Alliance. They are an environmental group founded to promote a 'green society.' The list of founders reads like a playbook for the left, too:
The founding board members of the Apollo Alliance are:
* Senator Maria Cantwell, US Congress (D-WA).
* Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers.
* Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., US Congress (D-IL).
* Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
National Steering Committee
* Ruben Aronin, Global Green USA
* Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations
* Robert L. Borosage, Institute for America's Future
* Dan Carol, CTSG, Young Apollo
* Maggie Fox, Sierra Club
* Bracken Hendricks, Apollo Alliance
* Van Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
* Mindy Lubber, Ceres
* Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
* Joel Rogers, Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS)
* Marco Trbovich, United Steelworkers of America (USWA)
There's not a Republican nor a Libertarian in this group lending no credence to a bi-partisan effort. Now there's a bit more Hope and Change for ya!
SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.
Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and 2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.
‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.
‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.
‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS LEGALESE, SENATESE, CONGRESSESE, POLITICIANESE FOR....
LOUISIANA.
That's it... all of that language to say Louisiana.... and it's going to cost us $100,000,000.00. Oh, yeah, this is just so a Senator from Louisiana will vote for this stinking piece of crap legislation.
Also, there is the rumbling to make the Senate clerks read the entire bill aloud, perhaps as many as three times before it's finally brought to a vote. Hell, no Senator is going to sit and READ the entire bill let alone listen to it. In fact NONE OF THEM EVEN WROTE THE THING. It was written by the Apollo Alliance. They are an environmental group founded to promote a 'green society.' The list of founders reads like a playbook for the left, too:
The founding board members of the Apollo Alliance are:
* Senator Maria Cantwell, US Congress (D-WA).
* Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers.
* Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., US Congress (D-IL).
* Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
National Steering Committee
* Ruben Aronin, Global Green USA
* Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations
* Robert L. Borosage, Institute for America's Future
* Dan Carol, CTSG, Young Apollo
* Maggie Fox, Sierra Club
* Bracken Hendricks, Apollo Alliance
* Van Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
* Mindy Lubber, Ceres
* Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
* Joel Rogers, Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS)
* Marco Trbovich, United Steelworkers of America (USWA)
There's not a Republican nor a Libertarian in this group lending no credence to a bi-partisan effort. Now there's a bit more Hope and Change for ya!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
News Article Published Today
Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
AP -- Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."
According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.
Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."
The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."
An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.
A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.
And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.
"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.
"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.
"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.
"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.
"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."
Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.
Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."
He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"
Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"
"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."
But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.
There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:
— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.
— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.
— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."
On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."
"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.
Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.
This time, he said, "They listened."
Fox News' Jana Winter contributed to this report.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
AP -- Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."
According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.
Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."
The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."
An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.
A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.
And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.
"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.
"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.
"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.
"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.
"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."
Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.
Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."
He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"
Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"
"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."
But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.
There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:
— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.
— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.
— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."
On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."
"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.
Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.
This time, he said, "They listened."
Fox News' Jana Winter contributed to this report.
Another Article Not on MSNBC
Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
AP -- Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."
According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.
Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."
The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."
An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.
A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.
And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.
"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.
"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.
"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.
"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.
"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."
Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.
Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."
He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"
Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"
"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."
But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.
There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:
— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.
— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.
— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."
On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."
"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.
Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.
This time, he said, "They listened."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
AP -- Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan is suspected of a deadly rampage at the Fort Hood base in Texas.
The Army psychiatrist suspected of killing 13 people at Fort Hood reportedly warned senior Army physicians in 2007 that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars to avoid "adverse events."
According to The Washington Post, Major Nidal Malik Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic during his senior year as a psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Medical Center.
Instead, Hasan lectured his supervisors and two dozen mental health staff members on Islam, homicide bombings and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting against other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A source who attended the presentation told the paper, "It was really strange. The senior doctors looked really upset."
The Powerpoint, entitled, "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military," consisted of 50 slides, according to a copy obtained by the Post.
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation.
Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]
The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"
On the final slide, labeled "Recommendation," Hasan wrote: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events."
An Army spokesman told the Post Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined comment.
A classmate of Hasan, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com that the warning signs were all there — the justification of homicide bombings; spewing anti-American hatred; efforts to reach out to Al Qaeda — but that the military treated Hasan with kid gloves, even after giving him a poor performance review.
And though he was on the radar screen of at least one U.S. intelligence agency, no action was taken that might have prevented the Army psychiatrist from allegedly gunning down 13 people and wounding 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre last week.
"There were definitely clear indications that Hasan's loyalties were not with America," Lt. Col. Val Finnell, Hasan's classmate at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He and Hasan were students in the school's public health master's degree program from 2007-2008.
"The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.
"I want to be clear that this wasn't about anyone questioning his religious views. It is different when you are a civilian than when you are a military officer," said Finnell, who is a physician at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.
"When you are in the military and you start making comments that are seditious, when you say you believe something other than your oath of office — someone needed to say why is this guy saying this stuff.
"He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views," Finnell said. "When you're a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
"They should've confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct."
Finnell said the warning signs were clear to many, not just classmates. Faculty members, including many high-ranking military officers, witnessed firsthand his anti-Americanism, he said.
Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, "I'm a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution."
He recalled one time when his classmates were giving presentations in an environmental health class on topics like soil and water contamination and the effects of mold. When it was Hasan's turn, he said, he got up in front of the class and began to speak about his chosen topic, "Is the War on Terror a war on Islam?"
Finnell says he raised his hand. "I asked the professor, "What does this topic have to do with environmental health?"
"When he was challenged on his views, Hasan became visibly upset. He became sweaty, he was emotional."
But despite questioning from the other students, Finnell said, the professor allowed Hasan to continue. He said Hasan's anti-American vitriol continued for two years as he worked toward his degree in public health.
There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:
— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.
— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.
— In the months before Thursday's shooting Hasan tried reaching out to people associated with Al Qaeda — and did so under the watchful eye of at least one U.S. intelligence agency. An intelligence official told FOXNews.com that "Hasan was on our radar for months."
On Sunday Sen. Joe Lieberman announced his intention to lead a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood murders, saying there were "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamic extremist."
"The U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone," said Lieberman, who is chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In interviews Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey stressed that it was too early in the investigation to know whether these warnings signs could have spared the lives of the 13 killed, dismissing earlier reports about such signs as "speculation" based on anecdotes. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.
Finnell said that once Hasan was identified as the suspect in Thursday's massacre, he reached out to the Army to tell them about his experiences with Hasan.
This time, he said, "They listened."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The New York Times article from November 5, 2009
Check out this story from the New York Times today. Isn't it cute the way he revealed a personal anecdote from America's First Family who's just like you and me? Following the story are a couple of comments I made on the page awaiting "approval." I sure hope they pass muster with the Times.
______________________________________________
The Caucus - The Politics and Government blog of The New York Times
November 4, 2009, 4:31 pm
Obama Uses Malia’s Test Scores as a Teaching Example
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
MADISON, Wisconsin – President Obama marked the first anniversary of his election on Wednesday by calling on states to toughen their education standards – and wound up calling on parents to toughen theirs, too, as he confessed that his 11-year-old daughter, Malia, recently got a 73 on her science test.
...... toward the end of his speech, Mr. Obama diverted from his prepared text to talk about his daughter’s experience in school – a rarity for a president who has tried his best to keep his children’s lives a private matter.
“Malia and Sasha are just wonderful kids ,and Michelle is a wonderful mother,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But even in our own household, with all the privileges and opportunities we have there are times when the kids slack off. There are times when they would rather be watching TV or playing a computer game than hitting the books.’’
Then, to a chorus of oooohs from the crowd, he said that Malia, a sixth-grader at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, had come home with a 73 on her science test not long ago. He recounted how, a few years ago, she had come home with a grade in the 80s, believing that she had ‘’done pretty well.’’ He and his wife corrected her, telling her that their goal was “90 percent and up.’’
“So here’s the interesting thing: she started internalizing that,’’ the president said, adding that when she came home with a 73 on the science test ‘’she was depressed.’’ He asked her what happened, and she said the study guide didn’t match up with the test. So she vowed to study harder.
“So she came home yesterday, she got a 95,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But here’ the point: She said, ‘You know , I just like having knowledge.’’
The moral of the story, in the president’s view: “Don’t just expect teachers to set a high bar. You’ve got to set a high bar.”
_________________________________________________
Now on with the comments:
Wait a second...... so let me get this straight: a while back this girl got good grades on her own without any "special" attention, just being raised by loving parents. Then, on her own, she floundered a bit. Her loving parents encouraged her to work harder and earn a better outcome. I notice they did NOT have someone else come in for the assist; they did NOT give her money, another book, a desk, food stamps, general relief, WIC, or any other entitlements -- they just taught her to work a little harder and put her nose to the grindstone. And then the outcome was a better grade and sense of accomplishment, true pride, and willingness to keep doing better?? Is that what this story says?!?!?!
In that case what the kid SHOULD do, because it’s her moral obligation, is give 28% of her score to spread amongst her neighbor’s kid who’s out skateboarding at the mall, the fat kid lying on the couch eating Ho-Ho's while dad's with his buddies drinking beer on the porch, the girls at the mall watching the boy skateboard, and the poor minority kids playing basketball at the park. Then she needs to give 8.125% to the government so she’ll have a retirement income to supplement her own savings, and the school needs to chip in the same amount. She also needs to devote about 7.5% to the District of Columbia even though she doesn’t go to school there but, again, it’s that moral obligation thing. That should bring her in line with the mainstream — but we encourage her to keep doing better so she can “give back” more to the society that handed her all that good fortune.
But that ain't gonna happen. She's gonna keep it all because she earned it; she worked hard for it and it instilled self esteem and a desire to continue to do better.
Daddy is actually raising a capitalist.
______________________________________________
The Caucus - The Politics and Government blog of The New York Times
November 4, 2009, 4:31 pm
Obama Uses Malia’s Test Scores as a Teaching Example
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
MADISON, Wisconsin – President Obama marked the first anniversary of his election on Wednesday by calling on states to toughen their education standards – and wound up calling on parents to toughen theirs, too, as he confessed that his 11-year-old daughter, Malia, recently got a 73 on her science test.
...... toward the end of his speech, Mr. Obama diverted from his prepared text to talk about his daughter’s experience in school – a rarity for a president who has tried his best to keep his children’s lives a private matter.
“Malia and Sasha are just wonderful kids ,and Michelle is a wonderful mother,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But even in our own household, with all the privileges and opportunities we have there are times when the kids slack off. There are times when they would rather be watching TV or playing a computer game than hitting the books.’’
Then, to a chorus of oooohs from the crowd, he said that Malia, a sixth-grader at Sidwell Friends School in Washington, had come home with a 73 on her science test not long ago. He recounted how, a few years ago, she had come home with a grade in the 80s, believing that she had ‘’done pretty well.’’ He and his wife corrected her, telling her that their goal was “90 percent and up.’’
“So here’s the interesting thing: she started internalizing that,’’ the president said, adding that when she came home with a 73 on the science test ‘’she was depressed.’’ He asked her what happened, and she said the study guide didn’t match up with the test. So she vowed to study harder.
“So she came home yesterday, she got a 95,’’ Mr. Obama said. “But here’ the point: She said, ‘You know , I just like having knowledge.’’
The moral of the story, in the president’s view: “Don’t just expect teachers to set a high bar. You’ve got to set a high bar.”
_________________________________________________
Now on with the comments:
Wait a second...... so let me get this straight: a while back this girl got good grades on her own without any "special" attention, just being raised by loving parents. Then, on her own, she floundered a bit. Her loving parents encouraged her to work harder and earn a better outcome. I notice they did NOT have someone else come in for the assist; they did NOT give her money, another book, a desk, food stamps, general relief, WIC, or any other entitlements -- they just taught her to work a little harder and put her nose to the grindstone. And then the outcome was a better grade and sense of accomplishment, true pride, and willingness to keep doing better?? Is that what this story says?!?!?!
In that case what the kid SHOULD do, because it’s her moral obligation, is give 28% of her score to spread amongst her neighbor’s kid who’s out skateboarding at the mall, the fat kid lying on the couch eating Ho-Ho's while dad's with his buddies drinking beer on the porch, the girls at the mall watching the boy skateboard, and the poor minority kids playing basketball at the park. Then she needs to give 8.125% to the government so she’ll have a retirement income to supplement her own savings, and the school needs to chip in the same amount. She also needs to devote about 7.5% to the District of Columbia even though she doesn’t go to school there but, again, it’s that moral obligation thing. That should bring her in line with the mainstream — but we encourage her to keep doing better so she can “give back” more to the society that handed her all that good fortune.
But that ain't gonna happen. She's gonna keep it all because she earned it; she worked hard for it and it instilled self esteem and a desire to continue to do better.
Daddy is actually raising a capitalist.
Monday, November 2, 2009
An Article from April 2008 by Thomas Sowell
This is an old article but is certainly appropriate today. After you read it, check out the author.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.
Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.
The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.
What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.
No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.
Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.
Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.
The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.
One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.
Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.
Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.
Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of "change" endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.
We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.
The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.
Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.
Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.
Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.
The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.
What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.
No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.
Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.
Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.
The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.
One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.
Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.
Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.
Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of "change" endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s.
We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.
The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.
Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.
Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What's The Big Deal, Barack?!?
The Media Elite and an Independent Blog
In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
KEY FINDINGS:
• Nearly half of the journalists surveyed agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated,” while the authors found “five out of six believe our legal system mainly favors the wealthy.”
• 30 percent disagreed that “private enterprise is fair to workers;” 28 percent agreed that “all political systems are repressive.”
• 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.
• “Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.”
• Majorities of journalists agreed with the statements: “U.S. exploits Third World, causes poverty” (56%) and “U.S. use of resources immoral” (57%). Three-fourths disagreed that the “West had helped Third World.”
And in their own words....
“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.
Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”
— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.
“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.
“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham: “The work of the evening, obviously, is to connect George W. Bush to the great war leaders of the modern era. You’re going to hear about Churchill projecting power against public opinion....”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “But Iraq was a popular cause when he first started it. It wasn’t like Churchill speaking against the Nazis.”
Meacham: “That’s not the way the Republican Party sees it. They think that all of us and the New York Times are against them.”
Matthews: “Well, they’re right about the New York Times, and they may be right about all of us.”
— Exchange shortly after 8:30pm EDT during MSNBC’s live convention coverage, August 30, 2004. “Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.
“I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people — and to a lesser degree today, the TV people — come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries — which newspaper people used to have anyway — and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.”
— Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite to Time magazine’s Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine’s November 3, 2003 edition.
“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.
“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”
— Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.
“I won’t make any pretense that the ‘American Agenda’ [segments on World News Tonight] is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and ‘Well, on the one hand this and on the other that’ — I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues.”
— ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC’s Equal Time, August 9, 1994.
“We’re unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don’t think we can run away from that. And I think we’re unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people.”
— Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.
“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.
“I’m not sure it’s useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that’s virtually impossible for the audience to sort out.”
— PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS’s ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.
“As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
— Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.
“Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you’d have to call it [global warming stories] advocacy.”
— NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Andrea Mitchell at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.
So, yes, FOX through the years.... why it's necessary, mandatory, and uhhh... why it's fair and balanced, Barack.
In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
KEY FINDINGS:
• Nearly half of the journalists surveyed agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated,” while the authors found “five out of six believe our legal system mainly favors the wealthy.”
• 30 percent disagreed that “private enterprise is fair to workers;” 28 percent agreed that “all political systems are repressive.”
• 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.
• “Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.”
• Majorities of journalists agreed with the statements: “U.S. exploits Third World, causes poverty” (56%) and “U.S. use of resources immoral” (57%). Three-fourths disagreed that the “West had helped Third World.”
And in their own words....
“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.
Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”
— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.
“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.
“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham: “The work of the evening, obviously, is to connect George W. Bush to the great war leaders of the modern era. You’re going to hear about Churchill projecting power against public opinion....”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “But Iraq was a popular cause when he first started it. It wasn’t like Churchill speaking against the Nazis.”
Meacham: “That’s not the way the Republican Party sees it. They think that all of us and the New York Times are against them.”
Matthews: “Well, they’re right about the New York Times, and they may be right about all of us.”
— Exchange shortly after 8:30pm EDT during MSNBC’s live convention coverage, August 30, 2004. “Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.
“I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people — and to a lesser degree today, the TV people — come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries — which newspaper people used to have anyway — and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.”
— Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite to Time magazine’s Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine’s November 3, 2003 edition.
“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.
“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”
— Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.
“I won’t make any pretense that the ‘American Agenda’ [segments on World News Tonight] is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and ‘Well, on the one hand this and on the other that’ — I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues.”
— ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC’s Equal Time, August 9, 1994.
“We’re unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don’t think we can run away from that. And I think we’re unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people.”
— Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.
“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.
“I’m not sure it’s useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that’s virtually impossible for the audience to sort out.”
— PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS’s ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.
“As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
— Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.
“Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you’d have to call it [global warming stories] advocacy.”
— NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Andrea Mitchell at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.
So, yes, FOX through the years.... why it's necessary, mandatory, and uhhh... why it's fair and balanced, Barack.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Aunt Bea wouldn't like that....
That's what Barney would say to Sheriff Andy Taylor when some incredible event befell Mayberry and its citizens. Well, I'm not too sure she'd like BO right now, either after the stunt he just pulled.
The latest communique to Sheriff Joe from President Barack Hussein Obama tells him to back off the illegals, effectively restoring the right to privacy. Oh, wait a minute... the illegals are trespassing criminals who don't have rights -- sorry for the confusion. Seriously, though, if anyone had any doubts that the government wants open borders and resident status for illegals this should seal the argument. If anyone had any doubts that the left wants the United States to fail this is a huge blow to true Patriots. If anyone had any doubts that the Democrats and Republicans might have given just a little shit about the country and US citizens let this be the final nail in their coffin.
Let me put that in all caps (and yes I know it's rude to yell): THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Voters are a necessary evil to our politicians.
We hear a lot of talk about the Constitutionality of certain laws and their interpretation. John Kerry stated he thought the courts should interpret the Constitution to match the laws, where conservatives believe the courts should interpret the laws to match the Constitution. This is an extremely volatile area of contention -- ain't it grand?! Personally, I think the Founders had their shit together pretty darned good if you know what I mean, but please indulge me while I bloviate (as Bill would say).
The Preamble to the Constitution reads: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, it's the PEOPLE who established a place where right is right and good is good. They wanted fairness to prevail, equal opportunity for all, a peaceful law-abiding population, sharing of good fortune, and asked only that the government protect them and keep them protected. That's it, that's all they wanted; and it's all they put into effect. As the Godfather said, "Look what a mess they made of my boy!"
Article I Section 8 lists the powers of Congress, like making sure we have a navy and an army; also to establish mail delivery, determine arenas of justice, keep fairness in trade amongst the states, war declaration, and fund raising. It goes on to give Congress the option to pass any law it deems necessary to assure the aforementioned.
Article 2 establishes the Executive branch. Section 2 is where the real haps show up: It's where POTUS gets the job of Mr. Big, the Head Honcho, Pick of the Pack, Cream of the Crop -- the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services and the National Guard of all the states. POTUS also gets to pick many of the judges, name a Cabinet, swing deals with other countries, and even pardon some of the judges -- er, criminals, that is. (Well, except for the army stuff, POTUS has to kiss the Senate's collective asses to approve all of those choices.) Article 2 Section 3 lists what the President is supposed to do. It's where the State of the Union address is assigned, suggest things for Congress to do, be the Host-in-Chief, and (here comes a biggie) make sure the laws are carried out, followed, enforced.
Article IV Section 6 has some housekeeping stuff but also requires all officers of the United States to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States.
Those are some of the highlights from that yellowed, faded document under yellow glass and hermetically sealed in a glass box and stored in a nuclear safe environ when not on display. I don't know about anyone else but I see a few discrepencies in what it says versus how things actually are.
There's GOT to be a lawyer somewhere who will take on the case to sue the government officials for failure to perform some of their duties. Maybe Sheriff Joe can do something about it, but the closer he would come to a solution the faster POTUS would try to stop him.
The latest communique to Sheriff Joe from President Barack Hussein Obama tells him to back off the illegals, effectively restoring the right to privacy. Oh, wait a minute... the illegals are trespassing criminals who don't have rights -- sorry for the confusion. Seriously, though, if anyone had any doubts that the government wants open borders and resident status for illegals this should seal the argument. If anyone had any doubts that the left wants the United States to fail this is a huge blow to true Patriots. If anyone had any doubts that the Democrats and Republicans might have given just a little shit about the country and US citizens let this be the final nail in their coffin.
Let me put that in all caps (and yes I know it's rude to yell): THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Voters are a necessary evil to our politicians.
We hear a lot of talk about the Constitutionality of certain laws and their interpretation. John Kerry stated he thought the courts should interpret the Constitution to match the laws, where conservatives believe the courts should interpret the laws to match the Constitution. This is an extremely volatile area of contention -- ain't it grand?! Personally, I think the Founders had their shit together pretty darned good if you know what I mean, but please indulge me while I bloviate (as Bill would say).
The Preamble to the Constitution reads: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, it's the PEOPLE who established a place where right is right and good is good. They wanted fairness to prevail, equal opportunity for all, a peaceful law-abiding population, sharing of good fortune, and asked only that the government protect them and keep them protected. That's it, that's all they wanted; and it's all they put into effect. As the Godfather said, "Look what a mess they made of my boy!"
Article I Section 8 lists the powers of Congress, like making sure we have a navy and an army; also to establish mail delivery, determine arenas of justice, keep fairness in trade amongst the states, war declaration, and fund raising. It goes on to give Congress the option to pass any law it deems necessary to assure the aforementioned.
Article 2 establishes the Executive branch. Section 2 is where the real haps show up: It's where POTUS gets the job of Mr. Big, the Head Honcho, Pick of the Pack, Cream of the Crop -- the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services and the National Guard of all the states. POTUS also gets to pick many of the judges, name a Cabinet, swing deals with other countries, and even pardon some of the judges -- er, criminals, that is. (Well, except for the army stuff, POTUS has to kiss the Senate's collective asses to approve all of those choices.) Article 2 Section 3 lists what the President is supposed to do. It's where the State of the Union address is assigned, suggest things for Congress to do, be the Host-in-Chief, and (here comes a biggie) make sure the laws are carried out, followed, enforced.
Article IV Section 6 has some housekeeping stuff but also requires all officers of the United States to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States.
Those are some of the highlights from that yellowed, faded document under yellow glass and hermetically sealed in a glass box and stored in a nuclear safe environ when not on display. I don't know about anyone else but I see a few discrepencies in what it says versus how things actually are.
There's GOT to be a lawyer somewhere who will take on the case to sue the government officials for failure to perform some of their duties. Maybe Sheriff Joe can do something about it, but the closer he would come to a solution the faster POTUS would try to stop him.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Do You Bleeddis?
Obama is telling the truth when he says he doesn't want to cover illegals with health insurance. He really means it. In fact, on September 18, 2009 here is what he said while addressing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute:
“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. “That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”
-So you see!?! He's not lying about that at all! Hope and change is alive and well in Obama's New Washington!Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Here's one example of something skwooey...
The internet is something, ain't it?! If you can't find it there it doesn't exist... yet. I was listening to some political stuff and the subject of the Constitution came up. Specifically, they talked about the discrepencies of some as they beg for the document to be "living," i.e. changed. From the 2nd Kerry Bush debate and on the subject of Supreme Court justice appointees here is an answer from Kerry: "... These are constitutional rights and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law."
When I heard that while watching the debate I was absolutely stunned. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around, interpret the law according to the Constitution.
Charlie Gibson, the adult who kept his childhood name (much like Jimmy Carter) was the moderator. He totally went on to the next question not even so much as a blink in the direction of explaining. Perhaps he mis-spoke. Perhaps he didn't -- and therein lies one of the fundamental differences in our system today than when the United States was first founded.
Just one example: the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. Arguments have been made: that was when they had to hunt for food and protect themselves from injuns, that didn't include assault weapons and automatic weapons. (But they had to look out for injuns, didn't they?!?)
If you apply that logic to the first amendment, freedom of religion did not include islam, Science of Mind, Scientology, etc. and therefore they can't exist either. Freedom of speech would not include what we say over television, radio, dvds, cds, bullhorns (though that one could be argued.....) Without a doubt the Constitution must be extended and revised, but the principles must not be changed.
The Constitution, in my book, is not a "living" document -- it gave life to millions. Over the 40 years Congress was ruled by the Democrats, the left seeped into every nook and cranny in our lives, eliminating personal responsibility and creating generations of victims. It's like Will Rogers said one time: If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' then what's the opposite of progress?
Help bring back the United States of America. Vote all incumbents out. You think your guy isn't the problem? Ohhhhh... it's MY guy that's the problem. Well, here's a newsflash:
It IS my guy! It IS your guy!
It's ALL of them!!!!!!
When I heard that while watching the debate I was absolutely stunned. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around, interpret the law according to the Constitution.
Charlie Gibson, the adult who kept his childhood name (much like Jimmy Carter) was the moderator. He totally went on to the next question not even so much as a blink in the direction of explaining. Perhaps he mis-spoke. Perhaps he didn't -- and therein lies one of the fundamental differences in our system today than when the United States was first founded.
Just one example: the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. Arguments have been made: that was when they had to hunt for food and protect themselves from injuns, that didn't include assault weapons and automatic weapons. (But they had to look out for injuns, didn't they?!?)
If you apply that logic to the first amendment, freedom of religion did not include islam, Science of Mind, Scientology, etc. and therefore they can't exist either. Freedom of speech would not include what we say over television, radio, dvds, cds, bullhorns (though that one could be argued.....) Without a doubt the Constitution must be extended and revised, but the principles must not be changed.
The Constitution, in my book, is not a "living" document -- it gave life to millions. Over the 40 years Congress was ruled by the Democrats, the left seeped into every nook and cranny in our lives, eliminating personal responsibility and creating generations of victims. It's like Will Rogers said one time: If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' then what's the opposite of progress?
Help bring back the United States of America. Vote all incumbents out. You think your guy isn't the problem? Ohhhhh... it's MY guy that's the problem. Well, here's a newsflash:
It IS my guy! It IS your guy!
It's ALL of them!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)