Obama, Racism and Inevitable Self-examination

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about the ambiguity of racism in America, the paranoia regarding Barack Obama and the disrespect paid to this President from folks with questionable motives. America is like the person with a troubled background who refuses to go into analysis and get some help. Every now and then, an issue causes us to talk about our troubled background, our troubled racial history, but the conversation is short lived and ultimately fruitless. We reach no epiphanies that set us straight long term.

From the moment that candidate Barack Obama made the famous “race speech” last year, we should have been able to predict that as long as Obama was an important player on the national scene, race would not go away. Still, I was naive. I thought once he won the election, if for no other reason than political correctness, we’d clean up our act racially. Recent weeks have proved me wrong. The events have escalated. A quick recap:

Shortly after South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” at the President during a joint session of Congress, a Glenn Beck instigated protest march on Washington took place on September 12. This was a tie-in to Beck’s 9-12 initiative which was designed to bring back the sense of common purpose that we had the day after the 9-11 attack on our country. To say that the demonstration on September 12 was divisive is to put it mildly. Here is a small sampling of signs carried during the gathering:

Editor’s note: The actual images have been removed in response to a copyright challenge. Simple descriptions will have to do. I have linked each description to the original image. These links will work for as long as the folks who posted them keep them public:

Sign 1: “CAP” CONGRESS AND “TRADE” OBAMA BACK TO KENYA

Sign 2: THE ZOO HAS AN AFRICAN LION AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A LYIN’ AFRICAN

Sign 3: We came unarmed (this time)

The protest signs became a Rorschach test for America. Where some saw patriotic dissent, others saw blatant racism. Clearly, comparing Obama to an animal is at the very least dehumanizing. It is equally hard to deny that derogatory references to his Kenyan heritage carry a racial overtone. The other disturbing element is the thinly veiled threats of violence (“we came unarmed this time” and “cap congress”). The media latched onto this phenomenon for all it was worth. Republicans cried “race card”. Democrats, for the most part stayed strangely silent and the White House avoided the issue like the plague.

Then a prominent Democrat, humanitarian and former President of the United States weighed in:

The rub here was that this was not some “Northern snob” talking down to Southerners. This was a man raised entirely in the South … some 85 years of experience. Jimmy Carter knows racial bigotry when he sees it and Carter declared without hesitation that racism was stoking some of the 9-12 demonstration. The reaction by defensive conservatives was that Carter was wrong to label the Tea Party/Healthcare protest as racist. But of course that is not what Carter did. He simply pointed out that the folks in the crowd who waddled like ducks and quacked like ducks were indeed ducks. A great many of the folks in the crowd may have had legitimate concerns (too much government, spending out of control, etc.) but they were drowned out by the attention getters and the current climate allowed those folks to get attention in the worst way possible.

When we combine the signage with this new phenomenon of people bringing guns to rallies, sometimes taking place outside of Obama speaking venues, we get a volatile cocktail that finally moved the Speaker of the House to express her concerns:

Pelosi went on to say that incendiary language might provoke unbalanced people to take violent action. Her experience in late 70’s San Francisco, with the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk fueled her concern.

And so here we are, finally dealing with the ultimate question of whether the current climate endangers the life of the President. Whether you view this question as melodrama or not, there is no doubt that America is going through a period of self-examination. Self-examination that I should have known was inevitable when Barack Obama was elected. As I look at the discussions that revolve around this self-analysis, I see everything from confessions to angry denial that there is any problem at all.

America is on the psychiatrist’s couch wrestling with its demons in front of the entire world. Republicans who want to deny there is a problem and Democrats who would rather just see the problem disappear without discussion make it very unlikely that we will find a cure to what ails us. It makes me wonder if we should just bury the wound deep underground again and hope that by ignoring it, we can avoid its consequences. Or should we keep talking with the risk that such talk will only further polarize the nation, sending everyone to their respective corners and increase the climate of danger just over the horizon?

This post is not about conclusions as much as it is about questions. What are we to do? Can our nation ever resolve and repair its birth defect? Will we have to learn through another tragedy to finally abandon old prejudices or will we see the light before harm is done? It is interesting that while Congress debates health care reform, our country is going through an entirely different health care crisis, one involving our mental health.

If our collective mental health fails us, there is no insurance policy that can make it right.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Advertisements

748 thoughts on “Obama, Racism and Inevitable Self-examination

  1. The protest signs became a Rorschach test for America. Where some saw patriotic dissent, others saw blatant racism. Clearly, comparing Obama to an animal is at the very least dehumanizing. It is equally hard to deny that derogatory references to his Kenyan heritage carry a racial overtone. The other disturbing element is the thinly veiled threats of violence (”we came unarmed this time” and “cap congress”). The media latched onto this phenomenon for all it was worth. Republicans cried “race card”. Democrats, for the most part stayed strangely silent and the White House avoided the issue like the plague.” — R

    The “Cap and Trade” sign is a question of his birth origin, a separate debate for sure, but as long as he refuses to produce his birth certificate (not the short version but the long one) this remains a legitimate question. It isn’t a call to violence to “cap” Congress- little too time listening to gangsta rap eh R?- but to “cap” Congress in the sense of what they can spend. Rather pithy considering the current push on Cap and Trade legislation in the House and Senate. This is an extremely intellectually dishonest position, but not surprising.

    The “Lion/Lyin” sign, again, is an implication of his birth origin (Lions come from Africa, which happens to be the continent that Kenya resides…) and more importantly, Obama’s dishonesty. The picture of a lion isn’t a dehumanizing attempt, it is a play on words lyin—lion. This is again, an extremely intellectually dishonest position, and again, not very surprising.

    The “Unarmed” sign is a reminder of how this nation came to be- the people, disenfranchised from a non-representative government overthrew what they considered tyranny. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They weren’t carrying burning crosses or rolls of hemp rope. This government is suppose to be of the people, by the people, for the people- this march obviously doesn’t believe that this government is living by that mantra.

    To tie these signs, the march in general, and any opposition to Obama to race is just flat out wrong, dishonest, and frankly racist. To imply that no one can challenge the positions of a black man, simply because he is black, is ludicrous.

    Jimmy Carter knows racial bigotry when he sees it and Carter declared without hesitation that racism was stoking some of the 9-12 demonstration. The reaction by defensive conservatives was that Carter was wrong to label the Tea Party/Healthcare protest as racist. But of course that is not what Carter did. He simply pointed out that the folks in the crowd who waddled like ducks and quacked like ducks were indeed ducks. A great many of the folks in the crowd may have had legitimate concerns (too much government, spending out of control, etc.) but they were drowned out by the attention getters and the current climate allowed those folks to get attention in the worst way possible. ” – R

    That is because Jimmy Carter has been a part of an establishment and party that has manipulated and exploited racism for decades. I know racism when I see it as well- believe it or not, white people experience racism too. Ah, gasp- that can’t be possible, white people prejudiced against!? Gasp!!! Try being a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Male sometime, especially in any major city with color and see how you’re treated.

    Your duck comment is the fundamental, and catastrophic, error that you on the left are making. This isn’t a duck, its an eagle, it is a movement of people who are tied of a government that is so poorly managed, so wasteful, so arrogant and disconnected from the basic fundamental premise that they REPRESENT us, not serve over us. You have lost sigh of this because it is inconvenient and it implies that your guy sucks. So rather than admit that the will of the people isn’t being met, you divert the discussion with race baiting in a hope that it will intimidate the nay-sayers into silence and distract the discussion away from your failings.

  2. Rutherford,

    Not much I can add to the Gorilla’s letter except to say you’re taking a very small minority of goons with inappropriate signage at a public event (you will note they are far more clever than the left), and trumping it as the norm. Nothing could be further from the truth and I believe your approach dishonest. If you do not recognize that fact, then I’ll simply tell you that you are mistaken in your conclusion.

    This dehumanizing comment referring to the lion proves to me that you actually go looking for things to be offended, and in fact have patterned much of your life based on that premise. Though I am sure I would like you much better personally, in this way you are very much like Henry Louis Gates Jr. Much like D.R.’s comment to Hippieprof in the previous thread about capitalism not only being the best economic engine in the world, but providing the funding for Hippieprof’s profession, your color has actually been of benefit to you as you would not have been admitted to Harvard without it.

    I posed this question some months back and you did not answer it, so I’ll ask it again. Can you demonstrate a country to me, any country, where blacks have it better than they do in America? Where they are provided more opportunity? Where they live with more freedoms?

    Once again, you and I have arrived at very different conclusions. No doubt, the black demographic when taken as a whole is in trouble. But 98% of the problems rest within the community, and have little to do with white America.

    If you are truly looking for real conversation concerning race, there you have it. There was a time I thought you a black man I could reason with and I respected you for that. You were willing to admit the truths, find common ground. I in turn, was wiling to admit that many whites still have a tinge of racism. Now, I’m not so sure you are that man I can talk truth. As the criticism has ratcheted up about Obama’s glaring weaknesses, you have reverted to trumping mostly baseless charges.

  3. This dehumanizing comment referring to the lion proves to me that you actually go looking for things to be offended.

    Putting aside the comparison of Obama to an animal, let’s limit ourselves the phrase “lyin’ African”.

    If I’m not mistaken, DR is Polish-American. Try calling him a “lying pollock” and see how fast he punches your lights out. Obama’s supposed lack of honesty has nothing to do with his African heritage so the phrase is racist. Plain and simple.

    I do commend you Tex, however, for at least using the term “inappropriate signage” to describe some of the signs. It shows that you are not in complete denial.

  4. Rutherford,

    I deny nothing – some people are offensive and the signs, while some clever, were in poor taste. I make fun of Obama, even brutalize Obama here on your board in anonymity (mostly to gig you), but would not do so in a public gathering.

    However, you preach a good game. Where were your criticisms the last eight years of Bush when he was called much worse? Is it more egregious to make fun of color than to make fun of faith, family or attributing Bush to history’s worst? My point is that you seem to have a bad case of being selectively offended, even excusing it if it meets your form of politic.

    Why should you hold any of the rest of us to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

  5. I have family from South Africa. Can I call them lying Africans ? Ironically two of them have been prevented from officially categorizing themselves as African Americans.
    Also I’ll share this. AP/Yahoo McWhorters quotes are excellent as is most of anything he puts forth.

  6. “Obama’s supposed lack of honesty has nothing to do with his African heritage so the phrase is racist.”

    What? Did you not read my comment? It’s a play on words, again tied to his unwillingness to produce a birth certificate. The sign does two things, challenge his honesty and challenge his constitutional right to the Presidency.

    Get a grip. You want this to be a racist issue so you only see this in a racial light. This is the problem with the left, you’ll only look at issues through special interest colored glasses instead of applying simple, rational thought.

  7. The “Cap and Trade” sign is a question of his birth origin, a separate debate for sure, but as long as he refuses to produce his birth certificate (not the short version but the long one) this remains a legitimate question.

    Sorry G, Obama does not owe you a peek at a single one of his identifying documents particularly when you haven’t asked to see similar docs from any white guys. If I were Obama, I’d say “f*ck you.” The man was born in the US. For you to even give lip service to this nonsense makes me doubt your sanity.

    Also I don’t need puns explained to me. I get the lion/lyin’ idea. Bottom line … poster compared or contrasted Obama with an animal. And as I pointed out to Tex, tied his heritage to lying which is …. racist.

    I assure you, someone involved in creating the “cap congress” sign understands the notion of “popping a cap” into someone. I doubt anyone was so corny as to simply mean the obvious.

    The “Unarmed” sign is a reminder of how this nation came to be- the people, disenfranchised from a non-representative government overthrew what they considered tyranny.

    I don’t know why I keep having to remind you that this is not 1776. The government we have is the one our country elected in 2008. That’s how you get representative government, by electing folks, seeing what they do, and then electing different folks the next time around. You don’t bring firearms to political rallies or threaten to do so “the next time”. If the people are dumb enough to elect folks that consistently let them down, then they should be turning the gun on themselves because they got what they asked for.

    This isn’t a duck, its an eagle

    In many cases, it isn’t a duck, it’s a do-do bird. I have said before in these threads, Gorilla, that I admire your patriotism and the sacrifice you have made for your country. I don’t back down from that. Which is why it confounds me that you support those whose counter-productive, divisive and often juvenile displays don’t advance any cause.

    I end this comment by quoting myself:

    Or should we keep talking with the risk that such talk will only further polarize the nation, sending everyone to their respective corners and increase the climate of danger just over the horizon?

    The comments of you and Tex answer my question … the discussion is polarizing and the prospects for true healing are dim.

    P.S. This is why I told Alfie in a previous thread that I had no interest in writing another post on race. That was before Carter and Pelosi weighed in. I finally decided I could no longer ignore the elephant in the room … or should we say the 800 pound gorilla.

  8. R try this then. McWhorter and others are putting forth that the R word is getting cheapened. I for one agree wholeheartedly.
    Hit me…your thoughts on that.
    It’s like baby steps. We’re not likely to change much here but everyday we can take a step and make it better.

  9. It’s a play on words, again tied to his unwillingness to produce a birth certificate.

    Nonsense. where do you get the idea the “lying” is confined to his birth certificate. Joe Wilson didn’t shout “YOU LIE” in reference to his birth certificate. The charge of Obama being a “liar” runs the gamut and again need not be tied to his African heritage. To do so, is …. racist.

  10. So why is Thuggy’s birth certificate along with almost everything else about him sealed. Whats he hiding?

    And why did he bar the Honduras president from coming here? You keep dodging that simple question.

  11. “If the people are dumb enough to elect folks that consistently let them down, then they should be turning the gun on themselves because they got what they asked for.”

    My guess these arent the people that keep reelecting jerkoffs like Franks and Pelosi.

  12. Is it more egregious to make fun of color than to make fun of faith, family or attributing Bush to history’s worst?

    Calling Bush McChimpy Hitler is hardly an attack on faith and family. You should also notice, that I did not include in my article the many posters comparing Obama to Hitler or calling him a Marxist. Those are not racist, even though outrage has caused many liberals to tie all the posters to racism. I do not.

    Let’s look at family specifically. Michelle Obama has been likened to a gorilla. Please give me one instance in which Laura Bush was savaged by any political outlet, left or right. I don’t even think SNL attacked Laura Bush. Granted, she has always been a gracious, low key First Lady so there isn’t much to attack. Bottom line, you can’t substantiate “attacks on family”.

    As for attributing Bush to history’s worst presidents, why am I to blame for historian’s short term view? Many, including me, have said that 10 or 20 years from now, Bush’s reputation may improve (much like Harry Truman’s did). Certainly, if Iraq can ever establish a functional democracy, any fair minded person must give Bush some of the credit.

  13. A few more myths from the White House
    posted at 12:16 pm on September 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    John Lott took a look at some of the details of Barack Obama’s arguments on health care, and decided to get into the suddenly booming business of mythbusting — or what we used to call exposing lies. One of the big whoppers in Obama’s speeches have been that only one or two insurance companies operate in some states, leading to a lack of competition and abuse by insurance companies. However, neither are true, which becomes obvious when one looks at how people get insurance within those states:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/18/a-few-more-myths-from-the-white-house/

    So when can we call Thuggy a lie? How many lies must he tell before that is allowed to happen?

  14. Rutherford,

    You’re either going to fast, or your reading skills slipping (they had to be good at one time). Did I say worst Presidents? I said history’s worst. Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Mussolini, etc…

    You been snorting glue again?

  15. R try this then. McWhorter and others are putting forth that the R word is getting cheapened. I for one agree wholeheartedly.
    Hit me…your thoughts on that.

    I’ve documented in the past that I am a big fan of McWhorter.

    In fact, in that article, I said that I am tired of talking about race … talk gets us nowhere. The recent articles that I have written have been examples of my heart winning over my head. This is not to say that I intellectually don’t see racism in some of these displays. I do. But the whole issue of discussing it is something my heart had demanded of me despite my head telling me it is futile.

    Any word, when overused, loses its meaning. Racism is no exception. In fact, if the simple act of a man of one race opposing a man of another is racism, then indeed, as your referenced article says, we are in an unresolvable infinite loop.

    Black man: “you’re racist”
    White man: “your calling me a racist makes you a racist”

    and so on.

    There was one comment in the referenced article that I wanted to pull out for further examination:

    “The rise in whites accusing blacks of racism is the inevitable result of years of black identity politics, which created a blueprint for whites who feel threatened by America’s changing demographics, says Carol Swain, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “The New White Nationalism In America.” “
    Why should whites feel threatened by America’s changing demographics? If people are people and color/ethnicity is irrelevant, then why are white folks even counting heads? What does it matter how many of “them” there are? This concern about demographics fueled miscegenation laws in the South. Is there concern that there is superiority in numbers? And once we get into white superiority over blacks, we get back to racism, don’t we?

    This stuff is so deeply ingrained it is mind boggling. And we are mainly discussing overt racism here. What about racism that is simply the consequence of repeated exposure to racist themes that plant in the brain of an otherwise decent, and fair person. Hippieprof has a great article about covert racism on his blog. I suggest you read it.

  16. Did I say worst Presidents? I said history’s worst. Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Mussolini, etc…

    You been snorting glue again?

    LOL we have been flying over each other’s head a bit lately, In the prior thread I took your “two generations” and expanded it and in this thread I took your “history’s worst” and contracted it to mean America’s presidents. Oh well. I guess I found the notion of comparing Bush to “Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Mussolini, etc..” so ludicrous that I did not know that is where you were headed.

  17. Sorry G, Obama does not owe you a peek at a single one of his identifying documents particularly when you haven’t asked to see similar docs from any white guys. If I were Obama, I’d say “f*ck you.” The man was born in the US. For you to even give lip service to this nonsense makes me doubt your sanity. ” – R

    Were any of those “white guys” suspected of being born in a foreign country? Pul, your head out, this isn’t aboutrace, it’s about the Constitutionality of the position. Consider this, hypothetically, what happens if it is proven that Obama is indeed not a natural born US citizen? You think that might be a big deal? Considering the ramifications, shouldn’t we all be concerned with this being settled? Ignoring it and calling it racist, when clearly it is not, is not settling the matter.

    Also I don’t need puns explained to me. I get the lion/lyin’ idea. Bottom line … poster compared or contrasted Obama with an animal. And as I pointed out to Tex, tied his heritage to lying which is …. racist. ” — R

    It didn’t tie his heritage to lying. Have you come unhinged? It combined the context of Wilson’s “you lie” comment to the issue of his birth- potentially in Africa. It isn’t racist.

    I assure you, someone involved in creating the “cap congress” sign understands the notion of “popping a cap” into someone. I doubt anyone was so corny as to simply mean the obvious. ” – R

    All right, I’m throwing the bull shit flag. Do you honestly believe that lady holding the sign understand the slang lexicon of “popping a cap”? Especially when the sign is clearly referencing the Cap & Trade bill passed in the house. Absolute bull shit.

    I don’t know why I keep having to remind you that this is not 1776. The government we have is the one our country elected in 2008. That’s how you get representative government, by electing folks, seeing what they do, and then electing different folks the next time around. You don’t bring firearms to political rallies or threaten to do so “the next time”. If the people are dumb enough to elect folks that consistently let them down, then they should be turning the gun on themselves because they got what they asked for. ” – R

    Apparently, we need to remind you, for it is you who seems to forget history. You’re the one who votes for Dems, we’ll miss you…

    In many cases, it isn’t a duck, it’s a do-do bird. I have said before in these threads, Gorilla, that I admire your patriotism and the sacrifice you have made for your country. I don’t back down from that. Which is why it confounds me that you support those whose counter-productive, divisive and often juvenile displays don’t advance any cause. ” – R

    The deficit won’t be increased? You’ll keep your healthcare? You’re taxes won’t go up? You’re the one who believes this crap, who’s the do-do bird? 😉

    I end this comment by quoting myself:
    Or should we keep talking with the risk that such talk will only further polarize the nation, sending everyone to their respective corners and increase the climate of danger just over the horizon?
    The comments of you and Tex answer my question … the discussion is polarizing and the prospects for true healing are dim.
    P.S. This is why I told Alfie in a previous thread that I had no interest in writing another post on race. That was before Carter and Pelosi weighed in. I finally decided I could no longer ignore the elephant in the room … or should we say the 800 pound gorilla.
    ” – R

    Your comments are the ones constantly reaching for racism. I won’t speak for Tex- he does that just fine- I have never once implied or made a racist comment. If I had seen a racist comment, I would have said so. I am looking at this in the political forum, as is the rest of America. The only one’s who are harping and dragging race into the discussion is YOU. That’s the 800lb Gorilla in the room, the lefts obsession with race baiting politics.

  18. “Hippieprof has a great article about covert racism on his blog. I suggest you read it.”

    Yeah its a load of crap too. I asked him if opposing Pelosi makes me sexist. Never got an answer.

  19. ‘Beliefs and commitments’ of nation’s leader should supersede judges – The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

    “There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

    This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.”

    The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND. Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” He lamented multiple recent examples of U.S. presidents interpreting law only to have their interpretations overturned by the Supreme Court.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/beliefs-of-nations-leader-should-supersede-judges.html

    Do you agree with Thuggy’s Czar Dodger?

  20. I asked him if opposing Pelosi makes me sexist. Never got an answer.

    Try reading. I’ll repeat HP’s answer in this thread:

    “Regarding Pelosi: Similar studies to the ones I have described on my blog do in fact indicate unconscious sexism. If employers rate two resumes, one with a female name and one with a male name but otherwise identical, the male will invariably be rated higher.”

  21. Pelosi wasn’t tearing up, she was choking on the irony of complaining about people being “inciters” knowing full well that she and Steny Hoyer penned an article calling citizens who oppose their harebrained agenda “unAmerican”, and act of incredible hubris and contempt for the average citizen.

    As for the rest of it, I am sad to see that you jumped the shark, Rutherford. Why deal with the slings and arrows of genuine criticisms when its easy to find a reason to be a victim in every “racist” sign and statement of those who believe that the left turn we took in November last took us in the wrong direction? And when the worst President in my lifetime, an anti-semite and dictator hugger like Cahtur starts agreeing with you, you know you’re on the wrong track.

  22. Ah G, let’s take the points one by one:

    Were any of those “white guys” suspected of being born in a foreign country?

    Of course not, they were white. 🙂

    Consider this, hypothetically, what happens if it is proven that Obama is indeed not a natural born US citizen?

    Great question. It would probably make us reconsider an incredibly outdated piece of legislation that needs to be amended. I point you to this excellent article written by John Dean.

    It didn’t tie his heritage to lying. Have you come unhinged?

    If any exchange in this thread confirms my assertion that the posters were a Rorschach test for the American people, this is it.

    Gorilla, contrast a sign that reads “Obama is a liar” or “Obama is a lying President” with “Obama is a lying African”. Why is there any reference to his background? If the point is about lying, having African heritage is irrelevant. The truth is, on the face of it, Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar is not racist. It is only Joe’s history that makes his motives suspicious to me. Now if Joe yelled “You’re a lying African”, a whole different Pandora’s box would have been opened,

    Do you honestly believe that lady holding the sign understand the slang lexicon of “popping a cap”?

    Probably not, but I also don’t think every person holding a sign calling Obama a Marxist has the slightest idea what a Marxist is. Your point?

    I have never once implied or made a racist comment.

    This is the cop out fallback of someone in denial. Even Tex, with whom I vehemently disagree, has called out these fools for their rudeness, and in some cases bigotry. The boy who stands by and watches while the scrawny kid gets beaten up by the school bully is only slightly higher on the moral ladder than the bully himself.

    When I see you come out of denial and admit that some of these protesters are way over the top, then perhaps a reasonable discussion can ensue.

  23. Pelosi wasn’t tearing up, she was choking on the irony of complaining …

    There you go BiW (btw, welcome back to the blog), you win the award for being the first to go down the Pelosi-irony line. I was shocked no one else went there first.

    Pelosi never called protesters un-American. She called protesters who inflame the environment with Nazi posters and other incendiary rhetoric un-American. I think she expects civil debate and even “civil disobedience” from patriotic Americans.

  24. Irving Kristol, considered the father of neoconservatism, died in Washington at the age of 89, the Weekly Standard reported.

    Kristol, the father of Bill Kristol, was a leading conservative voice and founded several conservative publications, including Encounter, The Public Interest, and The National Interest.

    Tip my hat to him. I very profound influence in conservative circles.

  25. I’m not at all familiar with Irving Kristol. Was he at all in the mold of William F. Buckley? I’m hoping Bill Kristol fell pretty far from the tree, otherwise, I’d have my doubts about Irving.

  26. Pelosi never called protesters un-American. She called protesters who inflame the environment with Nazi posters and other incendiary rhetoric un-American. I think she expects civil debate and even “civil disobedience” from patriotic Americans.

    Missing the point entirely. Who is she to judge who is inflaming anything? You see, the whole “other incendiary rhetoric” rubric casts a really wide net, and Nan isn’t exactly the most objective of observers. If we are a nation of laws, then the First Amendment means what it says, and that means while you are free to criticize the speech of others that you might find “inflamitory”, it is still a valid exercise of a right conferred upon each of us by the Bill of Rights, and few things are more “American” than the exercise of these rights. Calling citizens “UnAmerican” for doing something that is offensive but legal is incitement, and indicative of the myopic elitism that infects the Left today. The Left has no problem with citizens exercising their rights, unless they are being exercised in a way that the Left doesn’t approve of. Then those same people are ripe for demonization by anyone with a soapbox or an open mic from which to admonish those who have comitted the cardinal sin of offending them. That is why the cries for civility ring so hollow in my ears.

  27. BiW, your perspective as just expressed is actually one that I can accept. I must also admit that I don’t think Pelosi’s far left slant has done Obama any good. I just think she got a bit misrepresented on the whole un-American issue.

  28. Rutherford,

    In case you haven’t noticed, my typos and misspellings have increased considerably. I do have a valid reason (as in too from above).

    To stay involved here, I’m actually typing this drivel in 10 minutes breaks between lectures. Surprisingly, this blog is allowing me to remain sane, even when trading shots with someone like Curator.

    Cathartic, actually. Did I mention, no matter how you spin it, medical school still sucks? While it is an honor to be admitted, five weeks of this crap already has me asking, “What in the hell was I thinking?”

    In addition, I have once again be reminded that you can be a brilliant student (I’m not one) and still be a dumb ass. I have nothing in common with 20 somethings, and am having a difficult time imagining some of these pompous punks dealing with a patient. There are more swelled heads in my classroom than a liberal funeral.

  29. Oh Gorilla, I don’t find much to disagree with in Pat Buchanan’s article.I don’t think the House should have formally scolded Wilson as it did indeed turn him into a martyr … besides the recipient of the insult let him off the hook. There is of course the issue of rules enforcement but other House members admitted later that they too yelled stuff at Obama but just didn’t get picked up on the mics.

    Incidentally, while I think Carter speaks with courageous authority, I don’t think he did Obama any favors. Pat’s opening comment “God save me from my friends — I can take care of my enemies.” is right on the money.

  30. BiW, for what it’s worth, I took a peek at your blog and noticed something about constructionist interpretation of the Constitution vs “implied powers”. I think that the very fact that the constitution was limited by time and place means one cannot take a constructionist view. The constitution must be viewed as a living document (hence the amendments) that reflects the enlightenment that comes with age.

    Sorry to digress from the main thread topic but I just wanted to get that off my chest since I know BiW opposes health care reform as unconstitutional.

  31. BlackisWhite,

    Tex, I sympathize. Try earning a post-graduate level law degree sometime.

    😆 😆

    I’m out now, so I can’t use the typo excuse. These young doctors and attorneys are leaving something to be desired in the personality category.

    Now I know I’ll hear you we were that way when we were their age and maybe we had the arrogance. But when an instructor started his instruction, I know I knew enough to shut up. When class started, I know I knew enough to be on time. When I walked into the classroom, I would have had the sense to get off the phone and turn it off had they been available. I was taught to open the door for the fairer sex instead of slinging shut in their face, etc…

    Man, has society become crass.

  32. BiW, for what it’s worth, I took a peek at your blog and noticed something about constructionist interpretation of the Constitution vs “implied powers”. I think that the very fact that the constitution was limited by time and place means one cannot take a constructionist view. The constitution must be viewed as a living document (hence the amendments) that reflects the enlightenment that comes with age.

    The flaw with the “living document” standard is that it takes an objective set of criteria, and tosses them out in favor of a subjective standard resting solely on the heads of five unelected jurists, and their creativity in “discovering” new rights and powers that were heretofore unseen and unheard of in the Constitution. If you want it to be Constitutional for the government to provide health care insurance for all citizens, whether they want it or not (and don’t kid yourself, that will be the end result), you can make it so in a perfectly legal way. Its called “Amendment”, and it has worked in the past when enough Americans believed that it was important to clearly define a right or give the federal government the lawful authority to do something that it did not otherwise have. If you can do that, then I have no argument, because by its very nature, the offending legislation is now Constitutional.

    The ‘living document” approach has been a convenient way to justify the legislation that could not be obtained through the legislative branch, but could be obtained from an overeaching judiciary. It is also a convenient means for many people to argue against the exercise of rights that they are not in favor of other Americans having. Hence your “This isn’t 1776” argument aginst the Second Amendment, or the “Its about the militia, not individuals” argument that was so recently correctly pwned in Heller. You oppose it? Awesome, do what you will to change that law through the correct means; don’t go to a judge to obtain what you cannot otherwise achieve. When that happens, we all lose our voice which is expressed in the legislative branch of government.

    To do anything else is to remove the predictability of result that the law is intended to provide, and an abridgment of the rights and expectations of those who have no problem living by the standards that the law applies, and no minority group in this or any society should have the right to change the rules for everyone else in that fashion.

  33. Dang Rutherford,

    On second thought, when you’re to the point of having to quote Jimmy Carter and Nancy Pelosi, I do hope you realize you are now at the point of reaching the dregs. 😮

    While the signs appropriate to your point, the fact that these two individuals are included as evidence, yet possibly the most wretched people affiliated with Washington, detracts from about anything you can post as support.

    Why would Nancy Pelosi now be concerned about the “volume” of the protest? Is there public official more responsible in turning the knob to loud than this shrew? Lord, she’s the first one most of us would punch in the mouth given the chance. There isn’t a bigger idiot and phony than San Fran Nan.

  34. Media Matters: This right-wing frenzy is reminiscent of Dallas 1963
    posted at 9:30 pm on September 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Uh huh. And we all remember what happened when a certain radical right-winger — who defected to the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman, and tried to assassinate a far-right anti-communist American general — got JFK in the crosshairs in Dallas. Why, it reminds me of what happened when radical left-winger Timothy McVeigh finally executed his plot against the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/18/media-matters-this-right-wing-frenzy-is-reminiscent-of-dallas-1963/

    Man, you libs get more desperate and stupid everyday.

  35. Lord, she’s the first one most of us would punch in the mouth given the chance.

    Nahh. Rumor has it that she is, in fact, a woman. Because honor forbids me from hitting a woman, even Janine Garafolo, I’ll err on the side of caution, and just trip her if the opportunity arises. 😉

  36. BlackisWhite,

    Yeah, legitimate point – though you must admit, even as a gentleman, a shot at San Fran is tempting. I’d be afraid I’d hurt my hand from Botox rebound.

    But Janeane Garofalo? Just give me the chance. I’d knock her ugly mug into next week and worry about the repercussions later. Same goes for that fat broad with a big mouth Joy Behar.

  37. I’d be afraid I’d hurt my hand from Botox rebound.

    Ok Tex, I gotta give you a LOL on that one. 😀

    Still how can Janeane Garofolo and Joy Behar drive you to violence yet you have wet dreams over Ann Coulter? I’m telling you, with that constant smirk and mocking laugh, old AC is just begging for a knuckle sandwich.

  38. Hmmmm still no answer on the visas for thugs but not the president of Honduras. Why not Dodger?

    Honest answer Elric …. I’m way behind the curve on the whole Honduras thing and don’t feel qualified to weigh in yet. I suspect once I dig into it I will find it to be another conservative skewed much-ado-about-nothing scenario but I’ll reserve judgment until I know more.

  39. Elric, regarding your Sunstein article, I think there is some wiggle room here. The executive branch, as I understand it, is charged with enforcing the law. To enforce a law, you must have an understanding of it, and that understanding involves a certain degree of interpretation. So I would say that interpretation of the law is really a shared responsibility of the executive and judicial branches. Now, I would not go so far as to say the executive branch trumps the judicial in the interpretation department. In other words, I don’t think a President can openly act in defiance of a legal interpretation of the Supreme Court.

    I’m not defending nor condemning Sunstein as I haven’t absorbed the entirety of his argument.

  40. Rutherford,

    Still how can Janeane Garofolo and Joy Behar drive you to violence yet you have wet dreams over Ann Coulter? I’m telling you, with that constant smirk and mocking laugh, old AC is just begging for a knuckle sandwich.

    😆

    I didn’t add one proviso for the knuckle sandwich for Janeane – I’d have to be wearing boxing gloves to protect me from the possible skank – I’ll bet to touch her feels like holding a slug. But it does give me wet dreams to think about ramming those idiotic looking spectacles into her cerebrum to end the slug’s miserable existence! 😮

    As far as Joy Behar, I just want to bitch slap her to wipe the arrogant smirk of her face. The sound of the smack against that chubby face would be marvelous. I feel no need to terminate her.

    Oh Rutherford, but to dream of the possibilities if I only ran the world.
    I don’t want to tap Ann Coulter – I just like to read Ann Coulter, as she drives the Rutherford’s of the world bonkers. That makes her have great utility in my book.

  41. Polish haters have pretty much disappeared from America in my lifetime, except for maybe in Chicago.

    My father-in-law, an extreme Democrat and a hardcore Teamster, still rips on the Polish. He didn’t like me at first becuase of my ethnic background.

    Can I call it a background? What’s so Polish about me anyways? I eat Polish food sometimes. Play softball for a Polish parish. I know how to curse in Polish. Many of my fiends have corny Polish Eagle tattoos.

    Dead Rabbit is American. A real one (unlike that hippieprof) 🙂

    To say I ever had to overcome any real challenges over being Polish would be laughable.

    My Mom speaks broken Polish, my grandparents were fluent. My Dad is Lithuanian.

    So, my last name is Lithuanian. I’m a 50/50 mix ( This “mix” is so common there is even a word for it in Polish.) and come from a family of hardcore Catholics.

    To razz my Polish buddies, I have the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth seal on my arm, despite not giving a shit about reunion of the two nations any more then I do Spain and Portugal. (I have since learned that there exists some weirdos who want to bring back this medieval empire and have had some odd conversations becuase of the tattoo).

    My son will probably not even superficially have any ethnic frame of reference other then his last name, which is fine by me.

    If your still actually reading this, there are many quicker ways to piss me off then calling me a Polack.

    Chump. Now that word pisses me off for some reason.

  42. Chump. Now that word pisses me off for some reason.

    OK, I’ll revise my statement. Tex, try calling Rabbit a “lying chump” and see how fast he punches your lights out. 🙂

  43. By the way, Gorilla, Tex and BiW have responded so perfectly to yet another Rutherford blog on all the racist meanies, I need not add anything more.

    Man did Tex call it. As soon as the going got even remotely rough, the race card was played big time.

    I think it seriously took two months.

  44. Well DR I’m glad you found the conservative three musketeers entertaining and on point. (You see what a good mood I’m in tonight … I didn’t call them the three stooges! 🙂 )

    On a totally off topic … and my last comment of the night … why is my blog getting so much damn viagra spam? Must be cos someone read my dissing TV pharma ads. 🙂

  45. lol…the Dead Rabbit hasn’t been in a real fist fight for 5 years. In one on one fist o cuffs, Rabbit’s record is probably some where around 4 and 9.

    I do have a perfect nose thanks to reconstructive surgery. I actually look better thanks to my fighting days.

  46. must be your pseudo penis

    😆

    And squirrel sized balls!

    —————————————-

    Damn Rutherford, we’ve jaded you so, I can’t even get a typical mortified response about me having wet dreams to ram some scumbag’s glasses into her skull. You’ve been shell shocked from BOMBAISM – I fear a mortal disease.

  47. I can’t call Rabbit a lying chump – hell, he’s become my little “big brother” on the net and though I was sure I had heard every insult known to man, the Rabbit has taught me there is much to learn in pushing lib buttons.

    To this day, I still laugh at the first Rabbit post I read at The Chamber where he called General Chen a CopperHead Shill. I use that descriptor all the time now. Besides, I was never keen on having my ass whipped.

    P.S. – While the paper of critics in OKC may be panicked by the ignorance of its high school students, I noticed the moron(s) couldn’t spell “parties” correctly either. Either they’ve had to can the editors (most likely), or they too were a product of that fine OKC PUBLIC education.

  48. Still how can Janeane Garofolo and Joy Behar drive you to violence yet you have wet dreams over Ann Coulter?

    That’s a joke, right?

    Ann could be as hideous as Helen Thomas, and I would still love her, if for no other reason than she sends the Left’s Spokeshalfwits into spittle fits whenever she makes an appearance.

    This was a double-good day. The local Drivetime guy in Seattle scored an interview with Michelle Malkin this afternoon.

  49. “Honest answer Elric …. I’m way behind the curve on the whole Honduras thing and don’t feel qualified to weigh in yet. I suspect once I dig into it I will find it to be another conservative skewed much-ado-about-nothing scenario but I’ll reserve judgment until I know more.”

    Like you were way behind the ACORN scandal? You havent skewed any conservative yet.

    “Elric, regarding your Sunstein article, I think there is some wiggle room here.”

    Uh huh. I know you leftists think there are always wiggle room to punch through the firewalls of the Constitution.

  50. “75% of Oklahoma high school students could not name the first President of the United States.”

    You can blame your libs destroying the education system in the country.

  51. Fmr Dem/Actor Paul Rodriguez Begs Obama to Side w/ Farmers Over Endangered Fish
    By Brad Wilmouth | September 18, 2009 – 15:34

    As FNC’s Sean Hannity devoted his show Hannity on Thursday evening to the plight of California farmers who are suffering unemployment because the federal government is withholding water from their crops in favor of saving endangered fish, Hannity began the show, specially titled “The Valley That Hope Forgot,” by interviewing comedian and former Democrat Paul Rodriguez, chairman of the California Latino Water Coalition. Rodriguez, who last year supported Barack Obama but famously turned GOP after Democrats refused to help him and other farmers obtain water for their crops, made a plea for help to President Obama on Hannity’s show:

    Mr. President, with all due respect, we pray that you will read our letter and look at our dilemma. We don’t want you to give us a loan. We didn’t do anything wrong. We did everything right. We grew more food than anybody else with less water. And for that, our reward was you cut the water off. Come on, what’s up?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/09/18/fmr-dem-actor-paul-rodriguez-begs-obama-side-w-farmers-endangered-fis

    Liberalism is destructive.

  52. BTW Dodger, you find an excuse yet on why Thuggy allowed visas for Chavez, Gadaffi, Castro and the dwarf leader of Iran but not for the president of Honduras? I know you wont ever answer but its fun asking because you have no excuse. 🙂

  53. 7 CIA Directors begging Obama to change his mind, yet again, and stop the madness. The Secretary of Defense under Clinton baffled over this week’s foreign policy.

    Will the Fall be the foreign policy version of this summer’s rookie, minor league cluster fuck of leadership on the domestic front?

  54. i defy anyone to watch that ACORN video while repeating to yourself that these people are funded with tax dollars and not get the chills.

  55. I wonder how my buddy Rutherford can see white racism lurking around every corner, yet not recognize what Maxine Waters, the rest of the Black Caucus, and Revs. Al and Jesse not represent?

    Until we can make decent folks like Rutherford understand that that racism cuts both ways, and in fact is rampant in much of black America, I doubt there will ever be real judgment of character, instead continuing to focus on color of the skin.

    Silly…IMHO

  56. Jesus Friggin Christ. Thuggy cant even get his own family’s health care right. Either this guy is clueless or a LIAR. Which is is Dodger? Care to share your thoughts on your president? Is he a buffoon or a LIAR?

  57. Video: Obama WH “biggest bunch of crybabies”
    posted at 1:00 pm on September 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    What, this White House is thin-skinned? Do tell! Chris Wallace dishes on the Obama administration’s press relations group, which he calls “the biggest bunch of crybabies” he’s seen in 30 years of reporting. Wallace compares the Obama administration very unfavorably to the Reagan media handlers, who always acted professional even after a stinging news report. Wallace says that attitude came “from the top down,” as Reagan himself approached the news media with poise and comportment. The new administration? Not so much:

    Watch until the end, when Wallace zings his colleagues in the White House press corps. “I think it works with the others — it doesn’t work with me.” So who’s getting intimidated by the White House these days?

  58. sounds exactly like Rutherford.

    Hey DR, I resemble that remark! (Yuk, yuk).

    Look, shoot me, I wasn’t paying much attention to Acorn or Honduras. When I talk to people about this blog, I call it a “social commentary” blog. I never intended to write a strictly political blog but of course politics and social “science” intersect quite often so of course we talk some politics here. I am mainly interested in how people and societies behave. That is what I am passionate about.

    So, you’re not likely to see me weigh in on many foreign affairs issues. As far as Acorn is concerned, all I knew was their voter registrants were making up crap to get paid more. Clearly, the latest revelations about prostitution etal shows Acorn has gone off the rails. I repeat, I’ve never written anything portraying Acorn in glowing terms.

    Regarding Obama … he was their lawyer if I’m not mistaken. He was also a community organizer so his having a legal connection with ACORN does not surprise nor disappoint me. Show me one quote of PRESIDENT Obama supporting ACORN.

  59. “Clearly, the latest revelations about prostitution etal shows Acorn has gone off the rails.”

    ANd whats that say about Thuggy who help trained, represented and donated to ACORN?

    “Show me one quote of PRESIDENT Obama supporting ACORN.”

    Already have but you chose to dodge it.

    “I wasn’t paying much attention to Acorn or Honduras. When I talk to people about this blog.”

    So you wont ever weigh in why Thuggy banned a visa for the Honduras president while allowing visas for the various thugs I mentioned before? Didnt think you would. You are too cowardly.

  60. Tex, as I’ve said before, prejudice cuts both ways. Racism does not. Racism is the currency of the powerful. Although I will correct myself here. Since more and more blacks are coming into power (our President being a prime example) black on white racism is indeed a possibility for the first time in our history, one that probably scares the living crap out of whites (payback, as they say, is indeed a bitch).

    I don’t support the Clyburn led attack on Wilson. It kept his name in the headlines longer than I would have liked. I want the slug to return to the obscurity from which he came.

    You know what’s really funny? Crazy ass birther Charles Boustany who gave the Republican response to Obama’s address was a blip on the radar screen. I bet he’s real pissed at Wilson for stealing his spotlight. Heck, I bet most of you are saying Charles Whostany? 😀

  61. “Yes that is true. To the deaf man, all leftists sound the same in the end.”

    Nope, Im familiar enough with the mindset of leftists and in the end, they all support the same thing. Government running their lives and never condemning anything the demomarxists do. Sounds just like you.

  62. Shattered Confidence In Europe

    By Ronald D. Asmus
    Saturday, September 19, 2009

    President Obama’s decision to shelve the Bush administration’s missile defense plans has created a crisis of confidence in Washington’s relations with Central and Eastern Europe. The defense architecture the administration proposes may make more strategic sense in addressing the immediate Iranian threat. Nevertheless, it runs the risk of shattering the morale and standing of transatlantic leaders in the region who now feel politically undermined and exposed. The roots of this crisis lie less in missile defense than in policy failures over the past decade. Understanding and rectifying those errors is key to getting back on track with our allies.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803046.html

    Thanks Thuggy, you POS

  63. When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, “I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That’s what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That’s the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

    Not that Dodger will comment on this

  64. Hard for me to believe Rutherford that you have such double standards. Racism is racism – doesn’ t matter the color or the number. But I wouldn’t get too awfully arrogant about payback being a bitch.

    I’ll remind you that you’re outnumbered 5-1. Undoubtedly, you haven’t been paying much attention and have bought off on whitey America being a bunch of pussies. There comes a time payback being a bitch might happen to blow up in your face (literally)… Guess were going to see, hey?

    😉

  65. “Racism is the currency of the powerful.”-Rutherford

    The only people who believe that horse shit are college students.

    Straight dogmatic poop from a freshman class in sociology.

    I know, deep down, you don’t believe it either, you liar.

    Dude, this a true story. When I was in the 8th grade, I was playing basketball at the local elementary school on a Saturday afternoon. My good friend, who we all call “Scrog”, was incredible at hoops.

    He kept showing up these two black dudes. Over and over he would juke them to the hole or nail threes in their faces.

    The entire time they kept throwing racist shit at him. White motherfucker this, white motherfucker that.

    In hindsight, we should have seen it coming. But, we were from the “soft side” of Cherry Hill road, and stayed at the court. Our street smarts were lacking.

    Probably becuase some more thugs had arrived to watch, these two black dudes refused to appear weak on the court.

    After waving a pistol in Scrog’s face, they made him get on his knees and inserted the gun in his mouth.

    I took off running and left poor Scrog to die. Luckily, that didn’t happen.

    Now, you tell me Rutherford. Who held the power in that relationship? The black guy with the gun? Or my friend Scrog?

    On one hand, you require the Rabbit to ignore data that shows black people to be disproportionally murderous.

    Fair enough. Judge each man as just that, a man.

    Yet, you seem to be full blown willing to use conglomerate data, the over riding social dynamics of all black people and all white people through out all of time, as a sort of a prism to view any individual case of alleged racism.

    Only you are allowed to go from the macro to the micro. I am not.

    Now, I suppose you can say that, becuase of your black skin and the baggage that comes with it, you are given a free pass from having to use consistency and logic.

    I will accept that if you really want me to. Just let it be known you are a child to me if true.

  66. So Dodger, you come up with an excuse for Thuggy blocking the Honduras president from entering the US?

    Shhhhh! He’s still trying to figure out why I’m wrong about strict constructionalism, and how they can “discover” the Constitutional authority for the Hell Care Bill.

  67. Brezinski Calls for Obama to Shoot Down Israeli Jets; “A Liberty in Reverse”

    In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don’t read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites — the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:

    DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

    Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

    DB: What if they fly over anyway?

    Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

    Contrary to Brezinski’s half-hearted disclaimer that no one wishes for such an outcome, there are plenty on the left who would delight in a pitched battle between the United States and Israel. Democrats in Congress routinely support resolutions affirming Israel’s right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to assure its own national defense. And Obama has at least paid lip service to the concept. But hostility to Israel among the rank and file is very real on the left — and among “realists.”

    So conjure the image — the Obama administration sending U.S. aircraft up to protect Iran’s airspace and it’s nuclear installations from an attack by a democracy that is one of America’s closest allies. Unfortunately, this may not be so hard to imagine in Israel, where the number of people who believe Obama is pro-Israel is at just 4 percent — and falling. And given Obama’s (literally) submissive posture to the Saudis, his indulgence of the Iranians, and his simultaneously hard-line approach to Israel, it seems even some of Obama’s supporters can savor the possibility of a “reverse Liberty.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/brezinski_calls_for_obama_to_s.asp

  68. NAACP, local media defending thugs in brutal racially motivated attack.

    The St. Louis NAACP has come out defending the teenage thugs who were caught on camera brutally beating a student because he is white. Local St. Louis NAACP race hustler B.T. Rice actually went on Channel 4 (KMOV) St. Louis and blamed Congressman Joe Wilson, not the monsters who carried out the attack. Rice downplayed the incident and said that white resentment of having a black president is fueling anger among whites, not the actual beating!

    Can you imagine if the races had been reversed. B.T. Rice would be leading NAACP protest marches in Belleville right now!

    The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is calling it “bullying” and has disabled comments on the story on its website. The Post-Dispatch, known as one of the most left-wing in the nation, accuses online readers of “racism.”

    Police Capt. Sax, who initially stated on camera that he thought it was a racially motivated attack, has now backed down to pander to the NAACP, the left-wing media, and probably his boss. Did we mention that Belleville has a black police chief?

    The school has issued ten days suspension to the two main perpetrators, a badge of honor in the black community.

    http://cofcc.org/?p=6848

    Looks like Dodger and Thuggy got their race war.

  69. Amen DR, a-fucking-men.

    I truly can’t believe R that you would make the comment that blacks can be biggots but only whites can be racist. That really pisses me off.

    We can’t have a discussion on race because you can’t maturely look at race. How can you for a moment judge me because of the mellan count in my skin as racist but in the same breath bemoan others who do the same about you?

    Bull shit…

  70. I always did like Stephen A. Smith. I did so for the same reason Mark Levin does. He plain and simply was a cool dude to me on ESPN. I had no idea he leaned to the right. He’s a courageous dude.

  71. Regarding the missile defense shield:

    1) The sec of defense Bob Gates who supported it under Bush revised his opinion and supports the current policy.

    2) There are those who say the shield just plain would not have worked.

    3) Who is the greater “enemy”, Russia or Iran? The cold war is over.

    4) Our focus is sea based now and that is an accepted military strategy that Gates supports.

    That’s my high level view based on reports that I have heard. I’m not going to argue the points at any level of greater detail until I learn more.

  72. I think it should be noted that Rutherford is not remotely echoing the black community. His view of racism is textbook leftist dogma. Only professors and race privateers like Jesse Jackson believe this stuff. Hell, it’s textbook textbook…college textbook that is.

    Even here in Detroit, probably the epicenter of racial tension, I would guarantee a poll of the black community would show the majority not to agree with Rutherford. They would concede racism is racism and not some socio-economic phenomena in which only the traditionally oppressed can ever suffer from it.

    No doubt, blacks can sometimes be whipped up into a fervor by Jesse Jackson types (or for that matter legitimately), but all groups can be whipped up into an emotional, irrational fervor.

    Remember, black people are an abstraction to Rutherford. As they are most ivory tower liberals. Hell, Rutherford will begrudgingly admit this.

    So, don’t fret.

    Rutherford’s theory of racism is irreconcilable as it is illogical. If it was true, nothing could ever be resolved, no headway could ever be made.

    The day the black community, I’m talking real people, buy into Rutherford and his Harvard Sociology Department bull shit is the day Rabbit declares black people not to be fellow Americans and, instead, enemies.

    That’s exactly why Tex told Rutherford to bring it on.

    As Axel Rose said, “You’re one in a million baby, your a shooting star.”

    Thank God for common folk.
    __________________________________________________
    In fact, I will go on a limb and say even sensico would agree with me. And she loves dissagreeing with me.

    Black people are capable of being racist just as white people are. Screw somebody over due to the color of their skin and its….racism.

  73. Thuggy’s post racial America

    “Two brutal racially motivated school bus attacks in a three day period in the St. Louis area. This is not an isolated event. This is a nationwide epidemic of brutal black on white violence.”

    Good lawd, Elric must have written this article. Only Elric could jump from two incidents in St. Louis to a nationwide epidemic in one sweeping statement.

    All I can say is there sure seem to be a lot of small skinny white kids in St. Louis. Perhaps they need their phys ed programs beefed up a bit? Probably conservative budget cuts to blame for that. 🙂

  74. Not that Dodger will comment on this

    Look, the fact is ACORN’s charter was probably right on the money. All community activism is right on the money because communities cannot progress without grassroots action. In other articles I have advocated for inner city residents to take control of their future and stop waiting for help from the establishment, Organizations like ACORN help them do that.

    ACORN is beset right now by corruption. It needs a clean up. Doesn’t mean the organization is evil. It’s gone off the rails and needs to get straight again. Until then, they don’t deserve government subsidies (which they’re not getting anymore) and they do deserve the President’s condemnation of current practices. Although really, I’d rather see the President talking about health care than ACORN. Truth is, with all the problems that beset us now, ACORN is a mole on the ass of an elephant.

  75. I wonder what Rutherford’s take is on the very real racism within the black community. Light skinned vs. Dark skinned.

    This goes way deeper then just jokes and concepts of sexual attraction within the black community. We’re talking jobs here.

    While I’m sure he would love to bore us with societal origins that we all already know, could he call it racism and still keep shoveling the same shit?

  76. Rabbit, your distinction between macro and micro is important. When I talk about racism and power, I’m talking macro. Clearly in your school yard incident, the dude with the gun had power big time. In every “micro-incident” the power lies with the person who has the “bigger stick”. That’s not politics. That’s human interaction.

    On a political level, power is controlled by those with the most money and the highest political positions. In this country, that is still for the most part, white people.

    None of this excuses the behavior of the trash-talking gun-toting b-ball player. I’m glad your friend survived the incident and I can place a pretty good wager that the dude in question is either dead or in prison now.

  77. Rabbit,

    I agree with your assessment of Rutherford – his opinion more leftist dogma than the black community. Rutherford is no more related to the common black man than I am. He’d be as out of place in the hood as me.

    His statement concerning race is so inane, only those who rely on the Washington Post, NYT, and MSNBC for their news would swallow that absolute horseshit. Probably one of the stupidest statements I’ve ever read as a matter of fact. And that’s the second time Mr. Lawson has spoken on the matter. I must assume that he thinks it really clever.

    That is textbook Paul Krugman/Henry Gates Jr. garbage, and only the pointy-headed Ivy league types could possibly think like that. It’s meant to inflame and nothing else – on par with calling people Nazi and a losing proposition that 95% of America isn’t going to buy into – even the blacks.

    That is why I consider most of the Ivy League types short of the engineers and medical staff absolutely worthless and of no value. Grade inflation to the max. But if Rutherford thinks he can strengthen Obama’s hand within that context, let him try…I can hardly wait to see the results.

  78. He’s still trying to figure out why I’m wrong about strict constructionalism…

    LOL, I don’t need to “figure it out”. We disagree on this. As I have said before if you want amendments for everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution than we’re looking at legislative gridlock and hundreds of Constitutional amendments. I notice you did not answer Hippieprof’s question in the previous thread:

    “So – that old “general welfare” clause in Article 1 does not apply to health care? ”

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

    What say you BiW?

  79. All politics is local. And all racism boils down to the color of a single motherfucker’s skin.

    Macro anything is just that. Yet another one of your abstractions.

    You infer that those with the most political power have some agenda to hook white people up. They have an agenda all right. But it has nothing to with white people, just some people who are white. (And even that has obviously changed these days)

    I’m so white my ass has a tinge of blue in the winter time. Where is my due and proper from my “boys” with the power?

    Now, I suppose you can make the argument that Rabbit’s success is some how tied to his white skin.

    We can have the argument on another day.

    However, even if that were true, I would not have enjoyed my “white privilege” because of some hidden ghost hand connected to the ghost arm of a secretive political power construct in Washington D.C.

    Instead, I would have interviewed for my last job and hired by a local yocal.

    You seriously need to start drawing Venn Diagrams out and thinking shit through.

  80. Flashback Video: Obama in 2001 Says the Constitution is a “Charter of Negative Liberties

    LOL I love these videos that flash up a bunch of words to tell you what you should have just heard on the audio.

    Personally, I didn’t hear redistribution of wealth specifically but redistribution of stuff … like power as well as wealth.

    As for the Constitution being a charter of negative liberties, I’m not quite sure where he’s coming from on that one. I’d need a bigger authority on the constitution to weigh in here but I only see the Constitution as being a charter of negative liberties by omission … hence the need for amendments that expanded liberties.

  81. In fact, I will go on a limb and say even sensico would agree with me.

    I don’t think that limb goes out too far. I’ve seen Sensico be awfully easy going and benefit-of-the-doubt racially.

    I think it is probably a matter of age. I came of age toward the end of the black radical age. Nowadays you have moderate, less bombastic leaders like Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker and former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford Jr. Sensico is coming of age in a time when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are relics of a time gone by.

    So yes, Rabbit, I think you are right that Sensico would call me out on this.

  82. “hence the need for amendments that expanded liberties.”-Rutherford

    You certainly paid attention in sociology class, but you must have fallen asleep during your course on the American Revolution.

    Gorilla is exactly right. Our rights are “God given”.

    They are natural rights. Our natural rights.

    Nothing “gives” us these rights. Not even the constitution. That document only protects them.

    The nature of our rights has always stayed the same, despite amendments.

    Don’t believe me? Ask John Locke or Thomas Jefferson.

    Your embarrassingly wrong on this one.

    It’s amazing how little understanding liberals have of the original liberals.

  83. I wonder what Rutherford’s take is on the very real racism within the black community. Light skinned vs. Dark skinned.

    As a light skinned black, I’m very aware of this insane distinction among black people. (By the way, it falls into my Sneetches theory of life. namely that any group of people no matter how similar will find some distinction to divide themselves and seek a position of superiority.)

    It is an interesting idea to call this racism, as it is hatred within the same race. It is certainly an “ism” of some kind and as I said before it is pretty absurd.

  84. “I came of age toward the end of the black radical age.”-Rutherford

    Total bull shit. Your on a roll.

    The “black radical age” is still mainstream university fodder.

    Yet, mainstream blacks have never bought into it. Not in 1960. 1960. 1970 etc.

    Now, there has always been a huge streak of straight up whitey hating racism with in the black community. One that is growing smaller by the day.

    However, that is totally a different piece of fruit then the socio-economic theory of racism.

  85. You seriously need to start drawing Venn Diagrams out and thinking shit through.

    You make a good point here Rabbit (not about the Venn diagrams LOL). It is insane to say that all whites benefit from the white power structure. In fact, I think economics trumps race every time. That is why poor white people are pretty much as hopelessly lost as poor black folk. The power structure isn’t going to do much for the little guy regardless of skin color.

    Now this will piss you off, but I think one disadvantage some white people have is they have been led to believe this is “their country” (as in “I want my country back”) and they’re too caught up in being white to see they’re no better off than lots of black folk. It’s the whole “What’s the Matter with Kansas” phenom. White folk identifying with their oppressors instead of identifying with the folks who struggle along side them, who happen to be black.

    (Let the slings and arrows fly!)

  86. Our rights are “God given”.

    I answered this already, perhaps in another thread. If affordable health care is a right, then our country has robbed us of this God given right and we need laws to restore that right.

  87. “Let the slings and arrows fly!”-Rutherford

    Dude. I have no target to shoot my arrows. Your all over the place. You have blatantly contradicted your theory on race.

    Your leftist ideology seems to be a hodgepodge of other people’s ideas.

    If I was rich I’d buy you a plane ticket to Christmas Island or some shit so that you can merely think your shit through.

    You do recieve extra credit for my Hard Cider question. So maybe that will be a little bit of an esteem builder.

    Other then that, you’re a chew toy tonight.

  88. “If affordable health care is a right, then our country has robbed us of this God given right and we need laws to restore that right.”

    So, whats your point? That’s a big “if”.

  89. “I came of age toward the end of the black radical age.”-Rutherford
    Total bull shit. Your on a roll.

    You’re going to tell me that our notion of a black leader has not changed in the past 35 to 40 years? I submit young folk don’t understand Jesse Jackson today. They did back in the late 60’s/early 70’s. The dude was crying in Grant Park not just ‘cos he was happy Barack got elected but because he was saying “sh*t my time has passed. I am totally passe.” Hell, he wanted to cut Obama’s nuts off cos he wasn’t radical enough.

    I don’t know where you get the idea this is bull sh*t. Sensico doesn’t have the same reference point for a civil rights leader as I do. I don’t have the same reference point as my father does. Why is that bullsh*t?

    I’ll read your answer tomorrow …. I’m going to bed.

  90. No. Your reference point is through academia.

    Over time, as institutionalized racism disappeared, and with racism slowly on the decline, your theory in which it is impossible for the traditionally oppressed to be racist started cropping up more and more among the elites.

    The message subtly changed from one of equality to one of uniqueness.

    Yet, for the most part, the black masses have always stuck with MLK’s original message of equality.

    Jesse Jackson is known for sticking up for neighborhoods or for individuals after a specific event.

    When black people emotionally hit the streets in protest, with Jesse walking in front of them, they are pissed off over something tangible.

    A cop killing a local kid, for example.

    They are not pouring into the streets with chants on abstract theories or philosophical notions of what constitutes the oppressor or what constitutes racism. They are not holding signs with absolutes written on them about the socio-economic power structures and its relation to racism.

    Right or wrong. Hoodwinked by Jesse or not. They’re pissed off over some shit that went down.

    The only area where the mainstream has bought into some of your bull shit is in the realm of quotas or affirmative action.

    But this equals cash money. Real shit.

    Plus, one can easily make an argument for affirmative action and still hold it possible for blacks to be racist towards whites in other ways that are not acceptable.

    Rutherford, I am arguing against something very specific, your theory on racism (Oddly enough, you did a pretty good job of arguing against your own theory at one point tonight). I’m also making a point that your theory has never been accepted by the mainstream.

    No matter what decade, I think most black people would admit black people are capable of being racist.

    Any white kid growing up near or in a black community knows this to be true.

    Now, maybe this all comes down to a matter of semantics with you.

    Racism vs. Bigotry.

    If so, this is equally lame because you are deceitfully being intellectually dishonest in order to take ownership of the potent R word with the hope of being more politically ferocious in some future debate.

    What a nice chess piece it would be for you.

  91. “White folk identifying with their oppressors instead of identifying with the folks who struggle along side them, who happen to be black.” Rutherford Lawson

    “prejudice cuts both ways. Racism does not. Racism is the currency of the powerful. Although I will correct myself here. Since more and more blacks are coming into power (our President being a prime example) black on white racism is indeed a possibility for the first time in our history, one that probably scares the living crap out of whites (payback, as they say, is indeed a bitch).”-Rutherford Lawson

    I can’t wait to see how Rutherford defends both these points at the same time.

  92. I notice you did not answer Hippieprof’s question in the previous thread:

    Honestly, I didn’t see it. Please refer him to this answer so I don’t have to repeat myself.

    “So – that old “general welfare” clause in Article 1 does not apply to health care? ”

    No, it doesn’t. Any reasonably intelligent lawyer in my tribe can concoct a theoretical legal argument to support a conclusion that they want to reach. It simply does not change the fact that they have to mystically ascertain something that is not there. Even members of my tribe with lower than average intellects realize that the law is not served by this twisting and torture of the phrasiology to confer a constitutional status upon a desired result, as demonstrated by this dimmer than average ‘constitutional scholar’: (starting around 3:45)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4
    (“you could craft theoretical justifications for it legally…”)
    I take this as an affirmation of my point about strict constructionism being the only honest method of interpretation, because the “living document” tack takes you down the road of subjective standards employed by unelected jurists who use those standards to discover heretofore unknown and unrecognized law in the body of what were the formerly objective standards set forth in the Constitution. If you want to do something that is not Consititutional, then use the existing available process to change that. Its called “Amendment”, and unlike judicial activism, which is an affront to the republican (small ‘r’) nature of our society, it allows for a majority of the society to agree with you, rather than empowering a minority to impose its will on the rest of us through judicial usurpation of legislative power.

    As I have said before if you want amendments for everything not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution than we’re looking at legislative gridlock and hundreds of Constitutional amendments.

    Or not. You see, the reason for specifically enumerated powers was the belief that anything not specifically enumerated was rightfully the purview of the states. That is the reason for Tenth Amendment. The only exception would be the Necessary and Proper clause, which gives Congress the necesaary authority to make the laws necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. When those the powers not delegated to the Congress are properly handled at the state level, then there is no need for Amendment, but, if there is a perception that something should rightly be under the authority of the federal government, then it can be brought as an Amendment, and if enough people agree, then it can be made so.

    The Congress was not designed to be efficient. Gridlock was to be preferred over compromise, which typically results in bad legislation. Only a progressive, immersed and seasoned in the fallacious belief that “Something Must Be Done!!!” is preferable to debate…real debate, not what passes for it these days, deliberation, and the passage of good and necessary laws.

    “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

    What say you BiW?

    What say I? I say you aren’t reading very carefully. This clause grants Congress the power to tax and spend, NOT the power to make laws for “the General Welfare.”

    And before you try to dodge with a cry of “Semantics!”, consider carefully that the gentlemen who wrote this document were very careful with their wording. Again, this clause means what it says.
    [You might also spend some time considering why these careful and deliberate authors did not capitalize “general” with “Welfare”; no, I don’t have another treatise to cite, but as a lawyer, I find it curious.]

    But you do not have to take my word for it.

    From Corwin and Peltason’s Understanding the Constitution, Twelveth edition, which was a seminal text for all undergraduate Constitutional Law courses:

    “A word of caution: the general welfare clause is tied to the power to tax and to spend; no general power is granted to Congress to legislate for the general welfare. But as noted in the discussion of federalism, liberal construction of congressional powers and the demands of our times have removed any serious constitutional limits stemming from this clause.
    James Madison argued that Congress could tax and spend only to carry out one of its other granted powers-that is, Congress could tax and spend to establish post offices and post roads (Section 8, paragraph 7), to regulate commerce with foreign nations (Section 8, paragraph 3), and so on.”

    Even if you choose to continue the modern Congressional trend of misreading this clause to find a right to legislate for the general welfare, this still wouldn’t qualify. If you say that it is necessary for the general welfare for everyone to have “affordable” health care, the legislation contemplated doesn’t provide that, as it merely makes the government a competitor with the private sector to provide health insurance.
    If you say that it is in the general welfare to provide “affordable” health insurance for everyone, it still fails to accomplish that, as even the Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers has admitted that it will still leave millions uninsured. Further, mandating that we are all made (directly or indirectly) to pay for a “benefit” affecting something so personal is truly offensive to the very idea that we are a nation of free people who do not exist to serve our government, as application to something applying directly to the well being of individuals strikes deep into the firewall of privacy in all things personal and private to an individual, starting with the Fourth Amendment, and its penumbra that has found the right of privacy in so many other areas of our lives as well. (Google Griswold v. Connecticut)

    “You’ll have health insurance, and even if you don’t, you’ll still pay us!” is a statement that should only illicit one response from free men who wish to remain that way: gunfire.

    I don’t blame you for being wrong about this. The modern American has heard so many times before that the Government is the solution to every problem that many of them fail to understand that if it isn’t about Government trying to rectify the result of a previous “solution”, then its solution should be no more than required. I believe you already acknowledged that there were other things to be tried…tort reform, which would properly belong to the states, and in places where it has already been tried, like Texas, it has already made a positive impact, letting customers chose from companies out of state, etc. You’re on the right track, you just need to finish educating yourself about which duties properly belong where.

    In closing, before you expound further on the “Hamiltonian view of interpretation”, I leave you with the following, from the Federalist # 33, written by Hamilton, who was addressing criticism of the “Necessary and Proper clause” and the “Supremacy clause”:

    “But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the NECESSITY and PROPRIETY of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. “

    The rationale that “The Government has been usurping power for years, why stop them now?” simply won’t cut it. When we know that Government has been doing something wrong for decades, we have a duty to correct that error, not to allow it to compound with our acquiesence. If this wasn’t true, then slavery would still be the law of the land. On the matter of H.R. 3200, the Congress simply does not possess the authority to do what it proposes. It didn’t have the authority with Social Security, or with Medicare, either. But that is no excuse to let them brew up another pot of failure, and pour a cup for the entire nation without being asked, no demanded to tell us where they get the authority. And when the answer is not satisfactory, then they should be told “NO.” until they finally understand that “NO” means “NO”.

  93. As for the Constitution being a charter of negative liberties, I’m not quite sure where he’s coming from on that one. I’d need a bigger authority on the constitution to weigh in here but I only see the Constitution as being a charter of negative liberties by omission … hence the need for amendments that expanded liberties.

    Let me help you out with this one. What the self-proclaimed ‘constitutional scholar’ is lamenting is that the Constitution was intended to preserve the people’s rights from the infringment of Government, and as such, places limitations on what Government can do, and, in the care of responsible leaders, these limitations are also a limit on Government’s ambitions and designs with regard to the rights of the people. Believing as he does in the dubious notions of “social justice” and the enormous power of a government strong enough to give life to such concepts, these limitations are completely unacceptable to him. Viewing the Constitution and its history through a glass darkly in this fashion, the only conclusion that he can arrive at is that the Constitution is “deeply flawed” and only he, in his benevolent wisdom can “fix” those flaws. Such a belief isn’t just wrong, it is hubris on a galactic level, and if he acts upon it, it will be as divisive as any issue this nation has ever faced.

  94. “Good lawd, Elric must have written this article. Only Elric could jump from two incidents in St. Louis to a nationwide epidemic in one sweeping statement.”

    Taking a page from the race hustlers like Sharpton

    “All I can say is there sure seem to be a lot of small skinny white kids in St. Louis. Perhaps they need their phys ed programs beefed up a bit? Probably conservative budget cuts to blame for that.”

    Nice you cracking jokes about kids getting ganged up and beaten. Very leftist of you.

  95. “Now this will piss you off, but I think one disadvantage some white people have is they have been led to believe this is “their country” (as in “I want my country back”) and they’re too caught up in being white to see they’re no better off than lots of black folk.”

    Their you go again seeing race when white people say they want it back. Maybe white people dont like this nation’s slide into socialism. Your racist views are getting tiresome.

  96. Airplane shoe bomber Richard C. Reid no longer faces severe limits on his prison activities or communications after the Obama administration quietly ended years of hard-nosed curbs against the British-born al-Qaeda terrorist.

    This summer the Justice Department halted six years of measures that kept Reid from associating or praying with fellow jailed Muslim terrorists, and limited his access to the news media and pen pals.

    That move has outraged victims of al-Qaeda and security experts. The recommendation to lift the restrictions was made with input from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, which prosecuted Reid in 2002, federal officials said.

    “Terrorists should be held as incommunicado as possible,” said Howard Safir, a former New York City police commissioner and CEO of Safir Rosetti, a division of Global Options Inc., a security consulting firm. “If they can communicate with the outside world, they can direct other people to commit terrorist acts.”

    An emotional Hermis Moutardier, one of the flight attendants who thwarted Reid’s botched shoe bombing and was injured by the hulking terrorist, reacted with anger upon learning the news from the Herald by phone Friday.

    “What’s wrong with our system?!” cried Moutardier, 54, who lives in Florida and still works as a flight attendant. “I am concerned about the safety of my country, my fellow citizens, my children, the public buildings, that’s my concern.”

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/unfuckingreal-obama-administration-ends-severe-limits-on-shoe-bomber-richard-reids-activities-in-pri.html

    Whose is Thuggy on again Dodger?

  97. Poll: What was the Obamateurism of the Week?
    posted at 9:00 am on September 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    It’s that time of the week again, where we stop taking profit off the top — of whatever — and spend time with the people who are so close to us that we can’t get their names straight. Don’t forget any special anniversaries that may take place this weekend, although lately that’s been the perfect time to forget who your friends are. In the long term, we could probably find four trillion Obamateurisms for this poll, while we pretend that it doesn’t change the poll. Vote while you still can…

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/20/poll-what-was-the-obamateurism-of-the-week-15/

    Dont forget to vote

  98. “@joanwalsh I’m sorry Joan but it’s time to fire Camille Paglia’s crazy ass. You don’t need a birther on your staff during these crazy times.”

    Very ironic went you didnt protest Thuggy hiring a racist marxist troother.

  99. I see Rutherford is still on the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” kick too. More leftist propaganda and arrogance. Here’s what is the matter with Kansas Rutherford.

    NOTHING.

    The problems in America reside in your Ivy League neck of the woods. The people in charge of banking, Wall Street and power politics that have practically bankrupt the country are Ivy – not Kansas. They can’t find their butt with both hands, but they do know greed, corruption, and self-servitude. People from Kansas aren’t that stupid. People from Harvard are.

    Think I’m wrong Rutherford, why don’t you fly from your lofty perch and take a trip to Kansas to discover for yourself. What you will find in most places is a sense of community, a sense of worship, and a sense of friendliness; good people, in other words. Something that big shots from big city Connecticut are clueless for the most part. But you go on convincing yourself that living on top of each other is an incredibly high quality of life. 😉

  100. Tex,

    I have to admit, ppl in the North East are arrogant and rude. Just this morning, I almost felt like punching out some woman. You see, for some reason the woman has to blow leaves off her side walk everyday. I dont have a problem with that. The problem I have is she friggin does it early in the morning. Well sometimes my wife works at night so she sleeps in til later in the morning. So finally I asked her about it. She said she was done and I explained that my wife was sleeping in. She didnt care. She said her husband works nights too. What a bitch. True story.

  101. I just want to start off by saying that everyone needs to read BiW’s comments, and then reread them. This is an extremely critical- and dare I say spot on review- of how our political system is suppose to work. The point he makes about moderates is particularly pithy.

    I’m glad your friend survived the incident and I can place a pretty good wager that the dude in question is either dead or in prison now.” — R

    To be a statistic used to show how racist the system is no doubt…
    As a light skinned black, I’m very aware of this insane distinction among black people. (By the way, it falls into my Sneetches theory of life. namely that any group of people no matter how similar will find some distinction to divide themselves and seek a position of superiority.) ” – R

    How about the notion of victimhood? Tell us R, how does the self perception of victim play into this? Surely, this is a major contributor, I mean, to see everything through the lens of race- even when others don’t- requires a certain frame of mind.

    That is why poor white people are pretty much as hopelessly lost as poor black folk. ” – R

    Except that they don’t get the pleasure of government sponsored prejudicial programs…

    …and they’re too caught up in being white to see they’re no better off than lots of black folk. ” – R

    What the fuck does this mean? This game of macro-stereotypes you’re playing is only going to bite you in the ass, because if we are to play them, then macro statistics apply.

    Again, this is just bull shit…

  102. Obama launches press campaign to push Paterson out of NY governor race
    posted at 11:00 am on September 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    What do party leaders do when an incumbent insists on running for re-election even when he’s polling just above ACORN a year before the election? Usually, they quietly signal a lack of support or find another job for them to take as an incentive to withdrawing and allowing a better candidate to sail through a primary without taking intra-party damage that could give the opposing party an advantage in the general election. And when that party leader is the current President of the United States, quietly usually becomes sub-audible.

    Not for this President, however, as New York Governor David Paterson discovered when he opened his New York Times this morning:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/20/obama-launches-press-campaign-to-push-paterson-out-of-ny-governor-race/

    What a thug. Shame he wasnt this forceful towards Iran.

  103. BiW’s comments are so dead on that I think I’m going to steal sections of it and use it as my own work in other forums.

    Actually, this is the only forum I post on, so I don’t think I can get away with.

    But yeah, its weird how the constitution is some kind of dirty word to libs these days. They hate it.

  104. I haven’t been able to focus on politics that much so it’s my first time seeing the Pelosi video and those signs. It really breaks my heart that these fringe racists of the right have to go to such extremes in lynch mob mentality. I understand that people are angry but there needs to be civility.

    We need a strong 2 party system and right now the GOP has fallen into the craziness with only a few of their party leaders acting in civil manner. When did having class become out of style? Lets face it, the GOP has changed drastically from what I remembered it to be. And now people don’t even respect their own party enough to realize they’re ruining it.

    It’s hilarious how whenever you get in a race debate with a republican they like to say they’re the party of Lincoln and MLK was a republican. Well apparently they like to name drop but don’t uphold the same values and ideals.

    The state of our two party system right now is, Republicans make and outrageous claim thus, the party of fringe lunatics, and Democrats constantly have to refute their ignorant claims thus, the party of fact checkers.

  105. BiW,

    Just had a chance to read your submission. Very nice! 🙂

    Rutherford will, of course, argue against its merit because it doesn’t meet with his preconceived notions of what “should be” and not “what is.” I especially liked the part of the Tenth Amendment. To me, the Amendment is very frank and straightforward with little or nothing left to the imagination.

    In addition, the idea of a “living, breathing” Constitutional document is leftist dogma used to push their agenda through judicial fiat and nothing more. The fact that we have let them left get away with this is a shame upon us all. Hopefully, times are a changing.

    I have said here before and will say again, the power of this country assuming its citizens would simply abide by the founding principles, lies with the people and not its representatives. It is in our best interests to revert back to this principle while there is still time.

    And exactly the reason I am of the opinion that the smallest government possible is the best government possible.

  106. “It really breaks my heart that these fringe racists of the right have to go to such extremes in lynch mob mentality.”

    Seems Denseico is a race baiting racist as well.

  107. Another problem with the GOP is that they never want to point out when they’ve gone too far, or else they would admit that they’re the ones doing the race baiting. It’s quite interesting how when democrats point out and show the type of signs being displayed at these events that we get called “playing the race card”. If republicans would just stop showing the racist signs then no one would have to call you all out on it.

  108. “It’s quite interesting how when democrats point out and show the type of signs being displayed at these events that we get called “playing the race card”.”

    Signs like what moron?

  109. A Tale Of Two Leaders
    posted at 12:00 pm on September 20, 2009 by Mitch_Berg
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Earlier this week, on the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland at the beginning of World War II, President Obama announced that the United States is reneging on a promise to build a missile defense shield against future, likely Iranian nuclear missiles. This program was started under Bush, enacted in Poland and the Czech Republican at the cost of immense political capital to the Polish and Czech governments.

    The date, of course, was Vladimir Putin’s way of telling the recalcitrant, west-leaning, NATO-joining Poles that he’s watching them.

    But the reverse on the missile program? That was all Obama. The President seems to think, as Jimmy Carter did, that if he just gives a few more concessions to Putin, to the Mullahs, to the world’s thugs and gangsters, that eventually even they’ll start believing in all the Hope and Change.

    Of course, as we saw earlier this summer, earnest promises of Hope and Change didn’t stop the mullahs from gunning down protesters in the streets of Teheran.

    What a contrast with thirty years ago, as Jeffrey Lord noted earlier this summer in American Spectator:

    One need look no further than President Obama’s cautiously timid response to the demands of freedom from Iranians. Contrast this with Reagan’s response to similar demands from Poles in the 1980s and the miserable inadequacy of the Obama foreign policy is thrust into a stark and shameful relief.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/20/a-tale-of-two-leaders/

  110. Elric,

    Densico has the Rutherford Lawson malady X 10. Select memory, selective outrage, unbelievable double standards.

    In addition, Densico hasn’t been around the block like Rutherford, so unlike Rutherford, she actually believes the bullshit she submits. 🙄

  111. Hey guys, sensico might be on to something. Go to her blog. it’s a celebration! 300,000 is a lot of people! You go girl!

  112. “It really breaks my heart that these fringe racists of the right have to go to such extremes in lynch mob mentality.”

    Irresponsible hyperbole that disrespects the memory and the sacrifices of those who lived and died in an age of true “lynch mob mentality.”

    Those who continue to cry racism when faced with disagreement and dissent who can demonstrate no more basis for their breatless alarms than the fact that “they heard it in the air” or extrapolated and or divined it from the written expressions of plain-speaking people are the ones being divisive as they continue to provoke the wrath of patient men.

  113. Hey guys, sensico might be on to something. Go to her blog. it’s a celebration! 300,000 is a lot of people! You go girl!

    Make that 300,001. I had to look – wished I hadn’t. Probably 299,000 of them with Descico continually clicking on blog to drive up traffic.

  114. Tex,

    Thuggy has selective memory too. He cant remember his daughetr’s health care issue. cant remember their names and cant remember where he met his wife. Took Dhimmi Carter longer to incur dementia.

  115. Oh my: Steele plays the race card on Obama over Paterson
    posted at 5:33 pm on September 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Comedy gold from the RNC chairman, cheekily borrowing Alinsky Rule 4 to rub the left’s face in its own bottom-feeding racial demagoguery. His argument’s absurd, of course, and deliberately so: Imagine believing that Obama hates black people … when we all know it’s blind people that he really hates.

    Paterson responded this afternoon to the The One’s nudge by kinda sorta telling him to get bent. Exit question: Is Paterson racist?

  116. Well thanks, and very funny Tex, you know you secretly visit my blog 😛 I don’t have time to click on my own blog, plus wordpress doesn’t count blog owners visits to their own blog! My teeny-tiny blog is like a widdle toodler only 1.5 years old started at the time when I thought Hillary had no chance and focused on Obama v. McCain, now I’m just focusing on the stupidity of the GOP, but, I won’t be blogging as often as I have school to deal with.

    I really have nothing to add right now as I just love to see republicans get overly defensive and start embracing and defending the racists in their party. All you all have to say is that they aren’t representative of the party and stop giving them air time. But, no, you continue to defend racists thinking you’re defending your party when you’re only hurting it.

    Others would not have to constantly call out and fact check the fringe lunatics if people like Limbaugh, Wilson, and Glenn Beck weren’t giving fringe racist lunatics their 15 minutes of fame.

  117. plus wordpress doesn’t count blog owners visits to their own blog!*

    *if you are logged in.

    I really have nothing to add right now

    And you decided to prove it by speaking anyway. Thank you?

    as I just love to see republicans get overly defensive and start embracing and defending the racists in their party. All you all have to say is that they aren’t representative of the party and stop giving them air time. But, no, you continue to defend racists thinking you’re defending your party when you’re only hurting it.

    Well, I can’t speak for Tex, DR, or Gorilla, but it seems to me that you first assume that anyone who can identify and expound on the ways the left is currently crying wolf with its charges of racism is a republican. I do not have to support what you oppose to criticise the folly in the actions of the Dems on the left. You can take that straight from the mouth of a conservative who is not at all enamoured with the Republican Party.

    Secondly, the reason the Republican Party is currently sucking the hindmost is because they have been taking advice on the managment of the party from the Left, and as a result, has become so moderate that they do not offer anything other than a lighter brand of the insanity currently peddled by the Democrats. When it returns to conservative principals, which it inevitably will when then party rank and file remove their collective head from their rectum, then I will consider backing them and giving them my vote. Sadly, until then, it is likely that our friends on the left will continue cratering the economy, taxing the eyes out of anything that moves, and generally misinterpreting the Constitution as they struggle to breathe life into an agenda based on the corrosive notions of political correctness, moral relativism, and flying unicorns that crap Skittles.

  118. Quotes of the day
    posted at 10:20 pm on September 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

    OBAMA: You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

    OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not committing to — to cut off the federal funding?

    OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.

    ***
    “Independent prosecutors should not be appointed lightly. But in this case, there are good reasons why Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and other political appointees in the Justice Department should step aside. First, although no allegations have yet touched the Obama campaign, ACORN did have significant ties to the campaign and other progressive causes. Published reports show that ACORN and its subsidiaries received some $800,000 from the Obama campaign to get out the vote. Second, ACORN is intimately tied to the Service Employees International Union, one of President Barack Obama’s most powerful and vocal supporters…

    What we have seen on tape cries out for a serious, independent investigation to determine if ACORN and its affiliates are a criminal enterprise, whether they have spent federal grants lawfully, whether they helped taxpayers file fraudulent returns, and whether they violated laws prohibiting tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan politics. These are big questions, and the public needs to know that Washington’s answers are fair and impartial.”

    ***
    “Now that the White House supports an investigation, Congress should make sure to investigate:

    1) How Team Obama hid its $800,000 campaign payment to ACORN through front group ‘Citizen Services, Inc.’;

    2) How Team Obama shared donor lists with the president’s old employer, ACORN affiliate Project Vote, a 501(c)(3) organization, which is prohibited from engaging in political activity (Mr. President, meet Anita MonCrief);

    3) And how Project Vote and hundreds of myriad entities intermingled non-profit, tax-exempt funding with the national ACORN flagship’s political operations — a buried story Obama would know about if he read NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom’s report last October before she was muzzled as Election Day drew near.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/20/quotes-of-the-day-159/

  119. (The Hill)- The president said he is “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

    “I haven’t seen detailed proposals yet, but I’ll be happy to look at them,” Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

    Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin’s Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

    Obama said that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy,” but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting — especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/shocker-obama-open-to-bailing-out-msm.html

    And the fascism continues

  120. Obama said that good journalism is “critical to the health of our democracy,”

    He should know. A critical lack of it made him the man he is today.

    Isn’ t that the truth! Now that THE BOMBA has made it clear he is supportive of a newspaper bailout, I give him kudos for recognizing that very fact BiW.

    If THE BOMBA can get newspapers to masquerade like PBS as neutral and balanced while shilling for “progressive” politics and godless heretics like the Jesus Seminar, then THE BOMBA can at least be sure that he’ll still have the MSM in his back pocket to lie to his political advantage at the taxpayer’s expense.

    Very clever on THE BOMBA’s behalf actually…anybody with a brain will see thru it, but it won’t matter with the teleprompter and Greek columns to half of the American public who will welcome another sellout with open arms and a great idea. They don’t pay for anything anyway.

  121. There is a segment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe called “What Did We Learn Today?” So before I go to bed (spent day out with family today), what did we learn today?

    1) Sensico reached a milestone on her blog (congrats) and got razzed for it by the Conservative Knights of the Round Table. I’m here to fully confess that I probably owe at least half my blog hits to Elric whom I am sure has a bot running to check comments every five minutes. 🙂

    2) Speaking of Elric, we learned today that Elric is married. Assuming that Elric is actually a man (we don’t know) this means either he was lying on his Myspace page or he’s lying now, OR (brace yourself DR) he is in one of those new age marriages where the wife doesn’t care that her husband is gay. Hey que sera sera!!! Vive le differance. Oooo la la. More power to you Elric. (Although if the gay thing on your myspace page was a joke, it’s pretty damn juvenile and shows just how little respect you have for the gay community.)

    3) BiW’s constitutional analysis merits more time than I could give it today … will read with care tomorrow.

    4) I have to hand one thing to Elric. Either he subscribes to my Twitter feed or he reads it on my sidebar. Either way, he is the absolute most thorough of my readers, leaving no opportunity untapped to argue with me. Bravo dude. Now all you need to do is call into the internet radio show and you’ll have me completely covered.

    5) Tex’s analysis of What’s the Matter with Kansas shows that like me, he has not read the book, but unlike me, has no understanding of the book’s premise. The book makes no claim about the relative merits of the midwest to the northeast. It simply says that it is odd that “ordinary folk” identify with the rich instead of with their own kind, and continually vote into office those who will not advance the ordinary man’s agenda.

    6) Still waiting for someone besides Tex to acknowledge that the signs I’ve posted in this article are at the very least in poor taste. As long as you don’t denounce the loons, you don’t deserve to have your message heard, since the loons are drowning you out.

    7) “Your racist views are getting tiresome” — Elric is beginning to sound like the old Mike Myers character Dieter from SNL. I expect any minute now he will ask me to touch his monkey and then declare “now is the time on Sprockets when we dance.” 😀

    (Pardon the subtitles, only version on YouTube I could find)

  122. Tex has no bot – but a Histology book keeps him coming back often to the Rutherford Lawson site to argue and keep his sanity. Having said that:

    Tex’s analysis of What’s the Matter with Kansas shows that like me, he has not read the book, but unlike me, has no understanding of the book’s premise. The book makes no claim about the relative merits of the midwest to the northeast. It simply says that it is odd that “ordinary folk” identify with the rich instead of with their own kind, and continually vote into office those who will not advance the ordinary man’s agenda.

    You are correct – I have not read the book, nor will I. I simply assumed (and I suppose falsely) that from title that it was another patronizing attempt at some dunce cap from the east coast to subject us minions to wisdom. However, to address your comment Rutherford, it is not that Midwestern folk identify with the rich, but like so many elections, only the rich can afford to advertise where name recognition generally means everything. I believe this helps to explain why we continue to have incompetent ex-jocks and has-been Hollywood types elected to office, further polluting the clean waters of pure America. This is, of course, one step above the ambulance chasing and skirt chasing schmucks like John Edwards which make up a great majority of the Democrat party representation. In this case, even Al Franken better than the philandering, rich thief. 🙂

  123. “I’m here to fully confess that I probably owe at least half my blog hits to Elric whom I am sure has a bot running to check comments every five minutes.”

    Why would I have to do that when most of your comments come real late at night when you dont have to face anyone?

    BTW You find out why Thuggy allowed all those despots in but barred the president of Honduras?

  124. Still waiting for someone besides Tex to acknowledge that the signs I’ve posted in this article are at the very least in poor taste. As long as you don’t denounce the loons, you don’t deserve to have your message heard, since the loons are drowning you out.

    The zoo sign? Eehhhh. An attempt to be clever that likely only impressed the 8th grader who came up with it.

    The “this time” sign? I understand the sentiment, having tapped it with a post of my own a few weeks back that went far and wide, and even came back to me in an email. I’m still getting hits on it every day. I’d explain more about the serious undercurrent of discontent with the breathtaking irresponsibility of this Congress and administration, and the deaf ear response given to it by elected officials, but since it could only be taken as “racism”, I’ll save the syntax and my bandwidth.

  125. Elric says: “Yeah its a load of crap too. I asked him if opposing Pelosi makes me sexist. Never got an answer.”

    Geez – you guys moved the thread without telling me….

    😉

    Elric, I think I did answer you. To repeat, there are tests of covert sexism which show a similar pattern to the tests of covert racism. But – and I suspect you know this – opposition to Obama or Pelosi or Barney Frank does not automatically make you racist, sexist, or homophobic. What I am saying is that subtle covert racism exists in our society EVEN AMONG OBAMA’S SUPPORTERS.

    — hippieprof

  126. Wow – I was slow getting over here and missed a lot…. no wonder I have been sleeping so well….

    BiW said: “The flaw with the “living document” standard is that it takes an objective set of criteria, and tosses them out in favor of a subjective standard resting solely on the heads of five unelected jurists, and their creativity in “discovering” new rights and powers that were heretofore unseen and unheard of in the Constitution.”

    Yes – but the alternative to a living document is having a dead document. The constitution would long ago have outlived its usefulness had not the “living document” approach been taken.

    Lets use a simple example: The Centers for Disease Control (established in 1946). The founders certainly did not anticipate a need for such an organization – germ theory was not scientifically established for almost a century after the constitution was written. Certainly the centers provide an important public good (i.e., providing for the general welfare) and certainly the private sector could not do this (no real profit to be had there).

    So – if we take a strict constructionist view we wouldn’t have a CDC. I think that would be a bad thing. (and lets not get off on a tangent about successes and failures of the CDC – this is simply an example). It seems bloody obvious that congress MUST be able to react quickly to new trends.

    Certainly the CDC might have been approved via constitutional amendment. For the moment lets ignore the fact that the amendment process is slow and laborious (by design). Are you really suggesting that EVERYTHING congress spends money on that is not specifically mentioned in the constitution must be approved by amendment or else be considered unconstitutional? Seriously?

    Would we have beaten the Russians to the moon if a constitutional amendment was needed to fund NASA?

    I suspect that a constitution with literally thousands of amendments would pretty much be a useless document.

    — hippieprof

  127. Obamateurism of the Day
    posted at 8:05 am on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Last week, we showed Barack Obama claiming to have worked closely with a Republican Congressman, only to get his name wrong. Of course, Obama has to remember 535 names to get everyone’s name straight in Congress. How many names does he have to memorize to remember his daughters’ names on national TV? Two?

    Bawwwwhahahaha!!!! What a dope

  128. “Are you really suggesting that EVERYTHING congress spends money on that is not specifically mentioned in the constitution must be approved by amendment or else be considered unconstitutional?”

    Moving the goal posts I see.

  129. No, not moving the goal posts – just suggesting that the constitutio0nal goal posts are ALREADY WELL BEYOND providing health care. If providing health care is really unconstitutional then a hell of a lot of other stuff is as well.

    — hp

  130. Killing The Eastern European Missile Shield Helps General Electric-Putin Ties

    Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama’s decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:

    Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world’s largest private equity firms

    General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama.

    GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/shocker-killing-the-eastern-european-missile-shield-helps-general-electricputin-ties.html

    Most ethical administration evah

  131. Elric said….. “SO should the government provide food? Water? Clothes?”

    Ahhhh….yeah?

    Not only should they do so, but in fact they do. Isn’t that what welfare is all about? Helping provide for people who do not have the means to provide for themselves?

    I know you will respond that the welfare system is a bad idea – socialism or some other fear-inducer.

    Let me counter by noting what things look like in a country with poor governmental social services. India, for example. I suspect we would have slums very much like theirs if we were to drop our welfare programs. Is that a sacrifice you would be willing to make? A bit less government in exchange for hopeless destitution and poverty?

    — hippieprof

  132. Gallup: Opposition to big government growing rapidly
    posted at 11:36 am on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

    To no one’s great shock, the nation has reacted to the radical nature of the Democratic agenda by expressing even more suspicion of big-government solutions. Gallup polled adults, not registered or likely voters, and found a sharp increase in belief that government overregulates and tries to assume too much power, usually a result seen more among likely voters. In fact, the last time such sharp reactions got measured, Democrats lost control of Congress:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/21/gallup-opposition-to-big-government-growing-rapidly/

    Bite it drones

  133. “A bit less government in exchange for hopeless destitution and poverty?”

    Thats ironic. Just wait til the bill comes due for all this spending. You will get to see your hopless destitution and poverty.

  134. This is a bit of a confession….

    I have just had a very interesting personal revelation about covert racism – the stuff I wrote about on my blog a few days ago. (and stuff that several of you called “BS” on)

    I have only been following this blog for a week or so, and only today did I learn (via a comment from Tex) that Rutherford is black. (I hope by the way that I am interpreting Tex’s comment correctly – otherwise just skip the rest of this because it makes no sense).

    I had been assuming all along that he was just a white liberal dude – same as me.

    Why did I make that assumption?

    I hate to admit it – but it was because Rutherford is well educated and articulate – and my unconscious mental image of a well educated articulate person is white. It is not like I have never met an articulate, well educated black person before. In fact I know many such people in my line of work. Nevertheless, the stereotypical articulate Harvard grad is white -and that stereotype apparently resides in my unconscious.

    Sheesh – and I am a liberal!

    Does this mean I am a closet racist? No – at least I hope it does not.

    What it does mean is that I have unconscious racist attitudes – attitudes that completely usually escape my attention. That is how implicit attitudes work. You have them without even realizing you have them.

    If I can have them the rest of you probably do too.

    So – given these implicit attitudes, how should one react? Personally, I try to recognize them in myself and seek consciously to overcome them. That is probably a good exercise for everyone.

    — hippieprof

  135. “It is not like I have never met an articulate, well educated black person before.”-hippieprof

    Dude, the fact you assumed Rutherford to be white isn’t racist at all. You simply behaved like all humans do by employing inductive reasoning. If not for judgments, yes, even stereotypes, the entire world would make no sense and humans couldn’t operate in it.

    There was no harm done in assuming Rutherford was white just like there would be no harm done in assuming the Rabbit is right handed.

    So, don’t worry, your off the hook. Get over yourself.

    I’m so glad I’m not from your world. Walking on pins and needles all day, analyzing every judgment, making sure it fits within your politically correct paradigm.

    While I’m sure you love to flock around your black colleagues and pretend your not 100% entranced by there black skin, self conscious of every word you make, you would get chewed up in just about any blue collar work site.

    How’s that for a stereotype, worm food.

  136. “I hate to admit it – but it was because Rutherford is well educated and articulate”

    I would hate to admit that load of crap too.

    LOL Elric, I’m not sure exactly how to be insulted by that remark.

    Hippieprof, I appreciate the compliment but even I admit I’m not well educated. I have only a bachelor’s degree and we won’t even discuss my GPA. (Like Obama, I keep my college records sealed 😉 ) Suffice it to say I graduated in good standing and I didn’t have to do “the five year plan.”

    As for your assumption, if that made you racist, then I too would be racist. Even though I’m black, I assume most blogs are written by whites unless I’m told otherwise. I just don’t consider blogging a “black thang” although there are lots of exceptions including one of my favs The Black Snob.

  137. I see hippieprof’s “confession” as actually being dangerous. This obsession on the left to sniff out racism is doing more harm then the Grand Dragon of the Klan.

    Silly, pretentious, road blocks to keeping it real. And keeping it real is the true bond between people.

  138. “Like Obama, I keep my college records sealed.”

    You keep everything else sealed like Thuggy as well?

    Oh and you have an answer yet on why Thuggy gave visas to thugs and islamists but not the president of Honduras? You said you would look into it. You have an excuse yet?

  139. entranced by there black skin, self conscious of every word you make — DR

    LOL how ’bout self conscious of every word you spell? LOL, DR, you didn’t need to issue the there/their correction. We all know you are an articulate left handed white guy. 😀

    You’re getting as bad as Tex who can’t let a simple spelling error go uncorrected.

  140. Is the US hiding Zelaya in Honduras?
    posted at 2:57 pm on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

    Here’s a strange story just breaking out of Tegucigalpa. Former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, deposed by a coordinated action between the parliament, the Supreme Court, and the army, claimed this afternoon to be back in the capital and at the UN compound. Zelaya asked for his supporters to gather there to allow him to reclaim his post, and people have begun arriving. The US confirmed that Zelaya was back in Tegucigalpa, but then the UN categorically denied Zelaya was inside their compound.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/21/is-the-us-hiding-zelaya-in-honduras/

    One Thug protecting another.

  141. “bout self conscious of every word you spell”-Rutherford

    I know. I need to get over it. I’m good enough. Smart enough. And people like me. 🙂

  142. Why would I have to do that when most of your comments come real late at night when you dont have to face anyone?

    Elric, this has got to be one of the funniest/silliest things you’ve ever said.

    Go to your dictionary and look up asynchronous (vs synchronous). This forum is an asynchronous chat, meaning I never have to “face anyone”. If we were in a live, real time chat room, you might have a point, but in this venue, your comment is kinda absurd.

    P.S. I know in your case, whenever I make a comment your bot makes a bell go off in your living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and just in case you’re asleep, it activates a buzzer under your pillow. Understand you are the exception. 😉

  143. The U.N. and Double Standards By: Joseph Klein
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 21, 2009

    The United Nations Human Rights Council heard an update on September 15th from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, on what she regarded as the salient human rights issues of the day. Mentioned were the recent “marred” election in Afghanistan and her claim – shared by the United Nations General Assembly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Obama Administration – that “constitutional order had been subverted and democratic space undermined” in Honduras. But somehow the fraudulent presidential election in Iran, and the murder and rape of political dissidents that followed, escaped the Human Rights Commissioner’s attention.

    Shortly before Pillay addressed the Human Rights Council, the Council’s president upheld the barring of the Permanent Representative of Honduras in Geneva from participating in the Human Rights Council sessions, as is the right of every UN member state, because he was not the “accredited representative of President Zelaya’s Government”. The fact that Manuel Zelaya had been replaced by the current interim president pursuant to Honduras’ constitutional processes and with the full support of its elected legislative body and its civilian high court, was completely ignored. The United States has sided with the opponents of Honduras’ constitutional processes and in support of Zelaya, who had tried to pull a trick out of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez’s playbook and end-run the Honduras constitution in order to give himself another term in office.

    Meanwhile, Iran’s illegitimate government was not challenged. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in full attendance during the opening week of the 64th United Nations General Assembly session and is even planning his own press conference at UN headquarters. Sadly, the world is passive in the face of the grievous injustices still being committed today by Iran’s illegitimate president and his mullah-supported militia against Iranian citizens peacefully protesting Ahmadinejad’s theft of the presidential election last June.

    I asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at his monthly press conference on September 17th whether he saw any double standard between the UN’s denial of credentials to representatives of the interim government in Honduras to allow them to participate in UN meetings on the one hand, and welcoming Ahmadinejad with open arms on the other. He replied that he deferred in such matters to the General Assembly credentials committee. But a few minutes later in the press conference, he launched into a full-throated defense of Zelaya.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36363

    Its Thuggy double standard too.

  144. “P.S. I know in your case, whenever I make a comment your bot makes a bell go off in your living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and just in case you’re asleep, it activates a buzzer under your pillow. Understand you are the exception.”

    PS Still waiting for your defense of Thuggy barring the president of Honduras but allowing dictators and islamists. Why are you so afraid of answering?

  145. Obama Says He Was Not a Fan of Mass Protests… Except When He Was

    Sen. Barack Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004 that he had three spiritual advisors: radical Jeremiah Wright, radical James Meeks, and radical Father Michael Pfleger.

    But, radical Father Pfleger was more than a spiritual guide for Obama.
    They also held protests together:

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-says-he-was-not-fan-of-mass.html

    Poor Dodger. So much crap to dodge.

  146. I have a friend named Mike from my home state of Montana. Mike is black. You may not have realized that, not because of his name, but because there is a very small black population in Montana.

    You would not be racist to not make the connection on a web forum that Mike was black- why would you knowing the demographics of Montana.

    This doesn’t imply why there aren’t a lot of blacks in Montana, just that there aren’t. So, assumptions made on statistics are not indicative of prejudice, just a recognition of what is assessed to be the norm.

    By the way, when I saw that R’s alias was Rutherford, I immediately assumed he was black, just because the two people I have ever met who’s names were Rutherford were black. That doesn’t make me racist, it simply means I applied what context I had to the situation and assessed an outcome.

    I can’t help but wonder how much of the hypersensitivity by the left to race is genuine or manufactured. Is political correctness a political weapon, justifying populist and identity politics, or is it just the ramifications of feminizing the population…

  147. “Is political correctness a political weapon, justifying populist and identity politics, or is it just the ramifications of feminizing the population…”

    Its a bit of all actually.

  148. BTW Anyone else want to take a stab on why Thuggy allowed visas for Castro, Chavez, Gadaffi and the “president” of Iran but barred the president of Honduras? Seems Dodger is too much a coward to answer it. Just like he is a coward on explaining any of Thuggy’s behavior that exposes his radical ideology.

  149. I just don’t consider blogging a “black thang” ” — R

    Is this not a stereotype? Aren’t stereotypes racist?

    Case in point, I like chicken and pretty much every black person I know likes chicken too. In fact, I know of just one black guy I worked with who didn’t. Anyway, if I was to comment on black people liking chicken, it would be a significant taboo that would get me flogged as a racist. The point that they do like chicken, which to me is no different than saying asians like noodles, besides the point. So maybe one of you “enlightened” liberals can explain to me what gives? Why can a black man use the ‘N’ word with impunity and not be challenged by the black community but if a white guys uses it- IN THE EXACT SAME CONTEXT- he’s a racist.

    This, I think, has been the gist of my argument- at least in my mind- is that there is an enormous double standard when it comes to race. To assume that black on white prejudice is not racist by white on black prejudice is, just defies logic and rational thinking. Couple this with a political party that has been at the roots of black suppression and subjugation, continues to manipulate the black populace through populist rhetoric and class warfare, but has managed to pull the wool so completely over the eyes of that community that they continue to overwhelmingly support it, even at their own expense. Mind boggling…

  150. Media starting to notice ObamaCare’s false promises?
    posted at 3:37 pm on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Small wonder Barack Obama wanted Congress to pass his health-care overhaul agenda as quickly as possible. While the media has mostly swallowed the sloganeering from the White House over the last few months, there are signs of increasing scrutiny on the wild claims by Obama and Democrats on their ObamaCare bills. Both the AP and CBS review the false promises from Obama just one day after Obama did his “full Ginsburg” on the Sunday talk-show circuit.

    First, the AP deflates the Obama claim that health-care reform would save $2 trillion in ten years (h/t Geoff A) in a piece headlined, “SPIN METER: $2 trillion in health savings? Where?“:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/21/media-starting-to-notice-obamacares-false-promises/

  151. “@joanwalsh I’m sorry Joan but it’s time to fire Camille Paglia’s crazy ass. You don’t need a birther on your staff during these crazy times.”

    But racist race baiting czars ok? Sorry had to point out your leftist hypocrisy again. Just too damn funny.

  152. Obama: a flop on the international stage
    posted at 4:10 pm on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

    That surprising assessment does not come from the National Review or the Washington Examiner, both of whom would almost certainly agree, but from the New York Times. While Peter Baker attempts to put some gloss on Barack Obama’s ability to make the US more popular simply by not being George W. Bush, he has to admit that it has translated into few if any benefits for the US. Instead, the distinct impression left by other nations is that they’re relieved to have an American President willing to accept the role of doormat:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/21/obama-a-flop-on-the-international-stage/

    Wow, even the NYT times is starting to tell the truth a bit about Thuggy and his loser policies. Now only if Dodger could see the light.

  153. DR said: “While I’m sure you love to flock around your black colleagues and pretend your not 100% entranced by there black skin, self conscious of every word you make, you would get chewed up in just about any blue collar work site.”

    Absolutely right that I would be chewed up in a blue collar work site. I worked plenty of blue collar jobs on my way through college and I indeed learned to keep my mouth shut. Kinda like the “walking on pins and needles” you imagine I do here.

    Look – I don’t think I am any better than anyone else is. I can’t hammer a nail in straight or coil a rope without tangling it. Every time I try to do landscaping it comes out looking like s%$t. I would never make it in the business world because have trouble conforming to that standard. In fact, I do just about the only job I am suited for (except being a rock star) – and that certainly does not make me a better person.

    — hippieprof

  154. Prof Bong,

    Is someone a racist for believing in the “one drop rule” like Dodger? Or someone like the FCC czar ranting about America afraid of a dark skined man.

  155. Yeah, Rutherford is a black sounding name but listening to him on the radio I think we’ve all assumed he was white or Jewish old lady. Damn, I’m sooooo racists, soo going to RA next week. I’m sure most people thought I was white or variation of something, though in person I get mistaken for Arab or Indian til they hear me talk.
    I definitely agree with the assumptions based on statistics thing isn’t bad. I mean, lets think about it. Based on southern polling, I would be right to assume that most the people holding up the racists signs are white republican southerners…am I wrong to assume such things?
    btw, let me know if I’m making enemies with these statements yet.

  156. btw, this guy in the back of my class sounded a little (lot) gay and black but I turn around and he’s totally white. Am I homophobic now, is Elric gonna lambaste me now 😆

    ok I’m done

  157. It looks like I need to clarify my point a bit….

    I was not “confessing” to being a racist just because I discovered an unconscious racial stereotype. In fact, I stated exactly that. I was surprised when I discovered Rutherford was black – but I don’t think the stereotype in any led me to act differently toward him.

    The problem with stereotypes, though, is they CAN lead to actions. If I use a negative racial stereotype to determine how I react to an individual I am indeed being racist.

    That was the whole point of my blog on covert racism. In the study I described, employers apparently made decisions based on the perceived ethnicity of a name. Remember, everything else about the resumes was the same. That does constitute racism because you are acting on a negative stereotype.

    Everyone uses stereotypes – though there are almost always wrong (by definition) when applied to individuals. You guys have incorrect stereotypes about me – Ellric seems to think I am a big dope smoker even though I haven’t done that in 25 years or so.

    Having a bad impression based on stereotypes is one thing – but when we allow that stereotype to guide our actions it indeed becomes problematic.

    — hippieprof

  158. BiW said: “The flaw with the “living document” standard is that it takes an objective set of criteria, and tosses them out in favor of a subjective standard resting solely on the heads of five unelected jurists, and their creativity in “discovering” new rights and powers that were heretofore unseen and unheard of in the Constitution.

    Yes – but the alternative to a living document is having a dead document. The constitution would long ago have outlived its usefulness had not the “living document” approach been taken.

    No, the alternative is the republic making the determination whether Congress has the power or authority to do something if there is no clear authority or relation and need rooted in a power specifically granted to Congress…by way of the Constitutional Amendment Process, as it was clearly intended.

    The amendment process has kept the Constitution alive and relevant since inception, starting with the addition of the Bill of Rights, written and ratified not because the document was flawed, as some have argued, but because we, being humans, are flawed, and having just extricated themselves from a power that was not a respecter of these most basic and inalienable rights, it was not beyond their contemplation that at sometime, our government could fall prey to men with tyrannical ambitions who would not feel the need to restrain themselves or government from encroaching on those rights.

    And yet it didn’t stop. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments addressed the only serious flaws that that existed in the document since its execution, and knowing as I do how the Framers struggled with the issue of slavery and the questions it raised, I would conceed that it they knew of the flaw at that time.

    Amendments continued and while some have been notable failures, (The equal rights amendment for one), they are still being passed, the last one being in 1992.

    Lets use a simple example: The Centers for Disease Control (established in 1946).

    Which is an interesting choice for you to use. I would ask if it was accident or design, but the exposition you provide indicates accident.

    The founders certainly did not anticipate a need for such an organization – germ theory was not scientifically established for almost a century after the constitution was written.

    Any discussion of the founders is actually separate from a discussion of the framers, who, unlike the founders, did not actually establish the United States. The framers were the ones directly responsible for the deliberation and drafting of the Constitution. While some men could counted among both groups, not all could, and it could also be argued that the groups did not share the same aims.

    Certainly the centers provide an important public good (i.e., providing for the general welfare) and certainly the private sector could not do this (no real profit to be had there).

    Oh certainly not. Everyone knows that pharmaceutical companies and vaccine makers do the work they do out of the kindness of their hearts alone. After all, germ theory couldn’t possibly make any difference to the work that they do.

    So – if we take a strict constructionist view we wouldn’t have a CDC. I think that would be a bad thing. (and lets not get off on a tangent about successes and failures of the CDC – this is simply an example). It seems bloody obvious that congress MUST be able to react quickly to new trends.

    And now we come to the reason I asked if you chose this example by accident or design, because it prompted me to do some research. The CDC has its roots in the Public Health Service, which itself is an outgrowth of the Marine Hospital Service, which came about as part of the federal government’s lawful regulation of the Merchant Marine. Now the line from the Mechant Marine, to the CDC, which is part of the modern day Department of Health and Human Services, which is the only cabinet department established through presidential reorganization authority. Nearly 40 years ago, DHHS was made part of the Depatment of Education by the Department of Education Organization Act, which included language to the effect that the Dept. of Ed. would promote the general welfare of the U.S.. However, the aims of the CDC’s immediate predecesor were defensive in nature, and because the Public Health Service is an organization set up in line with military organization, if we were going to make a connection in accord with the powers specifically granted to the Congress, if might properly be accounted for a Necessary and Proper extention of the power to provide for the defense of the nation as provided for in the 12th and 14th paragraphs of Art. I, section 8.

    Certainly the CDC might have been approved via constitutional amendment. For the moment lets ignore the fact that the amendment process is slow and laborious (by design). Are you really suggesting that EVERYTHING congress spends money on that is not specifically mentioned in the constitution must be approved by amendment or else be considered unconstitutional? Seriously?

    No, I’m not,and neither did the framers, who outlined the areas where Congress had authority, and gave them the power to tax and spend accordingly. For those things that would be necessary and proper to fullfill the roles Congress was intended to address, such as defense of the nation, they added the Necessary and Proper clause, which allowed them to fulfill the functions that might need to be addressed that are necessary to the fillfullment of their powers. That’s why we did not need an amendment to form an air force, which is an outgrowth of the army.

    Would we have beaten the Russians to the moon if a constitutional amendment was needed to fund NASA?

    Actually, one would not have been necessary.
    While the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which established NASA, recited its Declaration of Policy and Purpose, the reasons of general welfare and security, it could have just as easily cited Congress’ power to promote the progress of science and the arts, as specifically granted in Article I, section 8.

    I suspect that a constitution with literally thousands of amendments would pretty much be a useless document

    I suspect that the use of amendments to address powers not enumerated or within the necessary and proper clause in a matter that does not stretch or torture reasonable interpretation or logic could still be functional with much less that “Thousands of amendments”. What makes me think so? Your proposal says that an amendment would be necessary for anything congress spends money on, but it doesn’t work that way now. Money isn’t just allocated and handed to the Navy or the Army, it is broken down with regard to the myriad of functions and procurements necessary to make these instituions functional,and there is no reason why other functions can be also be addressed in the same function, and as straw men go, I’ve addressed better.

    Elric said….. “SO should the government provide food? Water? Clothes?”

    Ahhhh….yeah?

    Not only should they do so, but in fact they do. Isn’t that what welfare is all about? Helping provide for people who do not have the means to provide for themselves?

    The government provides water? Really? Then why do I write the check for my water to a private company every month? The government provides clothes? Really? When did I miss the government’s clothing program?

    I know you will respond that the welfare system is a bad idea – socialism or some other fear-inducer.

    Actually, I’d rather discuss the fact that it is NOT the federal government’s role to provide it, and there is no basis for it in the Constitution. If your state decided to address the welfare of its people, that is, of course another matter. We could also address the vicious cycle of the federal welfare, how it is used to buy votes from a class that it also makes dependent, and how its perverse incentives actually discourage families from staying together which only leads to more dependence.

    Let me counter by noting what things look like in a country with poor governmental social services. India, for example. I suspect we would have slums very much like theirs if we were to drop our welfare programs. Is that a sacrifice you would be willing to make? A bit less government in exchange for hopeless destitution and poverty?

    There are so many things wrong with this paragraph, I’m not even sure where to start. First, you proceed under the assumption that government is the solution to every problem. Conservatives know this isn’t the case. Secondly, your analogy completely ignores issues such as population, GDP, and religious prejudices in their society, chiefly the vestages of their hindu caste system, and its dscrimination against lower castes, such as the Untouchables, which although legally abolished, still is a de facto institution in many places in India.

    Finally, I caught a litlle of R’s address with you in the other thread about health care reform being a moral issue. What makes the government the proper vehicle for addressing yourmoral concerns? Is compusion and coercion by the government really the way to address a ‘moral’ concern? Even in an age when we are constantly lectured by the left that “You can’t legislate morality?” “And keep your laws off my body!” I guess that is only for other people’s morality, and we want to keep the government’s laws off our bodies…unless it is providing us with manditory health insurance or a tax in its place…in which case, its just peachy.

  159. Another jewel by BiW. I’m planning on writing a book someday on conservative principles and the premise of American exceptionalism- I just found my co-author.

    My only concern is he is so good, it’ll end up being his book instead of mine! 😉

  160. Very nice again BiW. A welcome asset to clear the fog from this blog about government’s role in our everyday lives.

    Rutherford won’t get it, as he is convinced that only his progressive persuasion know what is best for the rest of us. When laid bare for observation, liberalism is at best a facade with a historical record of massive failure – more likely, an arrogance masked by its moral relativism, tacit racism and the thought of its own intellectual superiority.

  161. Re Biw’s treatise….

    Wow – call me a fool for arguing law with a law student – but here I go. Actually, call me arrogant – I have this crazy belief that I can take on just about anybody on their home turf…

    😉

    Lets begin by reminding everyone that what you outline is one interpretation <of the constitution. You are relating a very conservative, strict constructionist view. There are certainly other views. In fact, I suspect a review of constitutional law would suggest your view is the less popular….

    …but the popularity of the view is irrelevant. Just identify your treatise as an opinion and stop pretending it is fact.

    I am splitting my response into two posts – the first relating directly to constitutional issues.

    You note regarding my choice of the CDC: “Which is an interesting choice for you to use. I would ask if it was accident or design, but the exposition you provide indicates accident.”

    No – not an accident at all. I didn’t know the full history of the organization. I used that example to establish there is long precedent for the government providing public health services. You did the rest of my work for me.

    Regarding the birth of the CDC, you state: Nearly 40 years ago, DHHS was made part of the Depatment of Education by the Department of Education Organization Act, which included language to the effect that the Dept. of Ed. would promote the general welfare of the U.S..

    So – if I correctly interpret what you are saying the DHHS became part of the Department of Education using the General Welfare clause of Article 1 – a move which has apparently survived claims of unconstitutionality for over 40 years. Further, you tell that the CDC is subsumed under the Department of Ed. Therefore, there is precedent in interpreting the general welfare clause to apply to public health.

    Thank you for making my point so nicely – that was the original point, remember – that public health is reasonably covered by the general welfare clause – and hence providing Americans with affordable access to health insurance and health care has a constitutional precedent.

    Your argument that the CDC’s immediate predecessor was part of the Merchant Marine is pretty weak, is it not? Virtually none of the CDCs current activities are related to the Merchant Marine, is that not so? Apparently something is constitutional if it has a tenuous historical tie via a function it no longer provides?

    Regarding my claim that the CDC does work for which there is no profit, you say: Oh certainly not. Everyone knows that pharmaceutical companies and vaccine makers do the work they do out of the kindness of their hearts alone. After all, germ theory couldn’t possibly make any difference to the work that they do.

    Oh come now – and you accuse me of erecting straw men? The primary role of the CDC is epidemiology and health education. It is most certainly not a profitable endeavor.

    Regarding NASA you say: it could have just as easily cited Congress’ power to promote the progress of science and the arts, as specifically granted in Article I, section 8.

    Wow – who is the non-strict-constructionist now? Article 1 section 8 relates to patents and copyrights. Oh – someone like me – a “living document” type – could certainly see the interpretation reasonably expanded. But you can’t have it both ways – sorry.

    I will leave my response to your other points to a different post. This part is constitutional – the other is a broader discussion of the role of government.

    I am sure you can hardly wait.

    — hippieprof

  162. So – Gorilla, Tex, DR – you guys did actually read what he wrote, right? Particularly the part where he admits there is precedent for applying the general welfare clause to issues of public health? Or the part where he veers away from strict constructionist view when it suits his purposes?

    No – methinks that the cheering section isn’t looking at this too closely – they are instead hearing what they want to hear.

    — hippieprof

  163. Honestly, I don’t feel qualified to be part of the debate. So, yeah, there is a little bit of a cheering section coming from me, some of it tongue and cheek. You make some good retorts. I’m kind of waiting for BiW’s response.

  164. DR says… “Honestly, I don’t feel qualified to be part of the debate. So, yeah, there is a little bit of a cheering section coming from me, some of it tongue and cheek. You make some good retorts. I’m kind of waiting for BiW’s response.”

    Hell – I am not qualified either – I am just dumb enough to wade in anyway….

    😉

  165. By the way, I every right to cheer. While I don’t have the constitutional background to hang, I WANT BiW to be right.

    The country is broke and there is a major shortage of doctors.

    The government is corrupt and wasteful. Everything it touches goes beyond inefficiency to the point of thievery.

    Yes, that often goes for the DoD as well.

    I also have kick ass benefits. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose with your health care plan.

    I don’t feel some kind of moral imperative to pass this thousand page monstrosity. I went without insurance for years and paid cash money for some stints in the hospital. I did what I had to do to get benefits. The existence of my current health care plan literally guided my career path.

    I want BiE to prove that your insanity is, in fact, unconstitutional.

  166. DR….

    Hey – I generally have great benefits too. Sure, there are problems – but relatively speaking I have it pretty good.

    I would just like to see everyone have something as good as I do. That is supposedly the point of this whole thing.

    — hp

  167. “I would just like to see everyone have something as good as I do. That is supposedly the point of this whole thing.”

    Why something? Why not just say “I want to see everyone have everything as good as I do?”

    Hell, I wish.

    Ultimately, to pretend that this bill won’t effect people like me and you is Utopian and you know it.

    I actually think the “moral imperative” is the strongest argument you guys have. Why don’t you just be a man about it and say, “Hey, we should sacrifice to help those who go without”.

    But you don’t. You blow constant smoke up our asses telling us that an instant shortage of 30,000 doctors won’t effect our health care. Or that we will all of suddenly and magically come up with a solution for corruption and waste in the government.

    Sure.

  168. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/special-editorial-reports/ACORN-got-53-million-in-federal-funds-since-94-now-eligible-for-up-to-8-billion-more-44406217.html

    I don’t know if this is true or if anyone else has linked it.

    But, wtf?

    ACORN was slated to get 8 billion? 8 BILLION?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    Obama claims he has no idea what cash ACORN gets and hasn’t been paying attention?

    This group was slated to get 8 billion?

    I refuse to believe this is true.

    If this is total b.s. I apologize.

  169. Hippieprof,

    We are arguing apples and oranges I’m afraid. I may be simplistic in my debate, but here goes.

    I find no where in our Constitution where health care is a right. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

    However, as a decent human (I hope), I would like everyone to have access to affordable health care. You’ll note I said access, not granted or paid for by someone else. Currently, everyone in this nation (illegals included) have access to health care. It may not be comprehensive, but basic medical needs are meant. By law, or emergency room can not turn anyone away.

    So the question really becomes this. Should citizens that have access to health care, most who can afford it, be asked to subsidize full coverage for those who can not. Since probably 70% of the nation is happy with their coverage, once again the majority is being coerced.

    While I agree that the system is broken, if you approach me with an idea that does not first include tort reform so that the practice of defensive medicine can be prevented, then I will state as a representative of the medical profession, your proposal is not worth the paper it is written upon.

    Isn’t up to Obama then to tell the lawyers that they too will be asked to sacrifice for the good of the nation? And if so, then why hasn’t Obama done so? It’s a rhetorical question.

  170. Oops…

    Since Rutherford previously accused me of being his most pedantic opponent, let me once again correct my numerous typos.

    met instead of meant. Our instead of or. Missing a question mark. Don’t want to disappoint the owner. 😉

  171. Tex said: While I agree that the system is broken, if you approach me with an idea that does not first include tort reform so that the practice of defensive medicine can be prevented, then I will state as a representative of the medical profession, your proposal is not worth the paper it is written upon.

    I agree with you on tort reform -in fact I wrote about that just yesterday on my blog:

    http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/20/hoosier-tort-reformer/

    (yeah – pimping my blog again – but this is actually relevant)

    I am curious what you think about the idea presented in that post – there hasn’t been much comment on it – especially compared to the posts about racism…. I guess I know which button is hotter.

    — hp

  172. DR said: I actually think the “moral imperative” is the strongest argument you guys have. Why don’t you just be a man about it and say, “Hey, we should sacrifice to help those who go without.” But you don’t.

    Actually, I make the moral argument a lot – but it tends to fall on deaf ears. Here is a quite from BiW’s treatise earlier today.

    What makes the government the proper vehicle for addressing yourmoral concerns? Is compusion and coercion by the government really the way to address a ‘moral’ concern?

    I do think it is a moral issue – especially when it comes to things like private insurance companies padding their profit margin by finding loopholes that allow them to deny coverages to their customers – customers who have been paying premiums for years and think that they are covered.

    So – and this is a serious question – how can I make the moral argument stick? Every time I pull it out it seems to get me nowhere.

    — hippieprof.

  173. Hippieprof,

    I read your blog. Tell Paul Brandon he’s clueless about defensive medicine. While I am sure there are a number of unscrupulous specialists that stand to benefit from unnecessary expenditure, that isn’t the rule I don’t believe. Doctors are not the most respected profession survey after survey for nothing. The cost is small in comparison to emergency medicine and the like. Your friend must be an attorney.

    I find little to argue and your points well taken except your minimization of involuntary euthanasia. While you may call that silly, I certainly don’t. It’s already happening in Europe (ask the Brits) and to think that health care will eventually not be rationed to the point calling it what you will (I prefer “euthanasia”) decided by bumbling bureaucrats, I think you are being naive to think otherwise.

    Besides, what makes you think a government jury of “experts” any more altruistic than a executive suite of insurance hotshots? Do you honestly believe a government operation under instruction to control costs more humane?

    In addition, can you show me an efficient government operation who does it better than the private sector? Where are the proposed cost savings derived? That is certainly not the history…

  174. What’s moral about screwing it up for the majority so everyone gets crappy healthcare? Thuggy cant even get his own daughter’s medical issue right and you want this moron to control your health?

  175. Re Biw’s treatise….

    Wow – call me a fool for arguing law with a law student lawyer…I worked a lot harder for the J.D. and the LL.M. than a certain female Senator did for her title…this crazy belief that I can take on just about anybody on their home turf…

    Fool would be too strong a word, but then I am not familiar your ambitions. For now, I am content with sticking with “uninformed.’

    Lets begin by reminding everyone that what you outline is one interpretation <of the constitution. You are relating a very conservative, strict constructionist view. There are certainly other views. In fact, I suspect a review of constitutional law would suggest your view is the less popular….

    …but the popularity of the view is irrelevant. Just identify your treatise as an opinion and stop pretending it is fact.

    You’re correct, it is irrelevant, and yet you felt compelled to share your supposition. My ” interpretation” is not made more or less valid than yours by the basis of “popularity”. Government is not American Idol, regardless of the fact that we elected an amateur with a paper-thin resume in the last go-round. If anything, my interpretation is more valid based on the opinions of those who expressed it before me, including two of its authors (Madison and Hamilton), and sitting Justices, such as Anotin Scalia. If you re-read my original response, you will see that even Hamilton believed in restraint, and a rational relation to an identified power.

    \
    You note regarding my choice of the CDC: “Which is an interesting choice for you to use. I would ask if it was accident or design, but the exposition you provide indicates accident.”

    No – not an accident at all. I didn’t know the full history of the organization. I used that example to establish there is long precedent for the government providing public health services. You did the rest of my work for me.

    Regarding the birth of the CDC, you state: Nearly 40 years ago, DHHS was made part of the Depatment of Education by the Department of Education Organization Act, which included language to the effect that the Dept. of Ed. would promote the general welfare of the U.S..

    So – if I correctly interpret what you are saying the DHHS became part of the Department of Education using the General Welfare clause of Article 1 – a move which has apparently survived claims of unconstitutionality for over 40 years. Further, you tell that the CDC is subsumed under the Department of Ed. Therefore, there is precedent in interpreting the general welfare clause to apply to public health.

    I think you should step away from the attempts at “interpretation”, and simply focus on “reading comprehension” since you have failed to correctly state at least one substantive fact, and have extrapolated what you wanted to hear from what I told you.

    Thank you for making my point so nicely – that was the original point, remember – that public health is reasonably covered by the general welfare clause – and hence providing Americans with affordable access to health insurance and health care has a constitutional precedent.

    2 + 3 does not equal seven. Seriously. If you teach your students this kind of sloppy thinking, please tell me where it is you teach so I can make sure I don’t send my sons there.

    The CDC was originally part of the U.S. Public Health Service, which was an outgrowth of the Merchant Marine Hospitals, which were established as part of the Merchant Marine. Congress does have authority over navigable waters, and as such, they could monitor and prevent the spread of communinicable diseases that would might find their way into the country by merchant sailors who traveled and were exposed to various exotic diseases.
    Hospitals for treatment of the diseases and ailments of sailors followed, and then as the organization grew into the US Public Health Service, they would screen immigrants at ports of entry such as Ellis Island for communicable and incurable disease. In the Second World War, the Communicable Disease Center, a branch of the US Public Health Service had the responsisibilty for mosquito and pest control, and was split off of the US Public Health Service.

    The CDC operates as part of the DHHS, which was at one time included in the Department of Education, whose enacting legislation included language to the effect that the Dept. of Ed. would promote the general welfare of the U.S. I did not say that it was established “using the General Welfare clause of Article 1” , and the reason the distinction is important is when Congress makes a citation to Constitutional authority in enabling language, it is specific when it does so.
    As for it surviving “claims of unconstitutionality for over 40 years”, I am not aware of any challenge to the Deparment of Education’s Constitutionality, but thanks again for the straw man.

    Your argument that the CDC’s immediate predecessor was part of the Merchant Marine is pretty weak, is it not?
    It would be weak if that was what I said, but as I pointed out, the real weakness lies in your reading comprehension.

    Virtually none of the CDCs current activities are related to the Merchant Marine, is that not so? Apparently something is constitutional if it has a tenuous historical tie via a function it no longer provides?

    Really no more tenuous than the contortions of the Commerce Clause in legislation in recent years, but as many of the CDC’s functions are defensive, there is a Consitutional basis for Congress to hang its hat by citation to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which is part of the Constitution.

    Regarding my claim that the CDC does work for which there is no profit, you say: Oh certainly not. Everyone knows that pharmaceutical companies and vaccine makers do the work they do out of the kindness of their hearts alone. After all, germ theory couldn’t possibly make any difference to the work that they do.

    Oh come now – and you accuse me of erecting straw men?

    Yes, because your implication is that since you assume there is no profit in the study of infectious disease, only the government will do it. I merely remind you that your statement was not true, and that while the private sector’s study of certain diseases is limited by the government’s monopoly on possessing them, the government is not the only entity to make such studies and devise treatment and prevention.

    The primary role of the CDC is epidemiology and health education. It is most certainly not a profitable endeavor.

    Unless the excrement hits the rotating circulation surface, in which case its functions become containment and eradication of infectious diseases which pose a threat to the nation, in which it uses many defensive powers, such a quarantine, not only of infected individuals, but disease vectors.

    Regarding NASA you say: it could have just as easily cited Congress’ power to promote the progress of science and the arts, as specifically granted in Article I, section 8.

    Wow – who is the non-strict-constructionist now? Article 1 section 8 relates to patents and copyrights. Oh – someone like me – a “living document” type – could certainly see the interpretation reasonably expanded. But you can’t have it both ways – sorry.

    You’re correct. I misread the paragraph I referred to. I apologize for my flippant answer. I was reading from a source that breaks the clauses down into smaller components from time to time,and that’s what I was reading at the time.

    I do have a question for you regarding the laws that have been passed with citation to the general welfare clause…

    Have any of them related specifically to the welfare of the individual citizens rather than the welfare of the nation in general?

  176. I do think it is a moral issue – especially when it comes to things like private insurance companies padding their profit margin by finding loopholes that allow them to deny coverages to their customers – customers who have been paying premiums for years and think that they are covered.

    Ahhh yess. The “DEMON INSURANCE COMPANIES” shibboleth.

    Your analysis is interesting. I say this because many people who have health insurance get it through their employer, and the employer is the one that actually pays for most if not all of the coverage. In addition, the plans and carriers change annually, so your claim that the insured pay premiums to the companies for years is not exactly true.

    I would also like an explaination of how it is that we have an expectation for health insurance that it should cover everything, all the time. People tend to bitch if their co-pay for a routine office visit or a prescription go up by even $5 a pop, but I cannot think of any other insurance where we have an expectation that the insurance carrier will pay for routine maintenance issues. Not car insurance, not homeowners or renters insurance, and it is far more likely that the insured will pay the premium to a carrier for years and years.

    And while you obviously feel passionately that it is a moral issue, you did not answer my question, and until you do, I find a great failure of consistancy in the issue of morality and the imposition of the law by the left.

    I will, however, give you credit for not trying the “you’re a bad christian for not supporting HR 3200” line.

  177. The following comment is going to sound incredibly lame considering the interesting constitutional debate going on here, but unfortunately, it’s been another busy day with little time for commenting.

    I wanted to address the whole question of stereotyping. When I say that I don’t consider blogging a “black thang”, I’m not saying that I am particularly proud of that assumption. I have in my head a stereotype of what most black folk are into and I don’t picture blogging at the top of the list. I could be wrong. Am I shocked when I encounter a black blogger? Of course not. But I do tend to “default” the identity of the bloggers I read to white unless told otherwise.

    What is important is that we always examine our assumptions daily. We do not need to necessarily apologize for them but we should examine them. People on an individual basis (not when viewed in groups) always defy expectation and are much more interesting than any group they may belong to.

    Regarding “Rutherford”, I actually named myself after a white guy. LOL As a kid, I was a presidential buff, and I particularly liked the more obscure presidents. So I stole my name from the 19th President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes. (Dude had the best presidential beard of the whole gang!) For what it’s worth, I took my last name from my father’s middle name. And as for my real first name … it is from the New Testament (yeah Tex) and it is racially neutral. 🙂

  178. By the way, the template I use for my blog appears to have gone berserk tonight. I’m hoping it is a temporary bug from the WordPress platform. If things don’t look better by tomorrow, I will be forced to do a redesign. It’ll be same blog, just different look.

    I’m hoping this thing self-corrects by tomorrow. 😦

  179. BiW…. Wow – actually a lawyer. I thought you said somewhere that you were working on a law degree. I sincerely apologize.

    Hey – say what you want about my reading comprehension. I think I am doing pretty well considering the closest I have ever come to a law class was when my roommate was taking Con Law 30 years ago. I actually got you to concede a point – pretty good for a novice against a professional.

    So – once more into the breech…..

    You say (after I pointed out that your initial post was opinion): You’re correct, it is irrelevant, and yet you felt compelled to share your supposition. My ” interpretation” is not made more or less valid than yours by the basis of “popularity”.

    You seem to have missed my main point. Your initial post had an air of “fact” to it, and I was merely reminding everyone that it was opinion. Prestigious legal scholars have written extensively on both sides of the issue, and far be it from me to suggest which side is winning. My use of the term “popularity” was not meant to invoke American Idol – it was simply to note that the courts seem to have generally taken a more liberal approach than you advocate. I do not claim to be an expert and this impression may well be wrong.

    You say: 2 + 3 does not equal seven. Seriously. If you teach your students this kind of sloppy thinking, please tell me where it is you teach so I can make sure I don’t send my sons there.

    So – do they teach you that ad hominem is a good argumentation strategy in law school? There are so many retorts I can make here – but I won’t….

    I did apparently miss your distinction between “language to the effect that the Department of Education would promote the general welfare of the US” and my statement about “using the general welfare clause of Article 1.” I guess it is a rookie mistake – and I never claimed to be anything else. You must admit, though, that you are drawing a rather fine distinction here. You seem to be saying that the language speaks to “general welfare” but it apparently isn’t the same “general welfare” in article 1 because it does not explicitly invoke article 1? (That is a serious question – please give a serious answer)

    You say: As for it surviving “claims of unconstitutionality for over 40 years”, I am not aware of any challenge to the Deparment of Education’s Constitutionality, but thanks again for the straw man.

    Not a straw man at all. I don’t know case law – but there are two possibilities here. Either there have been constitutional challenges and they have not prevailed, or there have been no constitutional challenges. If there have been none, that suggests that people who might wish to bring such actions (and the DOE has plenty of critics) do not believe that they have sufficient constitutional grounds to do so. Either case suggests that DOE’s “general welfare” language perhaps does indeed provide constitutional justification for its existence.

    (yes – I recognize there are other interpretations – War Powers has never been tested constitutionally even though there are good reasons to believe it might be unconstitutional)

    You argue: Really no more tenuous than the contortions of the Commerce Clause in legislation in recent years

    No problem here – but you need to be consistent. If you can use such tenuous arguments in one context you can’t reject the same type of claim in another.

    You say: Yes, because your implication is that since you assume there is no profit in the study of infectious disease, only the government will do it. I merely remind you that your statement was not true,

    My statement would be false if that is what I had indeed said. I said that the CDC provides a public good for which there is no profit motive. I stand by that statement. If I came to you with a business plan in which I propose to do epidemiological research, provide public health education, and to quarantine, contain, and eradicate infections diseases – and make a profit doing so – you would tell me I was nuts.

    You close by asking: I do have a question for you regarding the laws that have been passed with citation to the general welfare clause… Have any of them related specifically to the welfare of the individual citizens rather than the welfare of the nation in general?

    Its really hard to make that distinction isn’t it? I would argue that having a good education is promotes the welfare of the person receiving that education and simultaneously provides a societal good in producing an educated society. Likewise, quality health care is good for the individual and for the society as a whole.

    As for how the laws were written – what they specifically invoked – you tell me.

    So – I hope you are enjoying this exercise…. its fun for me…. I am learning something.

    — hippieprof

  180. Elric said: And what makes you think the government can do that?

    Satisfaction with Medicare is actually quite high, and with a 3 percent overhead you can’t beat the price.

  181. Satisfaction with Medicare is actually quite high, and with a 3 percent overhead you can’t beat the price.

    Satisfaction from doctors quite low, as many will not accept Medicare patients. What are you going to do when doctors, tired of having their wages cut, say NO MORE? It’s coming, I guarantee it.

    Cash for Clunkers was popular too – now the showrooms sit empty again. Of course, people will take something for nothing, or in this case little personal monetary requirement. But that system is even more broken, as it can not continue in perpetuity while you and I pay for it.

    When Medicare goes broke, and that is imminent, what do you propose to do then Hippie with the uninsured? Charge companies more (think they will be hiring then?), or the retirees more (those that have lost much of their life savings?).

    Medicare is a Ponzi scheme and not much more…

  182. BiW said: I would also like an explaination of how it is that we have an expectation for health insurance that it should cover everything, all the time

    I can’t answer that question because I don’t believe that. However, I do believe that insurance companies engage in a bait-and-switch game, leading people to believe that they are covered only do deny coverage (or cancel the policy) when treatment is actually needed.

    The health history you fill out is one common vehicle. Suppose you were treated for an ingrown toenail at age 22. Ten years later you are changing jobs and forget to mention that when you fill out your health history. Ten years after that you need treatment for cancer and you are denied coverage because you failed to mention the ingrown toenail. Nobody is claiming that the toenail had anything to do with cancer – it is simply a loophole the insurance company uses to avoid making costly payouts.

    Yes – I do believe they do this on purpose. In fact, they hire people with the specific job of finding ways to deny coverage. Part of your premium in fact goes to people with the sole job of finding ways to deny your coverage.

    Yes – I call that immoral.

    You conclude with: And while you obviously feel passionately that it is a moral issue, you did not answer my question, and until you do, I find a great failure of consistancy in the issue of morality and the imposition of the law by the left.

    I am not sure which question you mean – can you remind me?

    — hippieprof

  183. “Satisfaction with Medicare is actually quite high, and with a 3 percent overhead you can’t beat the price.”

    Good for you. Why should I accept what you are happy with and did you look at the pics of the dried up farms?

  184. Elric said: Satisfaction from doctors quite low, as many will not accept Medicare patients. What are you going to do when doctors, tired of having their wages cut, say NO MORE? It’s coming, I guarantee it.

    If this is the case, why do a substantial majority of doctors support the public option? This according to a survey in the New England Journal of Medicine:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/majority-of-doctors-back_n_286352.html

    Physician salaries have declined, BTW, because insurance companies are skimming profits. Take that out of the equation and I suspect physicians would be quite happy with the situation.

    — hp

  185. You are hitting the bong too much Professor. Tex made that statement, not me. Now look at those pics and see that government intervention destroys. Especially when its “progressive” in nature.

  186. (CNSNews.com) – Although both the House and Senate have voted to de-fund the liberal activist group ACORN, it’s unlikely such a proposal will be enacted any time soon, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told CNSNews.com.

    If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really wanted to defund ACORN, “we could have done it yesterday,” Bachmann told CNSNews.com. “It isn’t that I’m saying these votes won’t result in ultimately defunding ACORN, but right now you’ve got a vote on a housing bill and a vote on an education bill. How’s that going to come together?”

    (An amendment to strip ACORN of federal funding was attached to a larger student loan bill in the House and to a housing and transportation funding bill in the Senate. Bachmann questioned how amendments on two different bills in the two chambers would be reconciled. She says Democrats will try to strip the ACORN language from the larger bills, and therefore she advocates a separate, stand-alone bill to end all federal funding for ACORN.)

    “My point I’m trying to make to people is: Yes, we have a vote. Let’s make sure it’s not a CYA (cover your ass) vote,” she continued. “Let’s make sure that it’s a real vote to defund ACORN. Until it’s on a bill that actually has a chance of passing and that the president is going to sign, this allegedly criminal enterprise is going to continue.”

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/rep-michele-bachmann-really-kicks-ass-on-defund-acorn-votes-lets-make-sure-its-not-a-cya-cover-your-.html

    She is of course right. Also posted it because since Dodger isnt willing to defend any of Thuggy’s and the demomarxist’s fascism, I thought I would post something he couldnt resist commenting on.

  187. Exclusive: CBO predicts Social Security cash deficits in 2010-11
    posted at 8:48 am on September 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Four years ago, George W. Bush attempted to reform the entitlement program Social Security, warning that the system was accelerating into collapse and would soon run deficits. Democrats scoffed and claimed the Social Security system was solid and wouldn’t have problems for at least 50 years, as Harry Reid told PBS’ Jim Lehrer in June 2005. Just last year, the CBO — under the direction of Peter Orszag, now budget director in the Obama administration — claimed that the first cash deficits in Social Security would not come until 2019.

    Now, however, the CBO has determined that Social Security will run cash deficits next year and in 2010, and by 2017 will be more or less in permanent deficit mode. Hot Air has exclusively obtained the summer 2009 CBO report sent to legislators on Capitol Hill but not yet made public, which shows that outgo will exceed income for the first time ever on an annual basis in 2010:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/22/exclusive-cbo-predicts-social-security-cash-deficits-in-2010-11/

    Prof Bong’s precious Medicare soon to follow.

  188. She is of course right. Also posted it because since Dodger isnt willing to defend any of Thuggy’s and the demomarxist’s fascism, I thought I would post something he couldnt resist commenting on.

    I can’t believe I’m saying this but for once I agree with Bachmann. Now, excuse me. I need to go lay down a bit. 🙂

  189. Obama Cabinet official: Americans are children …
    posted at 10:12 am on September 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    The last we heard from Steven Chu, Barack Obama’s Secretary of Energy, someone had to explain to him that oil policy fell within his “domain.” Now that Chu has apparently mastered what exactly energy means, he now wants to act as a parent to recalcitrant Americans who stubbornly insist on making their own choices in life. The Wall Street Journal reports on Chu’s attitude towards the role of government, and especially his condescending attitude towards the governed:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/22/obama-cabinet-official-americans-are-children/

    Just like Thuggy, an elitist asshole.

  190. Prince Charles Urges People to Abandon Their Cars to Save Planet From Non-Existent Global Warming

    The Prince of Wales is urging people to give up their cars in favour of walking and public transport to try to reduce carbon emissions.

    The Prince, who has two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and still drives an Aston Martin given to him by the Queen on his 21st birthday, said developers had a duty to put public transport and the pedestrian at the heart of their housing schemes.

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/prince-charles-urges-people-to-abandon.html

    Like I said Professor Bong, its a scam. Now if you believe it to be true, by all means abandon your car like a good little drone.

  191. Elric says: Non-Existent Global Warming

    I keep hearing you make this claim. Scientists are generally an apolitical bunch – and the vast majority of scientists disagree with you. Sure – there are a few on your side – but scientific opinion is pretty solidly behind the truth of global warming.

    On what basis are you making this claim, Elric? Are you better prepared to assess global warming than a majority of scientists?

    — hp

  192. Oh – on the “Americans are children” comment.

    Children tend to hold beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. Denying global warming in the presence of substantial evidence is indeed childlike.

    — hp

  193. Scientists say the last decade of climate stability — which follows a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=2

    Sure can. You look at the drought pics yet? Or you dont want to see the results of “progressivism” unleashed?

    Oh and are you going to give up your car like Prince Charles asked?

  194. Scientists pull an about face on global warming

    Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn’t marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

    Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

    Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

    Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

    When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.

    So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html

  195. Yes I looked at the drought pictures Elric – I just don’t get the point. California has had water problems for over 20 years. They have consistently developed at a rate which outpaces their resources. I remember 20 or more years ago – when I lived in Washington State – that California was trying to buy water from the Columbia river. They are still trying to buy that same water now. The problem is nothing new – so to suddenly blame it on the federal government is insane. It has just as much to do with California’s failure to plan accordingly for its own growth.

    — hp

  196. Prof Bong,

    The water arent getting to the farms because the government cut the water off because of the Delta Smelt. So yes I blame the government. And that Thuggy wants to nationize Cali’s eco blueprint is a great cause for alarm. Same thing with the wildfires. They were out of control because of environmentalists.

  197. Wow, Elric – do you even read the links you post? Here is a quote from your own link:

    Scientists say the last decade of climate stability — which follows a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

    But trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public — and to policy makers — can be frustrating, they say.

    Dr. Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel, wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep the next decade or so relatively cool, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continue to increase.

    In other words, greenhouse gasses are accumulating and global warming is still occurring despite temporary temperature stability.

    Sheesh….

    — hp

  198. BiW….

    This is an honest question and NOT an opening move in another debate – I am interested in your opinion.

    Many conservatives argue that one way to increase competition in the health insurance markets is to remove restrictions which do not allow purchase of insurance across state lines.

    I actually think this is a good idea.

    However, I have seen a number of states-rights advocates (also from the right) claim that such a move would be unconstitutional.

    What is your opinion on that?

    — hippieprof

  199. “In other words, greenhouse gasses are accumulating and global warming is still occurring despite temporary temperature stability.”

    And its suppose to cool for the next decade. Of course I remember back in the 70’s when the next Ice Age is imminent.

    Planet is billions of years old and you want to measure the future climate on a mere few years or a decade?

    I wonder if it was the caveman’s carbon footprint that brought the end to the Ice Age? Was it Prof Bong?

    Oh and did you get rid of your car like a good eco drone?

  200. Physician salaries have declined, BTW, because insurance companies are skimming profits. Take that out of the equation and I suspect physicians would be quite happy with the situation.

    – hp

    I’m always suspect when somebody gives me the Huffington Post as evidence of anything. If you truly believe physicians are for THE BOMBA care, why the outrage? Hippie, you are guilty of speaking from the talking points, never considering who is writing the talking points.

    I’m in the medical field. Therefore, in this one particular instance, I feel like I have a better handle on what the medical profession thinks of the public option. In a seminar room the other day of which I was in attendance, not one doctor thought the current proposals were a good idea. It would be like me talking about some liberal arts “research funding.”

    I would assume you have a better feel for the collegiate staff than I do. In this instance, why would you know more than I would about what doctors might think, being that I’m around them all the day long?

    And I’m telling you, unless the rest of the nation completely different than our pool, which is almost mathematically impossible, very few doctors are for BOMBA care.

    Most of us now recognize that the left always guilty of framing an opponent, whether it be pharmaceuticals, insurance, or the petroleum industry as the evil ones. Unfortunately for you and THE BOMBA, most are starting to recognize that the real evil talks with a teleprompter between Greek columns, all the while licking the boots of the U.N.

    Ain’t going to fly from my part of the world. You’ve been tagged. 😉

  201. Tex,

    Id trust your opinion over that of Thuggy’s. You know why? Not just because you are in the medical field and he never has but that the jerkoff cant even keep track of his own kid’s medical history. Why the hell would anyone trust their healthcare with such an imbecile?

  202. Elric,

    You know how Rutherford said his GPA struggled while at Hawvard? Understandable, being that our buddy Rutherford was enrolled in a real major at a difficult school. Sure I would have been right there with him struggling.

    I wonder if Rutherford understands that the chances very good Rutherford far smarter than the man pol he idolizes? I become more convinced everyday that Obama, because he is black and well spoken, was picked by those select few in the Dim party that are the movers and shakers to push their shit agenda through at the opportune time. Soros & Co…

    One thing I’m completely convinced of – like Bush, who was at least a decent human being, Obama is a product of selection without a hell of a lot of merit. Not because THE BOMBA is brilliant or worthy, but because of the correct blood lines and the willingness to play marionette as long as it feeds his narcissistic nature. A combination of lefty feel-good, piss poor opponent in McCain, and the public’s inability to see that the economy had little to do with politic, and more greed and corruption accumulated over many years provided the opportunity. After listening closely to Obama recently, I have decided he simply isn’t that smart.

  203. Tex,

    Been saying the thug isnt all that bright for months. As narcissistic as he is, you would think his school records would not be sealed if he received such high marks.

    The guy was also so clueless as to not quit his racist church when he decided to run for president. The guy stumbles when speaking, less so with TOTUS but even then he stumbles.

    But I wouldnt go as far as to say Dodger is smarter than Thuggy. Who is dumber? An idiot or one who follows an idiot blindly?

  204. Like I said Professor Bong, its a scam. Now if you believe it to be true, by all means abandon your car like a good little drone.

    You’ve lost me. How does the quote you provided show that global warming is a scam? It shows that Charles may be a hypocrite but that is an entirely different issue,

  205. IF the world fails to reach agreement on tackling climate change soon then it could end in war, climate scientist Tim Flannery has warned.

    Like many others, he is concerned at a lack of progress ahead of a crucial UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December.

    If there is no deal some time in the next year then there is a risk of momentum fading and the problem getting beyond the reach of world leaders, said Prof Flannery, who is in New York for climate talks.

    “My greatest fear is that once people stop negotiating, once diplomacy fails, that’s potentially a prelude for war.”

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/leading-climate-scientist-warns-failure-to-reach-climate-deal-could-lead-to-war.html

    Like the scaremongering isnt high enough?

  206. So-called “global warming” not an issue for Americans.

    So what? Are you suggesting that every initiative we undertake conform with the “interests” of the American people?

    Let’s see, Joe the Plumber doesn’t care about global warming but a truckload of well versed scientists do. Ehhhh, yeah I’ll let Joe the Plumber set my priorities.

  207. “So what? Are you suggesting that every initiative we undertake conform with the “interests” of the American people?”

    Like I said Tex, Dodger isnt that intelligent either. And who the hell is “we”? Of course answer that after you answer about the visas.

  208. Wow, Elric – do you even read the links you post?

    ROTFL, no Professor, Elric does not read half the links he posts. How could he? At the rate he posts links he would be reading nonstop.

  209. I’m always suspect when somebody gives me the Huffington Post as evidence of anything. If you truly believe physicians are for THE BOMBA care, why the outrage? Hippie, you are guilty of speaking from the talking points, never considering who is writing the talking points.
    I’m in the medical field.

    First, you get to dis HuffPo when you tell Elric to stop quoting from WeaselZippers. Give me a break.

    Second, you are not in the medical field. That’s like a film student saying “I’m a director”. Get your degree first and then you can talk about being in the medical field. Are you far enough along to have even done an internship yet?

    I’d like to know the political leanings of these doctors you quote all the time. I suspect they are conservative.

    Surveys show without ambiguity that the medical community wants a private option as part of the health care mix. Doctors on a 2 to 1 basis favored opening up Medicare to ages 55 – 64. Finally the number one complaint by doctors about Medicare was adequacy of reimbursement although they overwhelmingly said it added more autonomy to their treatment of their patients (less interference). 21% said they favored Medicare over private insurers. A sizable minority, if you ask me.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/doctors_support_the_public_opt.html

    Oh, by the way, do you dismiss the Washington Post like you dismiss the HuffPo? 😉

  210. BiW’s and HP’s conversation is interesting, but I see that R isn’t responding to my comments. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt in that this thread has somegreat depth to it right now, but I’d still like a response…

  211. I find it interesting that no mention has been made by any of the Obama-haters on the Conservative Round Table about the person who has not played the race card in the Wilson/Carter brouhaha. Namely

    (drum roll please)

    Barack Obama.

    Obama has consistently denied any racial content to any of the protests. Fascinating that some of the folks here are so blind with hatred they can’t even acknowledge when the man conforms to their world view.

  212. The NEA conference call was ILLEGAL, a crime, probably should be viewed as something a bit more…

    You cannot give money to non-partisan groups and then lobby them to push a partisan agenda.

    Really R, some standards please…

  213. Like I said Tex, Dodger isnt that intelligent either.

    Please don’t comment on anyone else’s intelligence when you are dumb enough to want to run this country by popular opinion polls.

    I don’t ask my dentist to fix my leaky faucet and I sure as hell wouldn’t ask you to decide how we go forward on climate change initiatives.

    The dumbing-down of America has reached an all time low. Now, folks who reject science (“I don’t want my kids vaccinated”) get to run the debate.

    Why don’t you move to Afghanistan Elric? They’re somewhere back in the 12th century. You’d be right at home there.

  214. Tex said: I’m always suspect when somebody gives me the Huffington Post as evidence of anything. If you truly believe physicians are for THE BOMBA care, why the outrage? Hippie, you are guilty of speaking from the talking points, never considering who is writing the talking points.

    I agree – and I do take HuffPost with a grain of salt. However, they are talking about a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. As someone in the medical field you know that is is among the most prestigious of medical journals – if not the most.

    Actually, though, our different findings may actually not be at odds. The NEJM reports on physicians preference for a public option. You were talking about feelings regarding the current bill – which does not have a public option. Perhaps that is their source of disapproval?

    — hp

  215. “”I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service,” Sergant said on the call.

    At another point, Michael Skolnick, political director for hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, said, “I’m hoping that through this group, and the goal of all this, and the goal of this phone call, is through this group we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign. But to continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration.”

    What is interesting, is that of the 16 organizations that got grants, all 16 made calls within days pushing the Pres’s agenda…

    Dirty.

  216. Good luck with getting a response. He isnt called Dodger for nothing.

    LOL … the only one who actually calls me Dodger is our juvenile WZ Pimp but I take it as a term of endearment. I’m sure Professor Bong and DOIAD feel the same way. 🙂

    (Actually, I fear we may have lost Red Pill because of Elric’s antics. Real shame. Pill had some brains behind his rhetoric even if I didn’t like his politics. Sadly, Wickle is another one who lurks but won’t write. Hope you’re happy Elric … Elric the Polarizer.)

  217. Gorilla, I apologize for not addressing your comments. When it comes to this particular thread I feel like the surfer who has had a big wave knock him off his board. I am desperately in catch-up mode.

    And on top of it, Elric has given me a homework assignment on Honduras. Don’t hold your breath Elric, it is truly near the bottom of my in-basket. 👿

  218. “Don’t hold your breath Elric, it is truly near the bottom of my in-basket. ”

    Well a president favoring dictators and islamists over a legitimate leader isnt that big of a deal for you is it?

  219. The car lane thing is counter-intuitive from my perspective and pretty nutty. Rich white people are LESS likely to carpool than minorities so how could the carpool lane be bad for minorities?

    Makes no sense. (And by the way, has NOTHING to do with “Obama’s America”).

  220. Elric spouts: Planet is billions of years old and you want to measure the future climate on a mere few years or a decade? …….Oh and did you get rid of your car like a good eco drone?

    I am trained as a scientist, Elric – and I have a fair understanding of mathematical models. Far from being a drone for the left (and as I said before, scientists are remarkably apolitical) I draw my own conclusions. Allow me to explain it to you.

    Imagine a sine wave, centered along the x-axis. The regular up-and-down movement of that wave represents the cyclical climate change which is always present.

    Now imagine tilting the x-axis upward to the right, all the while adjusting the sin wave so the shifted axis still intersects the center of the wave. The tilted axis represents the steady effects of global warming.

    If you are following this model, you will note that there will be periods of time when the temperature actually decreases. That in fact is to be predicted. Nevertheless, the overall trend is upward.

    — hp

  221. Rutherford says: Hope you’re happy Elric … Elric the Polarizer.)

    It is too bad that Elric fails to realize that he is weakening his own message. Quantity is not quality. He would do much better if he made a few well reasoned posts, compared to his onslaught of links (some of which he apparently has not read) and name calling.

    Elric – dude – you really are doing your side a disservice.

    — hp

  222. Elric asks So you get rid of your car Prof Bong? Did the caveman’s carbon footprint end the Ice Age?

    (sigh) I really should just stop responding to irrelevant questions. I wonder how long it would take Elric to leave if everyone just ignored him?

    So – yes – I still have my car. Gets pretty good mileage. I hybrid is out of my price range right now – but I will get one when I can afford it. I try to be as “green” as I can be.

    What do you do, Elric? Do you make any attempt to conserve your environment?

    Of course the caveman’s carbon footprint did not end the ice age. Ummmm…. who said that it did?

    — hp

  223. Imagine a sine wave, centered along the x-axis.

    Hippieprof, it would be real fun to meet you. You have got to be one of the most good-natured folks I have encountered in the blogosphere.

    Trust me, you lost Elric at “sine wave”.

    No, I’m wrong. You lost him at “imagine”. 🙂

    Nooo, I’m wrong again, Elric spends a good deal of his day imagining the black helicopters. 😉

  224. I read the article, and saw that comment. I tend to believe it is splitting hairs in favor of the administration.

    Consider:
    RUSH: Say, folks, do you remember when it was revealed that the Bush Department of Education had paid Armstrong Williams something like $241,000 to help promote the No Child Left Behind Act? Remember that? Exactly what is happening with the Obama White House and the NEA. And when it was discovered that Armstrong Williams had taken 241 grand, Henry Waxman introduced H.R. 373 which would make such a thing completely against the law. Do you remember that? I do. That’s why I have the presence of mind to mention it to you now.

    To which I submit H.R. 373

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

    (a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

    (1) Investigations in 2004 and 2005 by the Government Accountability Office revealed that appropriated funds have been used in more than one Federal agency to fund `covert propaganda’ that is `misleading as to source’.

    (2) An independent investigation revealed that the Department of Education paid a conservative commentator to speak in support of the No Child Left Behind Act during his television and radio appearances.

    (3) The American public has been subjected to receiving millions of dollars worth of messages in print, television, radio, and in person without being informed that the sources are not independent.

    (4) There is not enough information about Federal public relations and advertising efforts to allow for consistent oversight by Congress.

    (b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are–

    (1) to ensure that advertising and public relations campaigns paid for with Federal appropriations are unbiased and factual, and do not contain a political message or covert propaganda;

    (2) to increase the oversight and evaluation of advertising campaigns paid for by the Federal Government by requiring that agencies provide notice to the appropriate congressional committees of all public relations, media relations, and advertising contracts;

    (3) to require that all public relations and media outreach tools developed by Federal agencies inform the target audience of the source of funding for the message; and

    (4) to make permanent the prohibition against spending Federal funds on publicity and propaganda that has been included in appropriations Acts since 1951.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.373:

    So, by reading this, it certainly seems to me that what Obama did was specifically in violation to the language of this bill. Question: have you heard anything from Henry Waxman on this since it broke?

  225. “I really should just stop responding to irrelevant questions.”

    Its not irrelevant. Did it? Or did the planet heat up all on its own?

    “So – yes – I still have my car. Gets pretty good mileage.”

    Prince Charles said to get rid of your car for the good of the planet. You arent doing enough, shame on you.

    “Trust me, you lost Elric at “sine wave”.”

    This coming from a guy that needs to do his “homework” on why Thuggy granted visas to thugs but not a president from a democracy.

  226. Now I must confess that somehow I got through college without reading Plato’s Republic but I’m reading it now for discussion with one of my buddies.

    I think I just had an epiphany! Elric is using the Socratic method!

    “So you get rid of your car Prof Bong? ”
    “BTW You have that visa answer yet?”

    And all this time I just thought he was a dumb-ass! 🙂

  227. I am leaving a comment here primarily to update the My Comments section that WordPress provides. I said something,post related no less 4 days ago and now I have 314 comments taking up space.
    I will say this though.
    1.Red seems busy at his own place.
    2. Zelaya is back in Honduras,perhaps a good thing Micheletti can’t come north
    3. Car pooling and white people. WTF is that about ?

  228. (CBS News)- To hear world leaders and others addressing the United Nations Summit on Climate Change, the threat could not be more real and the need more urgent to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. But in stark contrast to the earnest statements is the carbon footprint associated with their gathering.

    It happens every autumn: midtown Manhattan becomes the motorcade capital of the world. Each foreign leader in town has a convoy of vehicles. Some of them, like President Obama’s motorcade, are 20-to-30 vehicles in length. It’s so long – it seems that when the front of it reaches the U.N., the back end is still back at his hotel.

    Exacerbating the annual exercise in diplomatic gridlock are police actions, blocking intersections and closing streets for security to facilitate motorcade movements. It renders countless other vehicles immobile while waiting for motorcades to pass, their engines idling but still blowing exhaust into the midtown air.

    Does it undermine the goal of the climate change summit and cause the pledges of environmental concern to ring hollow?

    Asked about it, White House climate change negotiator Todd Sterns had a suggestion.

    “I think the U.N. should make a pledge to electric vehicle motorcades within five years,” he said.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/shocker-un-climate-change-summit-leaves-giant-carbon-footprint.html

    Like I said……a scam. Kinda like Prince Charles telling everyone to dump their cars when he owns quite a few himself.

  229. “US ‘likely behind’ Chavez coup

    Carter, left, said it was understandable that Chavez blames the US for the abortive coup [EPA]

    Jimmy Carter, a former US president, has said that Washington knew about an abortive coup against Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, in 2002, and that it may even have taken part.”

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/09/200992116049879437.html

    OK, this fucking idiot hasn’t had an intelligence brief in over 30 years, so where does he get off making comments that are completely out of his ass? This is why the American people don’t trust Dems on security- this fricking guy- who is single handedly responsible for Afghanistan, Iran and the bulk of the conflicts in the ME.

    Someone needs to lock this moron up and throw away the key. What a disgrace, coddling Chavez who is clearly a dictator repressing the rights and freedoms of Venezuela. Pathetic…

  230. I saw red pill over at Professor Bong’s Hippies place. I could understand why he wouldn’t want to constantly argue with a door knob, a la, Elric.

    And car pooling isn’t a white thing, it’s a need to save money on gas, everybody does it thing.

  231. “I could understand why he wouldn’t want to constantly argue”

    No one said he had too.

    “And car pooling isn’t a white thing, it’s a need to save money on gas, everybody does it thing.”

    So why the race baiting on it?

  232. Why is Elric hung up on the president of Honduras? Does he prefer transfers of power by coup rather than democratic elections? Would it not be a bad precedent for our government to recognize just anybody who overthrows their elected government?

  233. John Fund: Let’s not forget Obama’s ACORN connections
    posted at 2:58 pm on September 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

    Barack Obama claimed that the latest scandal at ACORN had not really hit his radar screen during his “full Ginsburg” this weekend. Perhaps Obama hoped that Americans would forget the extensive history he had with the community-organizing group, or at least develop amnesia about his partnership with them during the presidential election. After all, Obama gave ACORN $800,000 to conduct get-out-the-vote work, which his campaign disclosed only reluctantly last summer. John Fund reminds readers of these connections:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/22/john-fund-lets-not-forget-obamas-acorn-connections/

    Never forget.

  234. Like I said……a scam. Kinda like Prince Charles telling everyone to dump their cars when he owns quite a few himself.

    Once again, you confuse scam with hypocrisy. I’m not sure why you don’t get the difference.

  235. “Once again, you confuse scam with hypocrisy. I’m not sure why you don’t get the difference.”

    Because if it was as dire as they say it is, they would be leading “green” lives as well.

  236. OK, this fucking idiot hasn’t had an intelligence brief in over 30 years, so where does he get off making comments that are completely out of his ass? This is why the American people don’t trust Dems on security- this fricking guy- who is single handedly responsible for Afghanistan, Iran and the bulk of the conflicts in the ME.

    G, if I’m not mistaken ex-Presidents do have access to higher levels of intel than the ordinary citizen. Granted they don’t get a daily briefing but they know more than you do. Also, “single handedly responsible …” WOW haven’t you overstated this a wee bit?

  237. Because if it was as dire as they say it is, they would be leading “green” lives as well.

    That totally fails the logic test. The very definition of a hypocrite is someone who says you should do something they don’t do. It doesn’t mean their advice is bad, it just means they’re a hypocrite.

    Mr Jones: “Don’t beat your kids.”
    Mr, Jones beats his kids.
    So that means “Don’t beat your kids” is bad advice (or a scam)?

  238. If they are being used for a specific purpose, they get briefed on it, but I’m almost 100% certain that Carter hasn’t been briefed on Chavez, certainly not in 2002 by Bush.

    And no, I don’t think it is a wee bit overstated. His actions, or lack thereof, had a direct and lasting impact on Iran. His action, or the lack thereof, created the problems of Afghanistan. Carter’s foreign policies have been the most devestating to this country in at least this century, if not in the history of the nation. The only thing that potentially saves this idiot from the bottom is Hoover.

  239. OK Elric, Curator’s comment got me back in gear. I had read the Honduras story weeks ago and quite frankly forgot the details.

    You won’t like my conclusion. This is what we get for dealing with a dumbass country. It’s one thing for a country to impose term limits. That makes perfect sense. But to make those term limits so sacrosanct that even a democratic effort to have the limit changed results in removal from office? What kind of Mickey Mouse country is that?

    Now that I’ve read a bit, I remember thinking back when the story broke how ridiculous this is.

    If I’m not mistaken, we get to decide which governments we will recognize and which ones we won’t. While there was some really weird constitutional defense for Zelaya’s ouster, it still flies in the face of our democratic principles and we reserve the right to not recognize the legitimacy of the new government.

    OK … now you get to answer … what’s your beef Elric?

  240. “OK … now you get to answer … what’s your beef Elric?”

    So you are saying the Iranian election is more legit than Honduras tossing out its president Constitutionally?

  241. Moving Forward in Honduras

    By Roberto Micheletti
    Tuesday, September 22, 2009

    My country is in an unusual position this week. Former president Manuel Zelaya has surreptitiously returned to Honduras, still claiming to be the country’s legitimate leader, despite the fact that a constitutional succession took place on June 28. Amid all of the claims that are likely to be made in coming days, the former president will not mention that the people of Honduras have moved on since the events of that day or that our citizens are looking forward to free, fair and transparent elections on Nov. 29.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103111.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

    Something the marxist/islamist supporting drones should read.

  242. So are all these world leaders that advocate Green socialism hypocrites, including Thuggy?

    LOL. It just so happens that my day job is as a webinar producer. It would have been a whole lot “greener” for all these dudes to have stayed put and met over the internet in a huge web conference. Greener, but probably not more practical.

    In my day to day practice, I encounter considerable resistance from companies who are addicted to the “travel for a face-to-face” when technology provides them a very reasonable and affordable alternative. (This resistance is one reason business is bad right now… plus the economy … but I digress).

    The truth is many large enterprises find that web conferencing goes against their “corporate culture”. Does this make them green hypocrites? I’m not sure. Granted, there is something “funny” about a bunch of people expending tons of carbon emissions to meet about not expending carbon emissions.

  243. “Granted, there is something “funny” about a bunch of people expending tons of carbon emissions to meet about not expending carbon emissions.”

    Or a “global warming” conference being canceled due to snow.

  244. Will it ever end ???????
    Rutherford/Curator shouldn’t Honduras be allowed to conduct its sovereign actions like a sovereign nation ? If you answer no I think you are being a little too Rooseveltian. Lighten up and be a good neighbor.
    As for Chavez. You really want to go there ? Even Jimmy C has come around to the reality that Herr Hugo is going to the dark side uber quick.

  245. Alfie,

    Amazing how they side with regimes like in Iran and Cuba over Honduras. Well they are leftists after all.

    As for the car pooling, I posted it and like good drones, no one condemned the race baiting.

  246. So you are saying the Iranian election is more legit than Honduras tossing out its president Constitutionally?

    I’m not sure this is a fair comparison. We can’t prove the BS election results in Iran and Afghanistan (you left that doozy out) but Honduras fully admits they booted their President on really bizarre constitutional grounds.

    I wish someone on the blog knew as much about Honduras as G knows about Iraq. My sneaking suspicion is that this constitutional violation was a handy excuse for booting Zelaya. Rather than a simple military coup, they figured they’d cover themselves legally when their gripe with Zelaya is about something else entirely.

    But back to your point: we can be as suspicious as we like about election results in other countries. Unless we have election inspectors on the ground in those countries, we have to accept their results. We can, as we did with Iran, voice our disappointment with the apparent fraud, but we can’t do much else.

  247. Gorilla, did Carter or did he not help secure a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt?

    And where Iran was concerned, did we not prop up the Shah against the will of the people? So in a sense, did Carter not reap what previous administrations had sown?

    Look, I’m not tickled with Jimmy right now for entirely different reasons. I called the dude courageous for his stand on Obama/racism and come to find out his own civil rights history is murky. I’m not elaborating on that until I can be sure I’m not just being fed conservative propaganda but for the time being, I feel a bit duped.

  248. “We can, as we did with Iran, voice our disappointment with the apparent fraud, but we can’t do much else.”

    How about not giving a visa to a regime that beat, raped and murdered the protesters? Why do you keep avoiding that?

  249. Or a “global warming” conference being canceled due to snow.

    Actually that is funny as hell! I don’t think anyone has stated that there will be no more winters from this day forward due to global warming. Remember HP’s sine curve.

  250. As for the car pooling, I posted it and like good drones, no one condemned the race baiting.

    Elric, I know you don’t read the articles you post but could you at least read my answers to your endless posts?

    See comment 322. I won’t repeat it again. Scroll the f*ck up.

  251. R honestly I’ve tried to stay up on the thread and that line was like …I don’t know.
    Seriously I’ve followed the Honduras thing through a number of diverse channels and although I don’t come near the level of expertise you want let me just say..
    Yeah your kinda right. he powers to be had a yellow streak combined with a streak of real concern over Zelayas recent cozying with the other Bolivarians. Power holders everywhere let alone Latin America are apt to getting a little twitchy when populist movements are being launched. Especially when those fronts are from out of the local zip code. With that said though they did do it all legal like and given the whole dust up will surely have some of the best monitored elections come November.
    As for the slangish type earlier. That wasn’t meant as a race thing. Ironically a number of my friends back in my Army days picked that up from an Italian-Peurto Rican from the Bronx. We all,black, white and asian used to totally f&#$ with him with that line. It’s kind of stuck.

  252. HP, I believe this pithy to your discussions with BiW on the Constitutional authorities provided by the General Welfare clause. Clearly, it was not intended to be involved in the daily life of the population and both the Framers and the Founders are spinning in their graves at the abuses of power we are seeing from its manipulation.

    The General Welfare clause states:
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” The General Welfare clause

    The left has routinely used this as the Constitutional authority for interfering in the daily lives of the American people. However, consider this from President Madison, who is the author of the General Welfare clause.

    If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. ” — President James Madison, author of the General Welfare clause

    http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Madison.Quote.3254

    Ultimately though, this is how Madison viewed the clause and considered it in the context of the US Constitution:

    With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

    [Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. ” – James Madison, Federalist 14

    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ” – James Madison, Federalist 45

    If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. ” – James Madison, 1792

    The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. ” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    http://www.darkcanyon.net/How%20General%20The%20General%20Welfare%20Clause.htm

  253. Elric I don’t know how much Kissinger era history / doctrine you’ve seen but there in lies your answer.
    Iran has more juice than little ole Honduras so all the world (USA,OAS,EU,UN) has bullied them. It doesn’t make it right on an ethical,human scale but ala Realpolitik it totally gels.

  254. Alfie,

    The guy was also real chummy with Chavez and the guy was taking the same route he did. And its a real eye opener that Thuggy thinks the thugish regime in Iran is more legit than Honduras. But thats Thuggy for you and should be an eye opener into what he really is for you.

  255. Alfie,

    You would have a bit of a point but how does that play into other thuggish regimes like Cuba whos regime murdered more people proportionally than Stalins regime?

    Like I said, its a real glimpse into Thuggy’s mindset. He is more comfortable around thugs and the UN than freedom and the American people.

  256. How about not giving a visa to a regime that beat, raped and murdered the protesters?

    In Southern Africa President Reagan allied with apartheid supporters, supported the prolonged imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, and funded the UNITA killers in Angola. In Mozambique the RENAMO forces that Reagan funded at the time were known to be the most vicious killers in the world. Funded by the US and South Africa their main goal was to terrorize the entire Mozambique population because they had chosen independence. The Sandinista (Contra) government beat, raped and murdered people as well, including two Catholic nuns and a bishop, but your golden boy Ronald Raygun kept giving them truckloads of weapons and cash in the 80’s.

    What is your fucking point Stooge? Oh that’s right….you don’t have one. Your just a copy/paste clown with no intelligence.

  257. Sandinistas are not Contras and you’d be better served using El Salvador as an example of Reagan utilizing classic Kissinger.
    Reengaging Cuba makes many people on the right cringe yet many an American businessman dreams of it. I for one don’t think Obama wanting to reengage Havana is such a bad thing and he came nowhere near the mark the OAS did post his positive comments.
    An engaged Cuba is a good thing even if it gives you a bad taste in your mouth for a time. Think post war Japan and Germany and you’ll see what I’m saying.

  258. The guy was also real chummy with Chavez and the guy was taking the same route he did.

    Yeah that’s the Bolivarian thing. Chavez has dreams of Simon Bolivar like Hitler did Napoleon. I don’t know if there are the same lessons for them to learn or not learn as the case may be.

  259. “An engaged Cuba is a good thing even if it gives you a bad taste in your mouth for a time. Think post war Japan and Germany and you’ll see what I’m saying.”

    No I dont. We defeated Germany and Japan and set them up with a democracy.

  260. Gorilla….

    Pithy indeed – I will need a bit to digest it – so if it takes some time for me to respond don’t think I am ignoring you….

    One initial reaction: If Madison did indeed believe that

    With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them

    … then what was the point of including those two words at all? If “general welfare” is simply a broad label for the specifically enumerated powers, why wouldn’t it explicitly say that? Or, why were those words left out entirely.

    As written, the two words present considerable ambiguity (hence this discussion). Why didn’t the framers address that issue in the document itself?

    I suspect there is more to this than we have here….

    — hippieprof

  261. My belief is in the context of the Framers frame of mind. They were very much focused on limiting the government as much as possible, and would have seen the others limiting factors, such as reserving powers not specified to the states, as a mutually supportive establishment of the limited role of government.

    Even when you examine Thomas Jefferson, who was certainly the “big government” type of the time, saw a very limited role for that expansion of power.

  262. Gorilla…..

    OK – another quick response based on some very quick research:

    — You are correct in your interpretation of Jefferson and Madison’s views. However, Hamilton had an alternative (and more liberal) interpretation of the clause.

    — The Washington and Adams administration generally sided with Hamilton. From 1800 to about 1936 the more conservative interpretation dominated. From 1936 to present the Hamiltonian interpretation has had the upper hands in the courts.

    Again, that is based on very quick and dirty research and I am far from an expert. Interesting stuff, though.

    — hippieprof

  263. Rutherford,

    Listen up. I only want to say this once to the disabled racist.

    Second, you are not in the medical field. That’s like a film student saying “I’m a director”. Get your degree first and then you can talk about being in the medical field. Are you far enough along to have even done an internship yet?

    First brotha, I’m 50 years old. I have friends who are doctors, including those who encouraged me to enter this field. Second, I’m surrounded by doctors every day – a bunch of them. It doesn’t require me to be one yet to understand their concerns about healthcare. In fact, the fact that I’m at a medical school gives me more input than if I were simply a doctor since I’m around about a hundred of them a day.

    Finally, I’ll quit talking about medicine when you quit talking about economics and finance as if you know what you’re talking about.

    In case anyone isn’t in the know, Rutherford is a big enough dumb fuck, that though Harvard graduated which he continually names drop (quota entrance obviously), Rutherford thought it a swell idea to take his entire salary and spend it on a house that he couldn’t afford, probably to keep up with the whitey Jones family, because after all, Rutherford is a poor, poor black man whose been discriminated against his entire life.

    Then when the company shit canned his ass for incompetence and a he was a continual turd to be around while he fucked off on his worthless blog while at work, he was left in a real pinch – penniless and living off his wife’s dole and his meager 401K. Now, he’s scrambling as some expert “consultant”, barely able to pay for his daughter’s child care. Why the daughter needs child care is probably because Rutherford is incapable of caring for by himself.

    Did I get the story right there genius IT consultant?

    So next time you scold me Rutherford about how I am not capable of reading the Washington Post, which is going bankrupt as we speak, or the fact I’m not a doctor, you think about the abject fuck up you are as a person and the absolute travesty you’ve made of both your and your family’s life on account of piss poor personal decisions – politics aside. And since you’ll call pot calling kettle black, understand something. My house is paid for. My kids college paid for. I’ve got money in the bank. I could retire right now if I wanted to. So before you compare your’s to mine, give that a little consideration. 😉

    Now you can boot me from your blog asshole being that everyone now knows what a fuck up you are when and where it counts – called life.

    Editors note: Did I hit a nerve? 😉

  264. Gorilla said: Consider who was President and who then appointed justices to the court…

    Absolutely – it has everything to do with who appointed the justices – but that is how the constitution says it is done. Therefore, we can’t claim unconstitutionality on that basis.

    I think (tentatively) that I have made my original point.

    When this started back on the earlier thread I stated that there was constitutional justification for the government providing health insurance, under the general welfare clause. BiW claimed that it would be in fact unconstitutional because of a narrower interpretation.

    What I have discovered is that indeed one of the framers – Hamilton – the major co-author of the Federalist Papers – had a view consistent with mine. Madison (the other major co-author) had a different view, more consistent with BiW’s view. The courts have oscillated on the issue, though most recently they have favored the Hamiltonian interpretation.

    So – yes – one interpretation of the constitution does provide a justification for a federal health care program. It is not the only interpretation – BiW’s view has its advocates – but it is generally the current view.

    — hippieprof

  265. CAIRO – Al-Qaida on Tuesday released a new 106-minute long video predicting President Barack Obama’s downfall at the hands of the Muslim world.

    The Arabic-language video, entitled “The West and the Dark Tunnel,” is part of series of messages by the organization marking the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Bin Laden released a short message of his own on Sept. 14.

    As in the past, al-Qaida attempted to conflate Obama with his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was widely disliked by Muslims for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    “America has come in a new, hypocritical face. Smiling at us, but stabbing us with the same dagger that Bush used,” said Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri in the message.

    “God willing, your end will be at the hands of the Muslim nation, so that the world and history will be free of your crimes and lies,” he said addressing Obama at the end of the two-part video.

    CAIRO – Al-Qaida on Tuesday released a new 106-minute long video predicting President Barack Obama’s downfall at the hands of the Muslim world.

    The Arabic-language video, entitled “The West and the Dark Tunnel,” is part of series of messages by the organization marking the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Bin Laden released a short message of his own on Sept. 14.

    As in the past, al-Qaida attempted to conflate Obama with his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was widely disliked by Muslims for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    “America has come in a new, hypocritical face. Smiling at us, but stabbing us with the same dagger that Bush used,” said Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri in the message.

    “God willing, your end will be at the hands of the Muslim nation, so that the world and history will be free of your crimes and lies,” he said addressing Obama at the end of the two-part video.

    Didnt they listen to Thuggy’s speech?

  266. Wonderful: Obama grants visa to Burmese junta member — but not to Honduran leaders
    posted at 6:54 pm on September 22, 2009 by Allahpundit

    It figures that the one campaign promise he’s been diligent about keeping isn’t winning in Afghanistan but improving diplomatic relations with the world’s biggest degenerates.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/22/wonderful-obama-grants-visa-to-burmese-junta-member-but-not-to-honduran-leaders/

    Dodger approves too.

  267. Holy crap Gorilla and Hippie Prof are having a real discussion in the middle of a riot.
    Seriously…close the thread,lick the wounds and shake hands. There is actually too much quality diversity to have it go down the crapper and I mean everyone.
    I’m looking to Blogroll BIW,Gorilla I like your insight,HP I tip my hat to your fairness and may blog roll you,Tex I like your fire and you hit fair and square on your good days,DR is always a good read and Elric and Curator are even ok when they’re not going psycho.
    So even though I’m essentially helping Rutherfords blog by suggesting this there it is.
    Alfie from In2thefray

  268. Pastor Tex could always start his own church, if and when he washes out of med school.

    I see medical students every day at the university I work at. I develop the PHP/MySQL application they take their exams on and I highly doubt Pastor Tex has the intelligence to pass the board exams.

  269. So I’m thinking I have no future as a peacemaker.
    Interesting angle I’m curious if right wingers will connect the dots on…Many international sources have come right out and said the US and Burmese flirtations are all about tweaking Chinas collective nipples. Tariffs on tires and messing with the entity in their backyard= Obama has stones and is playing a dangerous game or is crazy stupid.

  270. Curator,

    You develop MYSQL applications on huh? Man, mind numbing stuff. Right up there with designing really neat Powerpoints!

    I did that type of lackey job two years before I got out of college (25 years ago). And when I was Director of IT before I left, I personally considered that clerical type more than professional and the bottom of the dregs – secretarial really and the kind of job assigned to the enclosed 4ft cubicle without a window near the bathroom. But it is a great job for guys straight out of community college who washed out of the military and work for the state! WOW!

    Thanks for volunteering that sport! You keep bragging about your job! 😆

    Here, try this tomorrow when you go to work:

    SELECT * FROM CURATOR_EXPERT_MYSQL_DEVELOPER_FOR_THE_STATE

    Sort By Rutherford_blog_name, Dicksize Descending

    You’ll find your name at the bottom… 😉 Didn’t think I’d know what you were talking about, did you? Here’s a headsup – try Oracle Rambo. You’ll make yourself more marketable when the market collapses.

    Lord Curator. Do yourself a favor and don’t mention that to anybody else before you embarrass yourself further.

    P.S. – The school I currently attend? Taking the stats, 99.4% have passed the first set of boards the last five years and something they brag about. The odds are against you.

    ~ Pastor Tex

  271. Absolutely – it has everything to do with who appointed the justices – but that is how the constitution says it is done. Therefore, we can’t claim unconstitutionality on that basis.” – HP

    What? You cannot compare the process for selecting a justice with how they would interpret the Constitution. Arguably, the intention was that Presidential nominations would be balanced by the Senates oversight. I think this was especially important in that the VP was the runner up in the election, and thus as President of the Senate would also be seen as a balancing actor.

    Regardless, the fact that FDR, who appointed 9 justices, was able to stack the court- literally- with folks who were inline with his governmental agenda.

    I think (tentatively) that I have made my original point.” – HP

    I don’t.

    When this started back on the earlier thread I stated that there was constitutional justification for the government providing health insurance, under the general welfare clause. BiW claimed that it would be in fact unconstitutional because of a narrower interpretation.

    What I have discovered is that indeed one of the framers – Hamilton – the major co-author of the Federalist Papers – had a view consistent with mine. Madison (the other major co-author) had a different view, more consistent with BiW’s view. The courts have oscillated on the issue, though most recently they have favored the Hamiltonian interpretation.

    So – yes – one interpretation of the constitution does provide a justification for a federal health care program. It is not the only interpretation – BiW’s view has its advocates – but it is generally the current view. ” – HP

    This is a bit of a cop out. Because the court was able to be manipulated by its membership doesn’t mean that it has held the original, traditional view of the document or of the intentions of the Framers. The Constitution specifically says that those powers not specifically identified to the federal government, are reserved to the States. Explain that- if the intention was that the General Welfare clause was to be the end all-be all of government intervention, why would they specifically limit the feds power reserving everything else- a completely open ended statement- to the states?

    Again, the General Welfare clause says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Why would we assume this to mean anything other than the defense of the nation and the economic prosperity of the country? The Constitution speaks towards economics and defense, but no where in it does it speak to the health of the population. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- doesn’t say anything about a healthy or long life, just that the government could not take it without due process. And surely, if the Framers had intended that medical care be a right, it would have been in the Bill of Rights, it isn’t.

    The left doesn’t care about what the Constitution says, their concern is only in what they can get away with, and the General Welfare clause, like the Commerce clause, are simply the semantic loopholes used.

  272. Alfie,

    I’ve got two degrees in Diplomacy. You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

    You never count your money…

  273. NBC poll: For the first time, more independents disapprove of Obama than approve
    posted at 7:50 pm on September 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    An eight-point swing in just two months. This is not the centrist “pragmatist” they thought they knew.

    For the first time, independent voters—who delivered Mr. Obama the White House and Democrats control of the Congress—disapprove of the job he is doing, 46% to the 41% who approve. In July, 49% of independents approved of the president, against 38% who disapproved.

    New doubts about the president have coincided with new hopes for Republicans, who appeared flattened by the election nearly a year ago.

    As the 2010 election cycle heats up, independent voters now favor Republican control of Congress by four percentage points.

    “For a party walloped two cycles in a row with independents, I think those are very important stories,” said Bill McInturff, a partner at the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, who conducts the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/22/nbc-poll-for-the-first-time-more-independents-disapprove-of-obama-than-approve/

    Hope you enjoyed “Hope and Change Dodger, Densico, Jerkator and Professor Bong, it will be over soon.

  274. Gorilla – we were having such a good conversation…. then you go and say:

    This is a bit of a cop out. Because the court was able to be manipulated by its membership doesn’t mean that it has held the original, traditional view of the document or of the intentions of the Framers.

    Hamilton was a framer, no? Hamilton was a major contributor to the Federalist Papers, no? Hamilton had a more liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause.

    You seem to want to rely on the intent of the framers – but apparently only the framers who agree with you?

    I am at least admitting that there were differences of opinion among the framers – and I admit that your opinion is one of the valid interpretations. I would expect the same from you in return.

    Now – we can discuss at length which way we THINK that the clause SHOULD be interpreted – but neither of us gets to corner the market on the original intent of the framers.

    — hippieprof

  275. But you agree that it was not Hamiltons position that was the norm until, low and behold, FDR stacks the court with an interpretation that coincidentially- not- supports his New Deal.

    So, was he the minority in this interpretation? Even TJ, the father of the Dems, agrees with the Madison position.

    I’m still interested in how you interpret the States rights position of the Constitution.

  276. Where’s Wally, formerly known as Curator? You lazy, worthless bastard – no wonder you’re a lib; a fuckin’ state programmer!. Tell us some more about your work, will you? I need a laugh!

    How’s that frickin’ cubicle with low walls doing you in middle age? Do you have like a wooden desk with some former slob’s names carved into the top and coffee cup rings soaked through?

    Can you draw? Wasn’t the tag agency hiring sport?

    ~ Pastor Tex

  277. Tex,

    Looking at the collapsing numbers of Docs accepting medicare, I wonder how they’ll continue to twiast that story into something palable.

    Do me a favor though, I know there is something up with the 3% overhead claim, but I’m not clear on it. Can you lay that out for me…

  278. 800G Yeah I’m out. As for the conversation you’re having w/ HP. Speaking of FDR and stacking it always blew me away how he tried to stack it even further with additional justices. Interpretation and manipulation of the Constitution can be scary thing.
    Y’all take care

  279. Gorilla,

    I honestly don’t know how they derive that cost overhead. Sounds like horseshit somebody like Rutherford or Wally made up and parades as gospel. I’ll ask around tomorrow.

    I know this. They need to tack on about 30% to the 3% overhead, because that is the rumor floating around about Medicare fraud. 😆 That’s Wally’s idea of a real efficiency down at the state Powerpoint Dept.

  280. Gorilla says: But you agree that it was not Hamiltons position that was the norm until, low and behold, FDR stacks the court with an interpretation that coincidentially- not- supports his New Deal.

    Close – but not quite.

    The Hamiltonian view predominated during the Washington and Adams administrations – so technically you could say that Hamilton’s view is the more traditional.

    The Madisonian view has help sway longer (136 years of the 222 years sing ratification – a little over 60 percent of the time. Does that make it the “right” view? No – because the constitution indeed empowers the Supreme Court to adjudicate “controversies” – the fact that different courts will have different interpretations is not in fact a violation of the constitution.

    As far as the 10th Amendment is concerned, I don’t know a lot. Here is a quote from US v Darby (1941):

    The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers…..

    In other words, if a general welfare clause exists in the original document the 10th amendment does not alter that. Hence, we are back to the original argument.

    Yes – I do understand that this is post-FDR.

    — hippieprof

  281. And thus you have to admit, as I pointed out earlier, that a stacked court focused on supporting the New Deal, is not going to establish a precedent that constrains the New Deal.

    And please explain why, if you are to take a literal interpretation of the General Welfare clause that you would then not take a literal interpretation of the 10th Ammendment?!

    You can’t literally take some portions of the document and interprate the others because they literally don’t agree with you.

  282. I don’t know who’s blog this is, but this was a very interesting bit on Medicare overhead…

    “Medicare says that their overhead costs are 2 – 5%. When they say this they are being disingenuous. Their overhead is low because they don’t count all of it. It’s like congress spending money and then putting the costs off the books. If Medicare were a private insurance company Patrick Fitzgerald would be taping their staff meetings.

    Medicare imposes an almost infinite number of unfunded mandates, rules, and regulations on medical providers. These mandates consume vast swatches of time and impose huge costs. Costs which of course are passed on to patients and taxpayers, but which Medicare doesn’t count. Talk to your doctor and ask him about Medicare’s regulatory regime. Be prepared for a lot of frustration. Why do some doctors favor a government run single payer health care system? There are a number of reasons, but likely most prominent among them is that most of these doctors don’t spend a lot of time taking care of patients.”

    http://medicine-opera.com/2008/12/26/medicares-overhead/

  283. The exec sum…

    “One of the most common, and least challenged, assertions in the debate over U.S. health care policy is that Medicare administrative costs are about 2 percent of claims costs, while private insurance companies’ administrative costs are in the 20 to 25 percent range.

    It is very difficult to do a real apples-to-apples comparison of Medicare’s true costs with those of the insurance industry. The primary problem is that private sector insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s dministrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic reporting and tracking systems used by the government.

    This study, based in part on a technical paper by Mark Litow of Milliman, Inc., finds that Medicare’s actual administrative costs are 5.2 percent, when the hidden costs are included. In addition, the technical paper shows that average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited. But even though the private sector’s administrative costs are higher than Medicare’s, that isn’t “wasted money” that could go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, consumers receive significant value for those additional dollars.

    We also raise an important, although heretofore unrecognized, issue that gives Medicare an inherent advantage on administrative costs. Because of the higher cost per beneficiary, Medicare administrative costs appear lower than they really are. If the numbers were adequately “handicapped” for comparison with the private sector, they would be in the 6 to 8 percent range.

    Finally, like the private sector, Medicare also has to obtain funds to pay claims. But the cost of raising that money, or borrowing it if the government doesn’t collect it from taxpayers, is excluded from Medicare administrative cost calculations. While we don’t in this paper draw any conclusions about what we shall call the “cost of capital” and its impact on Medicare’s administrative costs, we do want to highlight that those costs exist and that taxpayers, both today and in the future, must bear those costs.”

    http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

  284. D.R.,

    I bet Tex sharpened his spikes when he played college ball…

    😆 😆 😆

    “Ty Cobb” Taylor, with my sharpened spikes attached to Warren “Buffett” Rutherford’s ugly head. I would provide the forearm shiver to Wally Curator’s hideous snout, but after I found out he’s a state Powerpoint man by trade and defunct war hero, hell, I actually feel sorry for the goober. Frickin’ Wally the cubicle cleaner.

    Rutherford wants to be a punk now that his hero is dropping like a lead weight, so be it. He has reacted poorly to THE BOMBA’s miserable performance and I’ve let a few things go without clobbering him. I haven’t even began to make it real personal yet. I’m getting all these comments in on before he reads that beauty. Makes me feel like a real scumbag on pencil neck’s own blog. Like inviting me to spend the night and peeing in his bed for good measure.

  285. Gorilla says: And thus you have to admit, as I pointed out earlier, that a stacked court focused on supporting the New Deal, is not going to establish a precedent that constrains the New Deal.

    Yes – I do admit that. I just don’t find anything wrong with it. That is not because I happen to agree with the New Deal or subsequent liberal interpretations – it is because the process was constitutional.

    Suppose the current court added another conservative judge or two, and began overturning things like Roe v Wade. I wouldn’t be happy about it – but I wouldn’t claim it was unconstitutional either.

    So yes – we can wail and wring our hands at the actions of Roosevelt in appointing justices – but those court rulings ARE the law until overturned – like it or not.

    And please explain why, if you are to take a literal interpretation of the General Welfare clause that you would then not take a literal interpretation of the 10th Ammendment?!

    That is my point, actually – if you go in with a liberal interpretation of general welfare, a liberal interpretation of the 10th supports it. The same goes for conservative interpretations. Hence, we are back at square 1 in the debate.

    — hp

    BTW – just because I mentioned Roe v Wade as an example lets NOT get into the merits of that one. I don’t think there is a right to privacy either, OK?

  286. I’ve heard many a liberal admit the attrocious legal position of Roe v. Wade, so I’m not surprised you don’t want to argue it.

  287. Tex says: Rutherford wants to be a punk now that his hero is dropping like a lead weight, so be it.

    It actually looks like Obama’s ratings have stabilized, at least for now. Here is a pretty good site that presents an aggregate of polls.

    For favorable/unfavorable:

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php

    For approval:

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

    Note also how much notoriously conservative Rasmussen deviates from the averages.

    Yeah – I wish they were higher – but they hardly represent a lead weight either. I suspect they will be if he has the balls to get some real health care reform done. Remember, some of his unfavorables are from guys like me who wish he was MORE assertive on health care.

    — hp

  288. Hey – say what you want about my reading comprehension. I think I am doing pretty well considering the closest I have ever come to a law class was when my roommate was taking Con Law 30 years ago. I actually got you to concede a point – pretty good for a novice against a professional.

    Conceding I read carelessly when giving a flippant answer is not the same as conceding a point in the debate, but if it pleases you to take it as such, so be it.

    You say (after I pointed out that your initial post was opinion): You’re correct, it is irrelevant, and yet you felt compelled to share your supposition. My ” interpretation” is not made more or less valid than yours by the basis of “popularity”.

    You seem to have missed my main point. Your initial post had an air of “fact” to it, and I was merely reminding everyone that it was opinion. Prestigious legal scholars have written extensively on both sides of the issue, and far be it from me to suggest which side is winning. My use of the term “popularity” was not meant to invoke American Idol – it was simply to note that the courts seem to have generally taken a more liberal approach than you advocate. I do not claim to be an expert and this impression may well be wrong.

    Actually, the courts tended not to treat it at all until U.S. v. Butler in 1936, because up until that case, the court had declined to hear any case on the subject, and it wasn’t until Helvering v. Davis in 1937 that the Court actually upheld legislation enacted on the general welfare clause, and as far as I know, the question has not been revisited.

    I did apparently miss your distinction between “language to the effect that the Department of Education would promote the general welfare of the US” and my statement about “using the general welfare clause of Article 1.” I guess it is a rookie mistake – and I never claimed to be anything else. You must admit, though, that you are drawing a rather fine distinction here. You seem to be saying that the language speaks to “general welfare” but it apparently isn’t the same “general welfare” in article 1 because it does not explicitly invoke article 1? (That is a serious question – please give a serious answer)

    In most federal legislation I have read which cites its constitutional authority in the enabling language, it will be that specific, yes.

    You say: As for it surviving “claims of unconstitutionality for over 40 years”, I am not aware of any challenge to the Deparment of Education’s Constitutionality, but thanks again for the straw man.

    Not a straw man at all. I don’t know case law – but there are two possibilities here. Either there have been constitutional challenges and they have not prevailed, or there have been no constitutional challenges. If there have been none, that suggests that people who might wish to bring such actions (and the DOE has plenty of critics) do not believe that they have sufficient constitutional grounds to do so. Either case suggests that DOE’s “general welfare” language perhaps does indeed provide constitutional justification for its existence.

    (yes – I recognize there are other interpretations – War Powers has never been tested constitutionally even though there are good reasons to believe it might be unconstitutional)

    No more than it suggests that the right party has not yet had standing, or that there has not been a properly justiciable controversy involving it yet. Both are prerequisites to bringing a challenge, and both are higher bars than simply believeing it to be Unconstitutional.

    My statement would be false if that is what I had indeed said. I said that the CDC provides a public good for which there is no profit motive. I stand by that statement. If I came to you with a business plan in which I propose to do epidemiological research, provide public health education, and to quarantine, contain, and eradicate infections diseases – and make a profit doing so – you would tell me I was nuts.

    Only because quarantines are a government power, but arguably, pharmacueitical companies provide public health education with every ad for a new prescription drug when they inform us of the sexy new name for the condition we absolutely must treat, and all the side effects, (dry mouth, cough, headache, brain liquification, head implosion) that their product could have.

    You close by asking: I do have a question for you regarding the laws that have been passed with citation to the general welfare clause… Have any of them related specifically to the welfare of the individual citizens rather than the welfare of the nation in general?

    Its really hard to make that distinction isn’t it? I would argue that having a good education is promotes the welfare of the person receiving that education and simultaneously provides a societal good in producing an educated society. Likewise, quality health care is good for the individual and for the society as a whole.

    Actually, I have been thinking about it, and I cannot think of any other legislation meant to address the condition of each indivdual citizen the way that Hell Care Reform proposes to, which is one reason why it provokes such a visceral response in some people.

  289. Pastor Tex,

    I’m already an OCA on Oracle 10g and have an MCTS in MSSQL 2005. I’m currently moving an app written 8 year ago into ASP.

    Keep trying Bootlick.

  290. “a state Powerpoint man by trade and defunct war hero”

    The pathetically sad part of it all is that comment describes the Dead Rabbit more then anyone around here.

    I’m 35 and will retire in 15 years on a platinum pension. (They let me buy 9 years and counted my time subbing and working in correctional ed.)

    I’m the biggest hypocrite on Earth.

  291. You conclude with: And while you obviously feel passionately that it is a moral issue, you did not answer my question, and until you do, I find a great failure of consistancy in the issue of morality and the imposition of the law by the left.

    I am not sure which question you mean – can you remind me?

    Finally, I caught a litlle of R’s address with you in the other thread about health care reform being a moral issue. What makes the government the proper vehicle for addressing your moral concerns? Is compusion and coercion by the government really the way to address a ‘moral’ concern? Even in an age when we are constantly lectured by the left that “You can’t legislate morality?” “And keep your laws off my body!” I guess that is only for other people’s morality, and we want to keep the government’s laws off our bodies…unless it is providing us with manditory health insurance or a tax in its place…in which case, its just peachy.

  292. I’m already an OCA on Oracle 10g and have an MCTS in MSSQL 2005. I’m currently moving an app written 8 year ago into ASP.

    Keep trying Bootlick.

    ** W O W !!! **

    You’re utterly amazing Wally! Did you get the state to pay for your certification? Do you know who feels the need to get certification these days Wally? LOSERS who can’t cut college. Real corporations throw your continuing mailed resume in the trash. We would have thrown darts at your worthless certifications.

    Face it shit head. The bottom of dreg programmers are working for the state agencies – you’re one of them. You ought to thank your Maker you don’t believe in. Most guys of your capacity are working for the tag agencies and pushing important papers for the EPA. LOSER…

    I told you that you shouldn’t have gone AWOL from peeling potatoes in the mess hall kitchen, all the while dreaming of action flicks and John Wayne movies. That’s topping out for you Wally.

  293. That is my point, actually – if you go in with a liberal interpretation of general welfare, a liberal interpretation of the 10th supports it. The same goes for conservative interpretations. Hence, we are back at square 1 in the debate.

    No, not even in Roosevelt’s day:

    This ruling appeared to have been reinforced in United States v. Butler,[9] in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were an unconstitutional attempt to regulate state activity in violation of the Tenth Amendment. However, despite its outcome, Butler affirmed that Congress does have a broad power to tax, and to expend revenues within its discretion. Butler was the last case in which the Court would find a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress to tax and spend.

  294. Hey Wally,

    Did Devry Institute throw in a hair cutting certificate to go with your Oracle OCA 10g? Do you know how long it would take me to have a high school kid to create stored procedures utilizing SQL on any database of your choosing? About 30 minutes. I know. I did it once.

    Who the hell do you think your impressing with this garbage? That’s like bragging you made it to the rank of private Gomer. Get lost and go back to the kitchen.


  295. BiW….

    This is an honest question and NOT an opening move in another debate – I am interested in your opinion.

    Many conservatives argue that one way to increase competition in the health insurance markets is to remove restrictions which do not allow purchase of insurance across state lines.

    I actually think this is a good idea.

    However, I have seen a number of states-rights advocates (also from the right) claim that such a move would be unconstitutional.

    What is your opinion on that?

    – hippieprof

    I haven’t read the articles, and haven’t given it a lot of thought. As most insurance is regulated by the states, I would imagine that it is a Tenth Amendment issue.

  296. So – I know I am the new guy here – but can someone please tell me where all the anger is coming from?

    Just about everyone here is intelligent. Just about everyone has interesting opinions to share. Why all the personal insults and shouting and name calling?

    There must be some history of this to which I am not privy – because otherwise it seems to border on insanity.

    — hp

  297. While I wait for my latest radio installment to process for replay, I am listening to …. Michelle Malkin on BlogTalkRadio. She is making me physically ill. What’s worse she is being featured in a program hosted by AACONS (African American Conservatives). I love it when people support a political party that doesn’t give two craps about them. 😦

  298. Ask Rutherford. It’s his blog. He gives Bootlicks like Pastor Tex and Elric the Stooge free rein around here.

    I have no problem debating with Republicans. Red Pill was a great debater. These assholes are Right wing conservatives who when they can’t debate on the merits of their argument resort to what you see here.

    Tex likes to call me traitor, coward, and wished me dead, and since I served in the military he gets a hard on calling me war hero.

    For the most part Rutherford’s blog is entertaining but it is growing old very fast. Probably why Red Pill left.

  299. Now you can boot me from your blog asshole being that everyone now knows what a fuck up you are when and where it counts – called life.

    Ahhhh Tex, you finally found the snide doctor comment. It took you longer than I expected. Your reaction is exactly what I expected.

    Good work! 😉

    P.S. I’ll go back and correct your nastygram since in your haste to slam me, you screwed up your block quote.

  300. So – I know I am the new guy here – but can someone please tell me where all the anger is coming from?

    Just about everyone here is intelligent. Just about everyone has interesting opinions to share. Why all the personal insults and shouting and name calling?

    There must be some history of this to which I am not privy – because otherwise it seems to border on insanity.

    Well the psyche seems to be, DR and Tex make rude statements about others (me) then Gorilla and Elric follow along like little dogs with the name calling. Then I have to admit that I instigate (sometimes). Elric goes on his islamophobia distasteful rants. He gives people childish nicknames like Prof. Bong and Dodger. He pimps his blog and other sites.

    I agree, it’s very entertaining to follow these threads though. The insults are sometimes funny, IMHO.

  301. I’m getting all these comments in on before he reads that beauty.

    Tex, when you go over the top, you don’t prove me to be a punk. Better to let my comments stand on their own, if you really want to prove I’m a punk. Your reaction actually obscured what a punk I was. You know this. You just can’t help yourself.

    I knew when I hit the Submit button that the doctor thing was a bit of a low blow, but I figured after this much time, you could handle it. I was wrong. As I’ve said before, whether you want to admit it or not, going back to school has returned you to your cro-magnon ways.

    Get a grip. Unlike Curator, I know the only reason you might not end up a doctor is because you’ll get tired of it and give up. It has nothing to do with intelligence. If you stick with it, you will get your MD. You have the compassion of a snail so I do worry a bit about your medical bed side manner but that’s not my problem.

    The funny thing is I just finished watching the season premiere of “House” on my Tivo. You know Tex, your tirade against me could have been pulled straight from a “House” speech. The old dig as deep into a person’s vulnerabilities as possible to totally destroy them. Your tirade has shown me just how good the House writers are. There really are doctors out there like Gregory House. One example will be Tex Taylor, MD.

  302. I saw a African American Conservative meeting on CSPAN, wasn’t many in that audience. I think conservatives only care about blacks when they’re republicans and conform to their values. But besides that, if you think about it, blacks like most minorities are socially conservative anyway. I actually know few blacks that would support abortion, some gun control laws, etc.,
    The problem is that the conservative movement hasn’t tried to win these voters over, they haven’t grown up with the times, they are pushing most minorities away from their party.
    I think it’s safe to say that the GOP had their chance to win over black voters but blew it. Just not an inclusive party at all.

  303. I’m already an OCA on Oracle 10g and have an MCTS in MSSQL 2005. I’m currently moving an app written 8 year ago into ASP.

    Curator, stop it. You’re doing exactly what Tex wants. You don’t need to justify yourself to anyone here. Did you notice I didn’t give a point by point rebuttal of Tex’s tirade? One reason is that anyone who has followed this blog for a while knows my “story”. I don’t need to repeat it to rebut Tex. Tex knows my story as well and just in case anyone inferred that Tex has the “inside scoop”, he and I have corresponded a bit outside of this blog and mostly shared our mutual disdain for corporate America. Beyond that, he knows nothing more than what I’ve already shared in the comments section.

    You know it’s kind of odd. It’s almost as though we all seem to matter to each other. Elric sends Red Pill into a profanity laced frenzy. I’ve elicited meltdowns from Tex and Dead Rabbit. Now Tex is getting to Curator.

    I can’t put my finger on it, but I’m telling you blog behavior is worth a blog of its own. It is pretty damn fascinating. I think my new found voice of reason, Hippie Prof would agree. 🙂

  304. Oh btw … I think Alfie mentioned this but it is absolutely f*cking hilarious how HippieProf, BiW and Gorilla are having this intellectual debate while the bullets and hand grenades fly over their heads and they are more or less oblivious to it. Bravo!

    I have got so much reading to do on this thread to absorb the substance. I’m afraid it will have to wait until tomorrow.

  305. Gawd Wally, you limp dick.

    You come in here spouting crap of which you’re clueless (as is obvious from your menial occupation which I will now beat you up mercilessly). You parrot what you’ve read, probably cutting and pasting from some Marxist blog.

    You didn’t serve in the military – you existed in the military. You were there without options. Admit it. Your respective platoon certainly fragged you, as it apparent you’re a major league screw up and the troops ran you off with the sergeant’s blessing. Afterward, you tucked tail and bounced around in trivial jobs, before you finally became “certified” with some initials believing that some worldly accomplishment. Whoopee! As anyone in the know would recognize from that resume, you aren’t qualified to paint nails.

    Want to go another round Wally? Be my guest. Rutherford can imagine he’s a genius too and line up behind you. I’ve got two feet to insert in your respective asses. What I can’t determine is, which one of you most deserves the right one?

    ~ Pastor Bootlicker

  306. There must be some history of this to which I am not privy – because otherwise it seems to border on insanity.

    It’s mostly style over substance. DR, Tex and I go back to another blog (Chen’s Chamber) over a year ago where we did the “political enemy” thing. Once they visited here, things actually became more civil. I don’t really know how to push DR’s buttons so when he goes off it does take me by surprise. But I know exactly how to push Tex’s buttons so today’s lack of civility is really my fault. I didn’t think Tex would go off the rails quite as badly as he did, but it serves me right. You pull the pin on a grenade, you deserve to have it blow up in your face.

    As for Elric …. Elric is just Elric. 🙂

  307. For the most part Rutherford’s blog is entertaining but it is growing old very fast. Probably why Red Pill left.

    One thing I probably need to do is publish more. These threads get so long that somebody is bound to insult somebody.

    I’m still trying to find inspiration for my next article. Any suggestions?

  308. Want to go another round Wally? Be my guest. Rutherford can imagine he’s a genius too and line up behind you. I’ve got two feet to insert in your respective asses. What I can’t determine is, which one of you most deserves the right one?

    Tex, I’m telling you, watch “House” if you haven’t already. You’re doing a friggin Hugh Laurie caricature. Only problem is you’re not gonna get an Emmy nomination for your trouble. Just high blood pressure and an ulcer.

    Go to bed, and cool your irons. You’ll feel better in the morning.

  309. Oh btw … I think Alfie mentioned this but it is absolutely f*cking hilarious how HippieProf, BiW and Gorilla are having this intellectual debate while the bullets and hand grenades fly over their heads and they are more or less oblivious to it. Bravo!

    1) This ain’t even close to a rough blog environment. I could invite you to share some of your political views at the Hostages, but I don’t see you lasting long with my fellow Hostages, Captives, and Detainees. I could invite you to share some of your political views at the Rott, but if the right Rotties were present, you would give the words “Chew toy” new meaning, so what is going on here? Nothing at all.

    2) I like here. I can get a liberal to actually defend their beliefs as opposed to simply tossing a bomb and leaving when asked to back up what they said.

  310. I wonder if you guys can do me a favor (and perhaps yourselves too….)

    I know a number of you support the idea of tort reform. I do too.

    A couple of days ago I wrote a blog about tort reform. Last night I had a detailed response from someone I assume is an attorney. His analysis strikes me as faulty – but I don’t have enough background to match him point-for-point.

    If you do have some ideas on the issue I would invite you to help me with the debate by leaving some civil comments here:

    http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/20/hoosier-tort-reformer/

    Thanks!

    — hp

  311. Flashback: Biden In 2002: ‘If I Had My Way, I’d Be Referring To Him As ‘Ambassador’ Nemazee’…’I’ve Seeked His Advice On Many, Many Issues, Including Iran’ .
    . .
    Hassan Hemazee was just indicted on several counts of fraud and identity theft. For more information on Hassan and his importance to the DNC (especially Obama, Clinton) fund-raising arm, see HERE.

  312. I’m still trying to find inspiration for my next article. Any suggestions?

    One. How you plan to “off” yourself when Obama ultimately fails? 😮

    And Rutherford, I hate to tell you this as it is the truth. Unlike Wally Curator, I like you because though you’re woefully uninformed outside the world of blogging, you have a sense of humor.

    But don’t ever think you’re even remotely important to my life to give me an ulcer or high blood pressure. The chances a million to one that when I go off, it’s a great release like exercise and somebody else who does count has pissed me off; cathartic actually.

    The fact that you’re a lib, ugly as are most libs (never have been able to figure out why this is), and willing to take it like a punching bag for no cost to me – well, that is like somebody buying me a free lunch and me thanking them for it by throwing my drink in their face.

  313. Canada To Walk Out of Ahmadinejad’s UN Speech Today
    The Canadians will boycott Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech today at the United Nations.

    Here is one reason why the Canadians will walk out…
    This video shows Basiji thugs shooting down on innocent Iranian protesters:

    That’s real leadership, not like islamist bootlicker Thuggy.

  314. hippie,

    I left my response above – don’t know whether you saw it or not within the rot. If it’s is Paul to whom you refer, he sounds like an ambulance chaser…

    In other words, a benefactor from someone’s dime…

  315. Tex said: I left my response above – don’t know whether you saw it or not within the rot. If it’s is Paul to whom you refer, he sounds like an ambulance chaser…

    Tex – I did see that. The comment I am referring to is something new. The guy cites lots of facts and figures, all leading to the conclusion that there are no real cost savings to be had via tort reform. He does make a rather curious claim that torts account for only two percent of GDP. ONLY? – Only two percent of our GDP for this essentially non-productive activity? This is apparently double what is spent in other Western nations.

    If you have some facts and figures I could throw back at him that would be great – I just don’t have those easily at my disposal.

    — hp

    P.S. Paul Brandon is a retired psych professor – I actually know him personally through professional circles. He isn’t a bad guy.

  316. You get rid of your car yet Prof Bong?

    Nope, Elric – gotta get to work.

    I don’t think you ever answered me about steps you are taking to conserve your environment?

    I did run across an interesting survey yesterday. In a recent survey of climatologists, 75 of 77 attribute global warming to human activity. In a broader survey of scientists across disciplines, over 80 percent do likewise. That is what we call consensus.

    Go ahead and bury your head if you like. I guarantee our children will come to hate us if we continue to ignore the data and do nothing. The world they inherit from us will not be pretty.

    — hp

  317. You never did answer if it was man’s carbon footprint that ended the Ice Age.

    Yes – actually I did – but I will repeat my answer:

    “No – obviously not – who ever said it did?”

    Elric – do you really think this is a serious question? If you do it basically underscores just how little you understand about science.

    I tend to want to give you more credit than that – I actually want to believe that you KNOW it isn’t a serious question. You really can’t be that dumb.

    So – if you know it isn’t a serious question why are you wasting your time and my time and everybody else’s time even posting it?

    — hp

  318. “Elric – do you really think this is a serious question? If you do it basically underscores just how little you understand about science.”

    Actually is shows what a drone you are. The huge severe Ice Age ended without man’s input, meaning the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all on its own. You may want to ruin our economy on some pagan religion but I dont.

  319. The problem is that the conservative movement hasn’t tried to winbuy these voters over

    MLK was a republican, not because of what the GOP was giving the black community, but because of what they stood for. Again, your ignorance is astounding, it has and continues to be Dems who have held back the black community. If it was the other way around, then why hasn’t every major population of blacks, which are overwhelmingly con troled by Dems, failed? New Orleans? Detroit? Philadelphia? Shall I continue?

    I think Alfie mentioned this but it is absolutely f*cking hilarious how HippieProf, BiW and Gorilla are having this intellectual debate while the bullets and hand grenades fly over their heads and they are more or less oblivious to it.” — R

    I’m kindof use to that by now… 😉

  320. Newsweek is racist, everybody knows that. Bet every staff member drives in the car pool lane.

    LOL That was funny.

    BTW, I mentioned on the internet radio show last night that Obama is in a real pickle with Afghanistan. Liberals, for the most part want us out. Conservatives want us to double down. McChrystal has made it clear the status quo won’t work.

    Quite honestly, I wouldn’t trade places with Obama on this topic for any price.

  321. MLK was a republican

    Joe, man would I like to see that claim documented! Giving you the benefit of the doubt, if I’m not mistaken it wasn’t until after King’s death that the Republicans discovered racially divisive politics and targeted the South as a new foothold.

  322. Why does Thuggy kiss up to rouge regimes and piss on our allies?

    Now what exactly would a “rouge” regime be? LOL An underground government headquartered in San Francisco?

  323. Gorilla I saw an explanation that seems to make sense.
    For example consider two people, Charlie and Grandpa Joe.

    Charlie is 25 and on private health insurance, Grandpa Joe is on Medicare.

    During a given year it costs $ 50 in overhead for both men to cover the basic record keeping.

    Charlie has $ 1,000 in medical services and it costs $ 100 for the overhead. So his total cost is $ 150, his percentage though is 15%.

    Grandpa Joe has $ 20,000 in medical services and it costs $ 550 for his overhead. So his total cost is $ 600, or four times higher than Charlie. But as a percentage of total services he comes out at 3%.

  324. MLK was a Republican…

    Man, the lack of historical context is astounding.

    Black voters in the south did, historically, support Republicans, but that started to change in the 30’s. By the time King was old enough to vote it’s arguable the southern black vote was split between Eisenhower and Stevenson, and in 1960 Kennedy got the black vote. 1964 was when black people really started to leave the Republicans, while that party began to win more and more white voters in the south due to Nixon’s Southern Strategy in later years (68, 72). The political platforms of both parties have changed radically over the years. The Democrats were once the southern, authoritarian, religious party, and now the Republicans are the southern, authoritarian, religious party.

    “Was MLK a Republican?” Sure. Just like all these revisionist Republicans who somehow totally supported what he stood for.

  325. Obama Attacks Israel at UN General Assembly
    Barack Obama just slammed Israel at the United Nations General Assembly this morning.
    FOX News reported:

    In declaring that it is time for Middle East peace “without preconditions,” President Obama used his speech to the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday to fire a warning at Israel that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

    Obama’s stark declaration, which drew applause, was coupled with a call for Palestinians to end their “incitement of Israel.”

    But it was the use of the U.N. forum to carry the settlement message to Israel that drew the most enthusiastic response on the floor — and incredulous reaction outside its walls.

    Obama just put Israel “on the chopping block,” said former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.

    Obama said he met Tuesday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was not in attendance at the speech, and agreed that the two have made some progress in both strengthening security and facilitating freedom of movement, which have allowed the economy in the West Bank to grow.

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-attacks-israel-at-un-general.html

    Cant forget evil Israel either

  326. Elric drones on…. Actually is shows what a drone you are. The huge severe Ice Age ended without man’s input, meaning the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all on its own. You may want to ruin our economy on some pagan religion but I dont.

    (sigh)

    I have been asking myself why I even bother responding to you Elric – I am certainly not going to convince you of anything. I finally decided that I have trouble leaving your errors unchallenged and uncorrected – because someone else might come along and read your posts and actually buy into the same errors.

    You basic logical error here is: Past climatic changes have occurred without human influence. Therefore human influence cannot be involved in present climate changes.

    Lets walk you through this step by step….

    Yes – you are right – we both learned in about 3rd grade that there are climatic cycles. A quick bit of logic shows that indeed these are independent of human actions.

    Beyond third grade we learn about some additional complexity – that for example there are a number of periodic climatic cycles, differing in their periodicity. The el nino cycle, for example, is a cyclic pattern of considerably shorter periodicity that the ice ages.

    We also know that non-cyclic events can result in climatic change. The Krakatoa eruption is widely thought to have altered the climate over several years. Likewise, dust thrown up from a huge meteor impact may have resulted in significant climate change and the subsequent extinction of dinosaurs.

    So – we have established that both periodic and non-periodic climatic changes occur. As I outlined in response 325, we currently seem to be experiencing both, with one overlaying the other – the non-periodic change being of human origin.

    Evidence for a human cause comes from more than a simple observation of temperature change. It comes from 1) scientifically measured increases in the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, 2) a known mechanism by which human actions result in that accumulation, and 3) a known chemical process by which greenhouse gasses result in destruction of the ozone layer, 4) a known property of the ozone layer – it filters out ultraviolet radiation, and 5) known effects of increased ultraviolet radiation.

    Elric, I am sure you will dismiss this by calling me a bong-hitting drone. I hope that some of the rest of you may have found it of interest.

    — hippieprof

  327. Alfie, your medicare overhead analysis seems reasonable to me and what’s more seems to be a reasonable claim overall. Overhead as a percentage of total money spent seems a correct measurement.

    So now I ask those who scoff at the 3% claim, what’s your beef?

  328. “I have been asking myself why I even bother responding to you Elric”

    Then dont. Wont bother me one bit Professor Bong. BTW You get rid of your car yet for Mother Gaia?

  329. Alfie says…. “For example consider two people, Charlie and Grandpa Joe…….”

    But shouldn’t overhead costs be proportional to services delivered? Sure – there is some non-proportional fixed cost associated with keeping records for an individual – but beyond that I suspect that overhead would rise proportionally to services rendered.

    — hp

  330. This is what a real American president would do.

    Mmmm let me see if I understand this. The UN’s home is in the United States. I assume the UN invited Ahmedinejad to talk. So you’re suggesting that the leader of the UN’s host country walk out on a talk the UN requested/allowed. You don’t find that the least bit diplomatically awkward?

  331. “You don’t find that the least bit diplomatically awkward?”

    Less diplomatically awkward than granting visas to murderous regimes while banning a visa to a regime that doesnt. You still havent explained that one.

  332. But shouldn’t overhead costs be proportional to services delivered?

    That’s exactly why I say that if Alfie’s analysis is the correct one, then it is also a perfectly reasonable one which conservatives should have no beef with.

  333. “Now what exactly would a “rouge” regime be?”

    Iran, Cuba, Burma. Thuggy’s BFF. Unlike that nasty country Honduras that kicked out Chavez’s buddy.

    LOL, so I guess you’re saying Iran, Cuba and Burma are real glam heh? 😀

  334. Hippieprof, although responding to Elric can be frustrating, you are absolutely right that we owe it to those who might fall into Elric’s traps of illogic to set the record straight. Kudos dude!

  335. Speech Analysis: Obama Mentions Himself Every 13 Seconds, Nearly 1,200 Times in 41 Speeches….

    Do you know how incredibly anal you have to be to do an analysis like this? Will Silly Season ever end?

  336. “LOL, so I guess you’re saying Iran, Cuba and Burma are real glam heh”

    So why did Thuggy admit murderous regimes while barring a regime that doesnt murder its people. Laugh all you want but you cant explain it. Because doing so will be admitting Thuggy feels much more in touch with murderous regimes.

    “Do you know how incredibly anal you have to be to do an analysis like this?”

    Always attacking the messenger not the message like a good little drone.

  337. “Heck Elric, I didn’t know who Hannah Giles was until today but that “portrait” even got me a little hot and bothered.”

    Thats because you ignore all the Thuggy scandals.

  338. The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak
    It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits Barack Obama when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly today, writes Nile Gardiner.

    By Nile Gardiner
    Published: 8:34AM BST 23 Sep 2009

    Comments 113 | Comment on this article

    Barack Obama’s Gallup approval rating of 52 percent may well be lower at this stage of his presidency than any US leader in recent times with the exception of Bill Clinton. But he is still worshipped with messiah-like adoration at the United Nations, and is considerably more popular with many of the 192 members of the UN than he is with the American people.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6221379/The-UN-loves-Barack-Obama-because-he-is-weak.html

  339. How you plan to “off” yourself when Obama ultimately fails? 😮

    I don’t need to worry about that Tex. I’m just biding my time before I’m pulled in front of one of Obama’s death panels. 😉

    By the way, your one redeeming quality is your unflinching honesty (well, when you’re not in bash mode). So I thank you for admitting that someone you care about pissed you off and you took it out on me. See what a good night’s sleep does for one’s self-reflection?

  340. This ain’t even close to a rough blog environment.

    BiW based on your description, does anything productive go on at the Hostages and the Rott? Sounds a bit like the fight club where the only goal is to bloody your opponent. Mind you, I’ve never been there so I’m just going on your description.

  341. Elric, I’m still not sure you even get the rouge/rogue joke I’ve been making on you … oh never mind.

    As for the messenger and the message. Usually only dumbass messengers agree to carry dumbass messages. In your haste to inundate this blog with link after link, you don’t even do a little triage. Your “concern” about who gets visas is worth reasonable debate. Why do you water it down with pure silliness about how many times Obama refers to himself?

  342. During Military Parade Iranian Air Force Plane Crashed While Ahmadinejad Gave Speech Threatening Israel and US With Iran’s Crushing Military Might….

    Funny indeed. Now do you really think Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel? Sounds more like they are the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

  343. “Why do you water it down with pure silliness about how many times Obama refers to himself?”

    Why not actually address it? Asked you numerous times on why and still no answer.

  344. “Now do you really think Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel?”

    Yeah, you are right. A plane crashed so that proves Iran is no threat. Geesh your logic is pitiful. Actually if anything it should prove more a danger to everyone in the region.

  345. Yeah but as I understand the trick it’s all about pointing out the %.It’s still real money yer bleeding but the % looks nicer.

    I didn’t create that btw and somehow lost the link and blockquote coding in my haste of cut&paste. I actually found it over at TMV and it was drafted by a lawyer.

    Not for nothing Elric but as much as I think the Micheletti govt. is right to lead Honduras to new elections in Nov. and that Zelaya is playing a dangerous and pitifully selfish game the Honduran people are experiencing some repression none the less. Sadly the international entities that are the powers to be are shameless in their lameness. So Honduras gets the shaft.

  346. BiW based on your description, does anything productive go on at the Hostages and the Rott? Sounds a bit like the fight club where the only goal is to bloody your opponent. Mind you, I’ve never been there so I’m just going on your description.

    The answer, as with most things, lies in the definition. While the Hostages slants more toward humor, it is a very unique group of people…a rocket scientist, a software salesman, a financial planner, a few lawyers, a banker, a career MCPO, you name it, we probably have one. While we try to use it more as an escape, we do occaisionally get very political, and we love it when we get a liberal that makes their pitch in the marketplace of ideas.

    The Rott is more a group of conservatives who understand that the best response to “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” is gunfire. We’re the unapologetic Americans who want the government out of our lives and focusing on things like actually defending the nation. We love pointing out the inconsistancies and hypocrisies of government, and we aren’t really cheerleaders for ‘toleration’ of the religion of pieces either.

    The Hostages is more like a group of drinking buddies who are all to the right of Attila the Hun who meet on line and exchange insults. We don’t manage to keep trolls or liberals long, and it isn’t for a lack of trying. It can be all elbows and fists, but we are a family of sorts and like most families, you either get it or you don’t. Those who don’t get it don’t stay long.

    The Rott is an extraordinarily conservative bastion run by someone who escaped the socialist hellhole of nanny-state Europe who also has a fantastic command of the English language and whose venom-laced infective filled rants are things of beauty and legend. Rotties are as direct as they come and do not suffer leftists or fools (but I repeat myself) gladly. If you find yourself concerned about the things on the signs at the tea parties, then spare yourself the trauma of checking them out. The case of the vapors you might end up with, especially from reading some of Gaius’ posts (a *gasp* black conservative) might induce a genuine tizzy.

  347. Fun Fact of the Day: Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War….

    (CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/fun-fact-of-the-day-obama-will-spend-more-on-welfare-in-the-next-year-than-bush-spent-on-entire-iraq.html

  348. The case of the vapors you might end up with, especially from reading some of Gaius’ posts (a *gasp* black conservative) might induce a genuine tizzy.

    Damn, now you’ve intrigued me. I find there to be two kinds of black conservatives. The first exemplified by Ron Christie, a frequent guest on MSNBC’s Hardball, is basically a dumbass parroting the conservative playbook word for word. The second type, exemplified by John McWhorter is extremely intellectual and finds in conservatism a way for blacks to take responsibility for their future. The first type really bothers me. The second type I adore. Now I’m curious what cubby Gaius falls into.

  349. Qaddafi: ‘We’d Be Content And Happy If Obama Can Stay President Forever’…’Obama Is A Glimpse In The Dark’

    NEW YORK —FOX News- Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, declaring that “we’d be content and happy if Obama can stay president forever,” launched into a rambling assault against the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, at one point complaining to world leaders gathered to hear him speak that he was tired and jet lagged.

    Sometimes speaking in phrases mocking New York City’s security efforts during the 64th gathering of the U.N. General Assembly, Qaddafi swung between calling the Security Council a “Terror Council,” to demanding that European nations pay $7.7 trillion in compensation and apologize for colonizing Africa, at one point adding, “African nations have the right to go anyplace to get the $7.7 trillion stolen from it.”

    Qaddafi spoke after President Barack Obama’s first speech to the General Assembly.

    Referencing Obama as “my son,” Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president. Obama is a glimpse in at (-ed)the dark for the next four years, but I’m afraid we may go back to square one.

    “Can the U.S. guarantee after Obama that they’ll be a government? We’re happy and content if he can stay forever.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice left the chamber before Qaddafi took the podium and left a low-level note taker to listen.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/qaddafi-wed-be-content-and-happy-if-obama-can-stay-president-foreverobama-is-a-glimpse-in-the-dark.html

    Qaddafi knows a good thing when he sees it.

  350. WASHINGTON — Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

    Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.

    Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/cowards-dems-reject-gop-amendment-that-would-post-obamacare-bill-online.html

    Gee if its a good bill, why not?

  351. BiW asked: What makes the government the proper vehicle for addressing your moral concerns? Is compusion and coercion by the government really the way to address a ‘moral’ concern?

    OK – this is the question I failed to address the first time it was asked. Here it is….

    Because the constitution is in fact a “moral” document.

    Philosophical questions surrounding “rights” fall squarely into the field of ethics – which is of course also known as moral philosophy. When the Declaration of Independence states…

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

    …this is in fact a statement of moral philosophy, is it not?

    I really should just throw the question back at you – how can you possibly argue that the government has no role in morality when in fact the Declaration and the Constitution are documents outlining a moral theory?

    This answer was way too easy – so I suspect what you are really asking is why the government should address my moral concerns as opposed to your own?

    — hippieprof

  352. “The Rott is more a group of conservatives who understand that the best response to “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” is gunfire”

    LOL!!!!!!!!

    God bless ’em, every one!!!

  353. Did the White House cut a deal with drugmakers for an ad campaign?
    posted at 2:20 pm on September 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Via Jim Geraghty, this looks like a pattern now at the White House. Offer a few concessions in exchange for a bit of third-party campaigning, and everyone wins! In this case, it’s more that the pharmaceutical manufacturers won’t lose as much as they fear, but otherwise the concept is the same as with the NEA’s efforts to get its grant recipients to make art about universal health-care coverage. If the deal explicitly included a requirement for the pharmas to launch their upcoming $150 million ad campaign, this could cross the lines of campaign-finance laws:

    Most ethical administration evah!

  354. This answer was way too easy – so I suspect what you are really asking is why the government should address my moral concerns as opposed to your own?

    You get a kwepie doll for understanding the real question in the question, and the BIG stuffed animal for acknowledging that the law of our nation had a moral basis right from the start…don’t tell your fellow liberals that, btw, unless you want to be ostracized. Lord knows they don’t want to hear it.

  355. Videos: Medicare Advantage consumers will lose benefits
    posted at 1:36 pm on September 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    Instead of updating this morning’s link, I’m going to use these two videos to expand on a couple of points made by Senate Financial Committee staffer Shawn Bishop and CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf yesterday in testimony on Capitol Hill. In the second video, Elmendorf quantifies the amount of benefits lost, but I first want to address Ms. Bishop’s argument to Senator Orrin Hatch. Apparently, she didn’t get the “if you like your current coverage” memo from the White House:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/23/videos-medicare-advantage-consumers-will-lose-benefits/

    Cool, Professor Bong will get screwed over.

  356. Interesting take on the health care debate.

    Why couldn’t the Republicans supported these points of the Baucus bill?

    — no public option, interstate competition, high-risk pools, verification of citizenship, no public funds for abortion, high-deductible policies, no deficit spending, and featuring an individual mandate and Medicare reductions.

    Each one are issues that Republicans, including conservatives, had already endorsed. What if Republicans had gotten on board with Baucus’ proposal last week? A proposal loaded with all the things that are a gift to the insurance industry.

    If a bill described as bi-partisan health care reform had reached the President’s desk there is no way he could have vetoed it.

  357. If a bill described as bi-partisan health care reform had reached the President’s desk there is no way he could have vetoed it.

    A question for the political southpaws here…why is a “bipartisan” Hell Care [Insurance] Reform bill so important to you. There are more than enough Democrats to pass this monstrosity.

  358. “A question for the political southpaws here…why is a “bipartisan” Hell Care [Insurance] Reform bill so important to you.”

    Because they know its crap and want to deflect the blame. If its so friggin good, go it alone.

  359. BIW they only like to inherit things thy don’t actually want ownership. Not unlike they’re fresh new outlook for eternal serfdom of middle America as a renter society.
    R theres an idea for your next post.

  360. that the law of our nation had a moral basis right from the start…don’t tell your fellow liberals that, btw, unless you want to be ostracized. Lord knows they don’t want to hear it.

    This assertion puzzles me, BiW. Why would a liberal not agree that our constitution (heck, let’s go back further to Dec of Ind.) has its basis in morality? I think what sets aside democratic governments from other kinds is the moral imperative of citizen equality at the very least.

    I think where we might part ways is when some confuse morality with religion. I do scoff at the notion of the Constitution being a Christian document. But a moral one? Absolutely.

  361. Why couldn’t the Republicans supported these points of the Baucus bill?

    Because they want the President to fail. Plain and simple. DeMint could not have said it better with the “Waterloo” comment

  362. “Because they want the President to fail. Plain and simple.”

    How can he fail, he has the votes doesnt he? Why not press ahead?I know he isnt a real leader like Harper, but come on.

  363. BiW, partisanship by its very nature implies that ideology trumps good alternative solutions. That is why I would shoot for bipartisanship. The problem is bipartisanship is a pipe dream if one of the players is not playing in good faith. Republicans are angry they’ve lost the majority and they want nothing more than Democratic failure regardless of the cost to our country.

    So on that basis, I agree with you … screw bipartisanship and push through the legislation.

  364. “Republicans are angry they’ve lost the majority and they want nothing more than Democratic failure regardless of the cost to our country.”

    Really now? Isnt that a bit an over generalization? You psychic or something? Or do all Republicans email you about how they really feel about Thuggy and the nation?

  365. This assertion puzzles me, BiW. Why would a liberal not agree that our constitution (heck, let’s go back further to Dec of Ind.) has its basis in morality? I think what sets aside democratic governments from other kinds is the moral imperative of citizen equality at the very least.

    I think where we might part ways is when some confuse morality with religion. I do scoff at the notion of the Constitution being a Christian document. But a moral one? Absolutely.

    As much as I would like to pursue this right now, I have something I HAVE to finish before I leave the office. In the meantime, I am interested to hear why it is you scoff at the notion that the Constitution is a Christian document.

  366. BiW asks…. A question for the political southpaws here…why is a “bipartisan” Hell Care [Insurance] Reform bill so important to you. There are more than enough Democrats to pass this monstrosity.

    Funny you should ask – my very first blog post was in fact an open letter to democrats imploring them to have some guts and get the thing done, reelection be damned.

    — hp

  367. BiW, partisanship by its very nature implies that ideology trumps good alternative solutions. That is why I would shoot for bipartisanship. The problem is bipartisanship is a pipe dream if one of the players is not playing in good faith. Republicans are angry they’ve lost the majority and they want nothing more than Democratic failure regardless of the cost to our country.

    That notion presupposes that there is no room for anyone to conclude that this bill is not the right way to address the issue or that the issue is for the federal government to address.
    Forgive me, but that sounds an awful lot like “My way is the only way, and if you don’t agree with me, you don’t love this country.” which is an attitude I often see the left accusing the right of having.
    In my case, it is a matter of I love my children too much to stick them with the mediocrity of state-run healthcare and the crippling tax obligations to pay for it.

    If you compromise to turn out bad legislation as opposed to no legislation or making the other side own their support of bad legislation, then you’re making a choice I can respect. If you compromise on a bad bill to meet the other side’s expectations of “good faith”, then you are not acting on principals, and I have no use for you.

  368. “Funny you should ask – my very first blog post was in fact an open letter to democrats imploring them to have some guts and get the thing done, reelection be damned.”

    Damn what the unruly children think too, right?

  369. Wife: Gov ‘stunned’ O wants him out
    EXCLUSIVE

    By SALLY GOLDENBERG

    Gov. Paterson’s wife — emotionally stunned at President Obama’s request that her husband not run for another term — ripped into him today, saying that it’s “very unfair” the president asked New York’s “first African-American governor” not to seek office.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/wife_gov_stunned_at_request_not_5IbePehHnsEkH4eWBh61GI

    LOL Is that all libs know how to do is race bait?

  370. Or do all Republicans email you about how they really feel about Thuggy and the nation?

    Yup, it’s hard to keep an email server up when every Republican writes you. 🙂

  371. “Yup, it’s hard to keep an email server up when every Republican writes you.”

    Ill take that as a no. So its ok for libs to generalize but not conservatives? I just need to keep up with the lib double standard play book.

    Ohh and you come up yet why Thuggy barred Honduras’ president but not Iran’s and Castro?

  372. … have some guts and get the thing done, reelection be damned.

    Sadly a good number of folks are putting the next election above doing what’s right. How else to explain why no decent Republican politician speaks out against Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

  373. Meet White House Climate Czar: Carol Browner . . .
    .

    FOXNews – Driving the push for this massive power grab and circumvention of the elected branches is a key White House official who avoided Senate confirmation by being installed not as EPA director, but instead as White House Climate Czar: Carol Browner.

    Long before the Supreme Court ruled in a highly questionable 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, that the EPA has the legal authority to justify its proposed 18,000 pages of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Browner (then EPA director under President Bill Clinton) had her general counsel, Jonathan Cannon, prepare a now-infamous memorandum arguing—for the first time—that the EPA possessed such a power. At the time it was dismissed as a wild-eyed overreach that Congress would never allow. Now it’s happening, and Browner is right at the center of it.

    Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, has confirmed that Browner was the lead White House negotiator in establishing new automobile emissions standards, which for the first time rely on EPA’s presumed authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Nichols told The New York Times that Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. “We put nothing in writing, ever,” Nichols said.

    Left unchecked, Browner will move beyond automobiles to EPA’s entire staggering 18,000-page blueprint for regulating the U.S. economy. It will eventually regulate everything that moves (light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of equipment that has a motor) and lots of things that don’t (any building over 100,000 square feet could be pulled in, along with smaller carbon dioxide emitters, like restaurants, schools, and hospitals that have commercial kitchens with gas burners).

    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/meet-white-house-climate-czar-carol-browner-.html

  374. Ohh and you come up yet why Thuggy barred Honduras’ president but not Iran’s and Castro?

    Well let’s take a wild ass guess. Perhaps we’re not sure that the President of Honduras really is the President of Honduras?

  375. “Perhaps we’re not sure that the President of Honduras really is the President of Honduras?”

    And the president of Iran is legit? Why do you keep dodging the second part? How about Castro? Cuba was taken over by a coup and the regime proportionally murdered more people than Stalin’s. Why are they allowed but not a president that was put in place Constitutionally? He didnt kill enough people in Thuggy’s view? Maybe if he ranted about destroying Israel Thuggy would have gave him a pass?

  376. BiW said: You get a kwepie doll for understanding the real question in the question, and the BIG stuffed animal for acknowledging that the law of our nation had a moral basis right from the start…don’t tell your fellow liberals that, btw, unless you want to be ostracized. Lord knows they don’t want to hear it.

    First – for the record I am not a knee jerk liberal. I have some relatively conservative views and in fact walked on the other side of the line for quite a bit of my adult life… ostracization does not worry me much..

    OK – I will risk the BIG stuffed animal and go for the super plush deluxe by asking what this actually buys you?

    Perhaps a clue is in your question to Rutherford:

    “I am interested to hear why it is you scoff at the notion that the Constitution is a Christian document.”

    … so that must be what you are getting at. You really want me to admit that the constitution is specifically based on Christian morality.

    The obvious answer is that the establishment clause prohibits establishment of a state religion, and thus it would be contradictory for the constitution to be considered a Christian document. Christianity is of course not specifically mentioned in the constitution either.

    ….but that answer is again too easy – you certainly have to be expecting it from me – so I won’t actually go there – yet.

    Lets try this instead:

    The constitution indeed incorporates many Christian values. Further, it theoretically derives some of its principles from Christian thinking. This is not particularly surprising because most of the founders/framers were indeed Christian (Jefferson was rather ambiguous on this point).

    Note, however, that the “Christian” values upon which the constitution is based are not uniquely Christian – the vast majority can be found in multiple places in other religions. Even atheists agree that many Christian values are good principles by which to live. The constitution was also influenced by decidedly non-Christian thinkers (e.g., Plato) or “Christians” with a flair for decidedly non-Christian thinking (e.g., Hobbes).

    I would describe the constitution as follows: It is a document largely (but not entirely) derived from Christian values but also consistent with the values of many other religions. It is explicitly NOT a “Christian document” because the establishment clause prohibits it from being so.

    Liberals get upset when the government promotes Christian values over values held by other religions because to do so is in fact to establish a de facto state religion. I don’t think it is any problem at all to admit that many of the values expressed in the Constitution are Christian in their origin.

    — hippieprof

  377. Question on bipartisanship- if Obama is so interested in getting the GOP onboard with Obamacare, why has he not invited any Republicans to the White House since April? You can’t bemoan a lack of bipartisanship when it is you yourself who is not bringing in the opposition.

  378. HP even if we just give the FF’s all the deist tag though aren’t we just dressing it up for our own modern comfort.
    For the most part the Constitution was based on the Christian teachings and values one was subjected to and comfortable with at the time and not to satisfy whimsy. There was power in utilizing those ideals and marrying them to our new nation.

  379. how about, do the don’t talk climate change with conservatives thing. I’ll bet my life savings that half the conservatives still don’t believe in climate change. It’ll be like arguing with a wall.

  380. HP even if we just give the FF’s all the deist tag though aren’t we just dressing it up for our own modern comfort.
    For the most part the Constitution was based on the Christian teachings and values one was subjected to and comfortable with at the time and not to satisfy whimsy. There was power in utilizing those ideals and marrying them to our new nation.

    Alfie – I don’t really have a problem with that – in fact for the most part it is what I said in my post.

    I guess I am making a fine distinction between “document inspired by Christian values” and “Christian document.”

    The former is a relatively accurate description. The later suggests that the constitution privileges Christian beliefs over other beliefs, which it most decidedly does not do.

    — hp

  381. … so that must be what you are getting at. You really want me to admit that the constitution is specifically based on Christian morality.” – HP

    Of course it is.

    “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.
    [Justice Joseph Story (who served on the