Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2014, 01:23:12 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82950 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 83
2851  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: June 26, 2010, 01:11:02 PM
"of their children's system."

should be:  of their children' *status*.
2852  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 26, 2010, 01:08:33 PM
Now we agree.  grin Thanks for your response.

" I've said we should stringently enforce all our immigration laws against illegal immigrants AND employers who employ them."

I agree and have posted this.

"To say you are going to round up and ship back the 10 million or so illegal immigrants already in this country is simply not practical or realistic."

Only because we don't have the political will but...

"But if you enforced and strengthened the immigration laws against employers and therefore there were no jobs for illegals, I bet a lot of them would go back on their own."

then, I agree with this point.  If we cut off the welfare, the food stamps, the jobs, start enforcing and carding people we wouldn't need to round up people and ship them over the border to wherever they came from.  It would mostly take care of itself.  If we cannot stop the anchor baby loophole then we could do what I otherwise suggest:

OK if illegals come here and have babies partly at our expense and we are stuck having to give them *automatic* citizenship, then those who abuse our country and our system by explicitly taking advantage of this loop hole are punishable by NEVER EVER being granted citizenship in their lifetime for any reason irregardless of their children's system.

Yes I work alongside some obvious illlegals.  Yes I look at them with sympathy.  But I also feel enraged that these people come here knowing that they can get benefits, hospital care, break our immigration laws, have babies that go to our tax funded schools, then turn around and call us racist, bigots and all the rest if we should even hint at protesting.

I am tired of being stupid.  I say again go back to your countries, whether it be in Asia, Africa, Caribbean, South/Central America, Mexico, Canada, Europe and get in line.

"I do not think that "we have a huge unemployment problem, an expanding debt problem, or that we are going bankrupt, ....." due primarily to our 3-4% low paid illegal immigrants population."

Surely illegals are only a part of the problem and probably only a small part of it.  But they are part of it.  As I think I posted:  It is estimated that probably half of the lost or unfunded facility (hospital care) costs in NJ are due to illegals.  Our insurance rates go up yearly at least in part because of this.  The health system has to get that back from somewhere.

That is significant, outrageous. angry

And the fact that Democrats are siding with foreigners who are breaking the law from day one! angry



   

 
2853  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN-stop kidding me on: June 26, 2010, 11:08:31 AM
"I don't quite get it; while I am not in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, we already did it once."

I guess you don't.  It is quite astonishing really that you can say you are against illegal aliens 100% yet you find every argument you can think of to skirt the issue which is we have a flood of illegals using more than they contribute, we have a huge unemployment problem, we have a huge expanding debt problem, we are going bankrupt, we have a Dem controlled governement that refuses to do anything about it, we have Republicans who are afraid of offending legal latino voters, we have citizens afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled racist and the rest, and all you can do is find every reason to explain what NOT to do.

I do not believe you are against illegals.  This statement is incongruent with your arguments.

As for raising the number for legal citizenship pathway I have been quite clear I personally am completely against that.  What I am for is encouraging legal Americans to work harder and stop relying on 1/2 of the country to continue supporting them through taxation - period.  It is really quite simple.  The problem is the politicians are for themselves - not for the good of this nation.   
2854  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Too few "clinics" target obesity - on: June 25, 2010, 12:15:18 PM
I wonder if the fact that many insurers as well as Medicare do not pay providers for treating people who are overweight has anyhting to do with this.

That said it would make no difference anyway. Clinics would not do any better then the thousands of commercial plans around, such as weight watchers, nutrisystem, and the rest.


***US. Report Finds Too Few Clinics Target Diabetes, Obesity
Email Print Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THURSDAY, June 24 (HealthDay News) — Too few local health clinics in the United States offer diabetes screening or obesity prevention programs, according to a nationwide study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The clinics, which tend to serve poor clients, need to be “armed and equipped” to respond to the increasing threat of obesity and diabetes in the nation, study co-author Ann Albright said in a Center for the Advancement of Health news release.


She and her colleagues analyzed data from a 2005 survey of 2,300 health clinics and found that about 56 percent of them offered obesity prevention programs, 51 percent offered diabetes screening, and only one third offered both.

The findings were of particular concern since the percentage of obese American adults has doubled from 1980 to 2004, and the percentage of Americans diagnosed with diabetes may have doubled as well, according to researchers. People with diabetes and lower incomes run a higher risk of dying of the disease, research has shown.

Albright directs the Division of Diabetes Translation, which translates diabetes research into daily practice, at the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

One expert questioned the value of obesity and diabetes screening programs alone. Such programs “are not a big part of the solution. After all, they are designed to find the trouble, not necessarily fix it,” Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine, said in the news release.

“We should define what contributions health departments can, and should, be making to global efforts at obesity and diabetes prevention and control, and then distribute resources to make sure they can all make these contributions. Otherwise, some will be doing far less than is needed, and some will be doing more than what is truly useful,” Katz said.

The CDC findings appear online and in the August print issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about overweight and obesity.

— Robert Preidt

SOURCE: Center for the Advancement of Health, June 22, 2010, news release.

Last Updated: June 25, 2010

Copyright © 2010 HealthDay. All rights reserved.***
2855  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN question on: June 25, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
You state:

"Note, I strongly agree with all of the above 100%.  For various reasons, including national security, we need to crack down on illegal immigrants.  "How" is a challenge, but one we must face."

The difficulty is all politics.  We have a major party in this nation that sees immigrants as more voters.  They are blocking our ability to do anything.

The way to stop it is easy.  Stop the benefits, stop allowing employers to hire them, make it law that any illegal couple who has a child here can NEVER ever obtain citizenship and viola.  They will be going home.

That's my answer.  You appear to agree "100%" to crack down on them yet all you do is put up endless roadblocks with your arguments.

The benefits they receive is greater than any contribution to this nation.  We are going broke and we continue to dole out to them. 

What do you think we should do??


2856  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 25, 2010, 10:39:58 AM
U.S. Department of Illegal Alien Labor
By Michelle Malkin  •  June 25, 2010 08:49 AM

My syndicated column today takes aim at open-borders Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. She’s already a familiar character to those of you who read Culture of Corruption (and here’s a reminder of the roll call vote on her Senate confirmation.)

***

The U.S. Department of Illegal Alien Labor
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

President Obama’s Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is supposed to represent American workers. What you need to know is that this longtime open-borders sympathizer has always had a rather radical definition of “American.” At a Latino voter registration project conference in Los Angeles many years ago, Solis asserted to thunderous applause, “We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not.”

That’s right. The woman in charge of enforcing our employment laws doesn’t give a hoot about our immigration laws — or about the fundamental distinction between those who followed the rules in pursuit of the American dream and those who didn’t.

While in Congress, she opposed strengthening the border fence, supported expansion of illegal alien benefits (including driver’s licenses and in-state tuition discounts), embraced sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal homeland security officials to enforce immigration laws, and aggressively championed a mass amnesty. Solis was steeped in the pro-illegal alien worker organizing movement in Southern California and was buoyed by amnesty-supporting Big Labor groups led by the Service Employees International Union (see also Trevor Loudon’s profile of her radical far-left ties). She has now caused a Capitol Hill firestorm over her new taxpayer-funded advertising and outreach campaign to illegal aliens regarding fair wages:

“I’m here to tell you that your president, your secretary of labor and this department will not allow anyone to be denied his or her rightful pay — especially when so many in our nation are working long, hard and often dangerous hours,” Solis says in the video pitch. “We can help, and we will help. If you work in this country, you are protected by our laws. And you can count on the U.S. Department of Labor to see to it that those protections work for you.”

To be sure, no one should be scammed out of “fair wages.” Employers that hire and exploit illegal immigrant workers deserve full sanctions and punishment. But it’s the timing, tone-deafness and underlying blanket amnesty agenda of Solis’ illegal alien outreach that has so many American workers and their representatives on Capitol Hill rightly upset.

With double-digit unemployment and a growing nationwide revolt over Washington’s border security failures, why has Solis chosen now to hire 250 new government field investigators to bolster her illegal alien workers’ rights campaign? (Hint: Leftists unhappy with Obama’s lack of progress on “comprehensive immigration reform” need appeasing. This is a quick bone to distract them.)

Unfortunately, the federal government is not alone in lavishing attention and resources on workers who shouldn’t be here in the first place. As of 2008, California, Florida, Nevada, New York, Texas and Utah all expressly included illegal aliens in their state workers’ compensation plans — and more than a dozen other states implicitly cover them.

Solis’ public service announcement comes on the heels of little-noticed but far more troubling comments encouraging illegal alien workers in the Gulf Coast. Earlier this month, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill, according to Spanish language publication El Diario La Prensa, Solis signaled that her department was going out of its way to shield illegal immigrant laborers involved in cleanup efforts. “My purpose is to assist the workers with respect to safety and protection,” she said. “We’re protecting all workers regardless of migration status because that’s the federal law.” She told reporters that her department was in talks with local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials who had visited coastal worksites to try to verify that workers were legal.

No word yet on whether she gave ICE her “we are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not” lecture. But it’s a safe bet.

2857  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia-US "reset" on: June 24, 2010, 03:34:53 PM
If I wasn't crying out loud I would be laughing out loud.

"Obama declared Thursday that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have "succeeded in resetting""  rolleyes

"Obama gave Russia perhaps the biggest gift it could have wanted from the meetings: an unqualified, hearty plug for Moscow's ascension to the World Trade
Organization." -  cry (The GREAT ONE did it again - Medvedev sound like he was swayed by greatness - even Mort Zucker is sickened)

***FOX News By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama declared Thursday that he and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have "succeeded in resetting" the relationship between the former Cold War adversaries that had dipped to a dangerous low in recent years.

Obama directly acknowledged differences in some areas, such as Moscow's tensions with neighboring Georgia, but said "we addressed those differences candidly." And he announced that the U.S. and Russia had agreed to expand cooperation on intelligence and the counterterror fight and worked on strengthening economic ties between the nations.

Obama gave Russia perhaps the biggest gift it could have wanted from the meetings: an unqualified, hearty plug for Moscow's ascension to the World Trade Organization. Russia has long wanted membership but U.S. support in the past has come with conditions.

"Russia belongs in the WTO," Obama said as the two leaders stood side-by-side in the East Room after several hours of meetings — including an impromptu trip to a nearby burger joint for lunch.

The leaders faced questions about the U.S.-led Afghanistan war, and Obama promised that the U.S. will "not miss a beat" because of the change in military command that he ordered on Wednesday. Obama accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation and replaced him with his direct boss, Gen. David Petraeus.

Petraeus "understands the strategy because he helped shape it," Obama said.

Medvedev seemed reluctant to wade into the topic, recalling the ultimately disastrous Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

"I try not to give pieces of advice that cannot be fulfilled," Medvedev said. "This is a very hard topic, a very difficult one."

Yet he said that Russia supports the U.S. effort if it can result in Afghanistan emerging from extreme poverty and dysfunction to have "effective state and a modern economy."

"This is the path to guarantee that the gravest scenarios of the last time will not repeat," he said.

Obama said the two had also agreed to coordinate on humanitarian aid for Kyrgyzstan, wracked by turmoil in the wake of the president's ouster. Kyrgyzstan's president was driven from power in April amid corruption allegations, sparking violence that has left about 2,000 people dead and 400,000 ethnic Uzbeks homeless.

Asked about a major flashpoint between the U.S. and China, Obama said Washington would judge the effect of Beijing's latest currency announcement over the course of the year, rather than overnight. Obama and Medvedev go this weekend to Canada for the G-20 summit, with China's leader also attending. Obama faces pressure from Congress and the U.S. business community to press Beijing more aggressively on its currency policy.

The U.S. argues that the weak Chinese yuan hurts American exports. On Saturday, China announced it would loosen its controls on the currency, but the move may not strengthen the yuan enough for U.S. tastes.

The agenda for Obama and Medvedev was modest, and mostly focused beyond security issues to expanding trade and economic cooperation. Russia has the world's eighth-largest economy but ranks 25th among U.S. trading partners.

"The true significance of Medvedev's visit is that it brings us closer to a relationship that doesn't require Cold War-style summits to sustain itself," says Sam Charap, a Russia analyst at the Center for American Progress. "The lack of headlines is actually a sign of progress."

Medvedev arrived at the White House on a sweltering summer morning for a series of meetings with Obama and U.S. officials. It was their seventh meeting since Obama took office 17 month ago.

Leaving the formality of the White House, they sneaked away for an impromptu ride across the Potomac River to a popular hamburger joint — Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, Va. Customers cheered when the two walked in.

Later, at the news conference, Medvedev called the burgers "probably ... not quite healthy but it's very tasty."

After their joint news conference, Obama and Medvedev were going together to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Ahead of the talks, U.S. officials pointed to signs that Obama's much-heralded efforts to start fresh with Moscow have delivered results, from Russian support for new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program to the signing of a major treaty to reduce the two countries' stockpiles of nuclear weapons. They say the U.S. is standing its ground with Russia but shifting the tone away from conflict.

But conservative critics see Obama as too conciliatory and say he hasn't resolved disputes over issues such as Moscow's human rights record, missile defense and the legacy of the Russia-Georgia war of 2008. They charge that by speaking softly on those issues, the United States is compromising its influence among Russia's neighboring countries.

Medvedev began his U.S. visit in California, where he toured Silicon Valley high-tech firms as part of his push to establish a high-tech center in Russia.***
2858  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: June 24, 2010, 02:51:23 PM
I guess I missed something here as teachers and police officers are generally not Fed empolyees but work for towns, cities, counties etc.

But I think my point about public sector unions is still the same.
2859  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glen Beck:show on unions on: June 24, 2010, 02:48:10 PM
I awoke in the middle of the night and turned on cable and the GB show pops up.  This was an interesting show about unions in America.
The untold story.  The rest of the story not told in liberal schools.

I didn't know for example the FDR was AGAINST public unions.  He said they would hold the public sector hostage which is EXATLY what we see now.
Sorry if there are any teachers or police officers on the board.  I am not against either but thier unions do hold us hostage in NJ, at least.  I believe it is happening in Kolifornia too.

It was JFK who originally signed the law in 1962 that would allow Federal employees to unionize.

It is interesting it was him since I've heard rumors he won the Democratin nomination thanks to mafia controlled unions.

Gee I wonder if there was a connection between those dots.

Beck's TV show is different and better generally than his radio show.

I also didn't know the history of unions was based on racisim.

Now thier strategy is almost a form of reverse racism.

2860  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 23, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
isabell,
I agree with 100%.
I was watching a person from that small town in Nebraska that wants to enforce illegal immigration law being interviewed.
She was so nervous so hesitant to speak the truth for fear of being called a bigot.  She starts off with the obligatory, "I am not a racist" line.  It is obvious illegals and the Dems in this country who want their votes are using the threat of the "racist" or "bigot" label like a gun to the heads of legal residents who speak up.  This is crazy.
***All empolyers in the USA should simply scour the world for people willing to work for less.
Hey why not?  We dcould replace the entire work force of the whole country.
So what if they are illegal.  Or why not make the legal and give them work visas.***

It will only end when the phoney hypocrit liberals own jobs are at stake.

The American way, yes JDN?

 
2861  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction:above is part2 this is final part3 on: June 23, 2010, 11:19:06 AM

part 3:
Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The president is well-intentioned but can't walk the walk on the world stage
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010
 
The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world. We have policed the sea lanes, protected the air and space domains, countered terrorism, responded to genocide, and been the bulwark against rogue states engaging in aggression. The world now senses, in the context of the erosion of America's economic power and the pressures of our budget deficits, that we will compress our commitments. But the world needs the vision, idealism, and strong leadership that America brings to international affairs. This can be done and must be done. But we are the only ones who can do it.

< Previous Page 1 2 3
2862  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part one on: June 23, 2010, 11:14:29 AM
 Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The president is well-intentioned but can't walk the walk on the world stage
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010
President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.

 
Yet, the Iraq war lingers; Afghanistan continues to be immersed in an endless cycle of tribalism, corruption, and Islamist resurgence; Guantánamo remains open; Iran sees how North Korea toys with Obama and continues its programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles; Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening; and the Palestinians and Israelis find that it is U.S. policy positions that defer serious negotiations, the direct opposite of what the Obama administration hoped for.

The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy." Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an "NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches." In other words, he talks the talk but doesn't know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.

In his Cairo speech about America and the Muslim world, Obama managed to sway Arab public opinion but was unable to budge any Arab leader. Even the king of Saudi Arabia, a country that depends on America for its survival, reacted with disappointment and dismay. Obama's meeting with the king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with.

1 2 3 Next Page >
2863  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: June 23, 2010, 11:08:45 AM
Mort is clearly not thrilled with Joe-Bama's (my nick name) approach to Israel.  I would guess that has some cause for this piece from an otherwise liberal/Democrat Jewish writer

Part one:

 Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The president is well-intentioned but can't walk the walk on the world stage
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010
President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.

 
Yet, the Iraq war lingers; Afghanistan continues to be immersed in an endless cycle of tribalism, corruption, and Islamist resurgence; Guantánamo remains open; Iran sees how North Korea toys with Obama and continues its programs to develop nuclear weapons and missiles; Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening; and the Palestinians and Israelis find that it is U.S. policy positions that defer serious negotiations, the direct opposite of what the Obama administration hoped for.

The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama's policy on Afghanistan—supporting a surge in troops, but setting a date next year when they will begin to withdraw—not only gave a mixed signal, but provided an incentive for the Taliban just to wait us out. The withdrawal part of the policy was meant to satisfy a domestic constituency, but succeeded in upsetting all of our allies in the region. Further anxiety was provoked by Obama's severe public criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his coterie of family and friends for their lackluster leadership, followed by a reversal of sorts regarding the same leaders.

Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy." Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an "NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches." In other words, he talks the talk but doesn't know how to walk the walk. The Obama presidency has so far been characterized by a well-intentioned but excessive belief in the power of rhetoric with too little appreciation of reality and loyalty.

In his Cairo speech about America and the Muslim world, Obama managed to sway Arab public opinion but was unable to budge any Arab leader. Even the king of Saudi Arabia, a country that depends on America for its survival, reacted with disappointment and dismay. Obama's meeting with the king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with.

1 2 3 Next Page >
2864  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 23, 2010, 10:59:59 AM
Actually I wan't trying to correct you.  I was just wondering where the concept of a "Pashtun" country came from.
Only because I never heard about it before.  It seems like an intriguing idea but the perception I am left from the MSM is that this region is filled with a bunch of decentralized tribes.
2865  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: June 22, 2010, 11:16:53 AM
Doug,
I read the piece.
I am not an economist but even so nearly everything he says seems wrong headed and stubborn just to support his present day liberal desires.
He is totally nuts.
Or according to his logic we should be praying for a gigantic war with tax rates skyrocketing to the 90% range for the highest incomes.
The war must devastate our competitors, China, Europe, etc. so we emerge on top like 1945.
Like you I don't want to spend any more time on this nonsense.



2866  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Roger Freidman is a dupe on: June 21, 2010, 02:26:27 PM
From Roger Freidman:

"Ricky Martin Livin’ “La Vida Loca” Again with Producer Desmond ChildBy: Roger Friedman in Celebrity, Music // June 18th, 2010 at 10:45 AM EDT

.......There were great moments and odd moments in the Marriott Marquis ballroom. John Mayer, looking uncomfortable, appeared on stage to give Taylor Swift the Starlight Award for new young songwriter. He said, “We’re both like black swans,” and then rambled on about the two of them being unlike everyone else. He also said that even he asked her, “Who writes your songs?” Swift, still 19, gave a very relaxed speech, without using notes. She’s very poised. And she’s going to be around for a while."


John Mayer would know she didn't write the songs as she claimed.  He didn't/doesn't write his either.
2867  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 21, 2010, 12:35:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Durand_Line_Border_Between_Afghanistan_And_Pakistan.jpg

"a) I would consider ignoring the Darcy line and cut a deal with the Pashtuns to give them a Pashtunistan in return for giving up the AQ in their territory.   This would freak the Paks and I would green light the Indians while taking out Pak's nuke program."

Where did this come from?

So Pashtuns who are in Afghnanistan and Pakistan would like to have their own unified country?

"while taking out Pak's nuke program."

Can this be done?  Should it be done?  At least while NOT also taking out the Iranian nuke program to maintain some balance of power in the region.

Did you notice the Drudge headline that Saudi Arabia gave the greenlight to Israel to use their airspace?

SA clearly fears Iran.  Let the Jews take care of Iran for them I guess.


2868  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / corr2:"make it legal" on: June 21, 2010, 10:29:52 AM
not illegal.
sorry for 2 mistakes.
2869  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / corr.:"10% less pay" on: June 21, 2010, 10:28:57 AM
eom
2870  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 21, 2010, 10:10:18 AM
"As a patient, or as a client, or as an employer, don't you want someone who goes the extra 5-10%?"

Again you miss my point - or simply don't want to address it.

We as Americans have to work harder.
We have to stop sitting back and expecting we are entitled.
We have to stop the dole.

When that happens Americans will work just as hard as the next guys.
And you miss the point.  This is not just about employers saving on some payroll.  This is about our institutions going broke with services provided to illegals.

This is about Americans letting them come in here and take  jobs they should be doing.  This is about Americans refusing to work because they can collect

Based on your logic we could completely replace all Americans with foreigners who will work harder for less.
What do you do for a living?  I think we could easily find someone in some other country bring them here illegally for 10 less pay and you are out of a job.
Or lets give them all work visas and make it illegal.  Now you are happy.
That is the American way? no?



 
2871  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Example of how music crime works? on: June 20, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
I am not sure if this is example of how organized crime in the entertainment industry works or just coicidence.

Below is a copy of that thread around the time I posted it on 06/02/2010.
When I try to print out my entire post of 06/02/2010 the first part, the part where I mention Jimmy Carter "on steroids" does not print.

I cannot get this segment to print:

" The silver lining is that Bamster will set the liberal/progressive agenda back to Woodrow Wilson.  The bad news this country is going to be hurt bad till we can climb our way out of this mess.  The people going around saying he is doing a good job are deniers.  Sorry assholes.  You are not going to get your reparations.  Maybe you as well as the rest of us will have to work our butts off to get out of this mess.  And yes.  He does call to mind Jimmy Carter - but like I said - on steroids.  It can't be just coincidence the"

The rest of the post prints.  This is interesting to me.  Because this is exactly one way how Katherine keeps getting lines from her work on the computer ripped off.  The one from a song they want disappears altogether or cannot be printed out or copied.  They then use just enough of it one cannot sue or they hold on till they can get into the house and get access to the computer HD or the discs and steal or tamper with them.  Then you hear the singer coming out with the song with the lyrics in them.  Such as Toby Keith, shania Twain, Carrie Underwood, and what is the name of the big douch with the voice of a frog - Trace Adkins.  Actually the entire country crew are all doing it.  So are many of the pop singers.  Lady Gaga is another shoved in front of us with big money.  Notice she is on all the networks talk shows.  Larry King, O'reilly and all of them. Someone is making deals behind the scenes promoting her as though she is something special.

But I wonder if anyone can print out my complete post.  Just curious.


 
ccp
Power User

Posts: 1264


  Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« Reply #557 on: June 02, 2010, 03:14:16 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The silver lining is that Bamster will set the liberal/progressive agenda back to Woodrow Wilson.  The bad news this country is going to be hurt bad till we can climb our way out of this mess.  The people going around saying he is doing a good job are deniers.  Sorry assholes.  You are not going to get your reparations.  Maybe you as well as the rest of us will have to work our butts off to get out of this mess.

And yes.  He does call to mind Jimmy Carter - but like I said - on steroids.  It can't be just coincidence the world's hot spots are exploding into turmoil while the ONE sits at the helm.  Remember big mouth Biden said Bamster would be tested?  Well what is the One going to do now that Israel may go to war with Turkey, we are closer to war in Korea in my lifetime, Iran is almost with nuclear weapons?  I guess he can continue to blame the F* Jews which he all but come out and done (its their faults because of a few housing projects).  Or he can blame Bush again which he has continued (to this day) to do.  Or of course he blame corporate American or BP.  Or he can continue to travel around the world as our fearless leader apologizing to the world for all its problems all the while saying the US is at cause of them.  When willl the MSM come out of their delusional state?  They will have to. Kicking and screaming yes. But they will eventually have to.  But when?

***By Dick Morris 06.2.2010 Published on TheHill.com on June 1, 2010

Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.

America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.

The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.

All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.

Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.

And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.

Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.

And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.

America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.

He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.

Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?***

 
 
 Report to moderator    71.250.236.43 
 
 
 
Body-by-Guinness
Power User

Posts: 1948


  Another Illegal Job Offer Emerges
« Reply #558 on: June 02, 2010, 08:22:08 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we can hear that Stanley Brand quote again:

Andrew Romanoff details contacts with White House over potential jobs
Updated, 9:39 pm

Former Colorado state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff released a detailed statement tonight detailing his contacts with the White House last fall in which a top aide to President Barack Obama sought to convince him to leave the state's Senate race.

Romanoff said that he received a call in September 2009 from White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina making clear that the White House would be supporting appointed Sen. Michael Bennet in the Colorado Senate Democratic primary.

Added Romanoff:

"Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one."
(Romanoff'sstatement is available after the jump.)

The three jobs floated to him by Messina via email, according to Romanoff, were: Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean for USAID, Director of Office of Democracy and Governance at USAID and director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

Romanoff said he followed up with a phone message in which he declined the potential job offers.

The Romanoff statement comes less than two weeks after questions about what job (if any) was offered to Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak in hopes of driving him from the race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

The White House ultimately released a report from Counsel Bob Bauer in which it was revealed that former President Bill Clinton had approached Sestak about leaving the race but that no formal contact between the Obama Administration and the candidate had ever occurred.

The simple fact that the White House -- via Messina -- made clear that they would be supporting Bennet in the August Democratic primary is not, in and of itself, particularly shocking. White Houses -- no matter which party is in control -- play favorites in primaries and do their level best to clear fields for the candidate they believe is best positioned to hold the seat for their side in a general election.

At issue is whether the White House's statement on the matter accurately portrayed the entirety of the situation.

In a September 27, 2009 Denver Post piece a White House spokesman is quoted saying that "Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration."

Romanoff, in his own statement tonight, reiterates that point; "At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one," he said.

California Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who has led the charge against the White House on the Sestak and Romanoff matters, issued a sweeping condemnation of the Administration in the wake of the Romanoff statement asking "how deep does the Obama White House's effort to invoke Chicago-style politics for the purpose of manipulating elections really go?,".

Republicans will almost certainly attempt to make an issue of the White House's carefully worded statement about its conversations with Romanoff--questioning whether dangling three specific positions is tantamount to a job offer.

Andrew Romanoff statement

I have received a large number of press inquiries concerning the role the White House is reported to have played in my decision to run for the U.S. Senate. I have declined comment because I did not want - and do not want - to politicize this matter.

A great deal of misinformation has filled the void in the meantime. That does not serve the public interest or any useful purpose.

Here are the facts:

In September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported my plans to run for the Senate, I received a call from Jim Messina, the President's deputy chief of staff. Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run.

Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one.

Later that day, I received an email from Mr. Messina containing descriptions of three positions (email attached). I left him a voicemail informing him that I would not change course.

I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/andrew-romanoff-details-contac.html
 
 Report to moderator    Logged 
 
 
 
Body-by-Guinness
Power User

Posts: 1948

2872  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 20, 2010, 02:42:43 PM
I posted this on June 2 on the cognitive dissonance thread while posting of Obama:

"And yes.  He does call to mind Jimmy Carter - but like I said - on steroids"

Did anyone hear Hannity say Obama is like "Jimmy Carter on steroids" two nights ago?

I also stated this in our house.

I don't know if coincidence or not.

I do know that some things Katherine or I say do wind up on the air.  Far fetched.  Yes.  But true, as we are being surveillenced as part of an ongoing effort to steal more music lyrics some of them copywritten from Katherine.

Notice how their is a let less new music coming out now since Katherine is not writing anything new.  She has been fixing some songs and constantly lines disappear off the computer.

If the music business is this corrupt can anyone imagine Wall Street with its insider trading, hedge funds, etc?

2873  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 20, 2010, 02:25:31 PM
"He gave me a quizzical look and said they "don't work as hard". 

Yes, a lot of people say that.  But does anyone then go on to the next step and ask *why* they work harder.'

It ain't for a love of working like a dog.  It ain't that they wouldn't like to work less hard.  It isn't for any special philosophical coveting of some sort of "work ethic ideal."  It is because they *have* to work harder.
They HAVE to prove something.  I saw the same thing with foreigners in our medical training program.  Many would go the extra 5 or 10%.  Why?  Because they felt they had something to prove.  They didn't feel as secure as we did. 

Those in the low paying fields also may need to work long hours precisely to make up for lower wages and precisely so they do get hired.  They HAVE to work harder.
They have to prove something in order to GET HIRED in the first place.

And that is precisely why the welfare state of our bleeding heart liberals is contributing to the failure of this country.  And no I don't agree that  having swarms of illegals coming in is a *gain* for all of us.  Not while they can obtain free benefits for themselves or their "citizen" children.

And they take jobs Americans won't do because Americans don't have to.  Because the safety net has become an "entitlement" net.

I am only beginning to hear people with enough courage on radio or amongst a few politicians running for office saying this.  Most of the incumbents are political cowards, or bribed, or afraid of being painted as politically incorrect.

I am not so sure that saying people should not retire at 65 is political suicide anymore.

2874  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 19, 2010, 01:27:02 PM
BBG,

"so am very torn where the subject of illegal immigration is concerned. Some of the best, hardest working, exemplars of the American bootstrap ethic were...."

Now you sound like a bleeding heart liberal.  I know you mean well.  Yes all of us work alongside illegals.  They are all over the country - I think there may even be more then 20 million at this point.  And yes they work hard.  They HAVE to.  But they also abuse our system and our laws.  And because we are saps we lose more than we gain.

And unfortunately that is why this country is weak, and that is why it is failing IMO.

Again, I feel we need to establish respect for our country around the world.  Not fear, but not the impression we are afraid to stand up for ourselves.  And we need to proud.  But we also need for our people to stop this entitlement binge.  We need to work for it.  Lest the rest of the world run over us like they are slowly working towards.  Now I get off my soapbox.

Illegals - go home.  Your welcome here after you get in line.  Not before.  EOM.
2875  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: June 18, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
""Nations have passed away and left no traces, And history gives the naked cause of it - One single simple reason in all cases; They fell because their peoples were not fit."-Rudyard Kipling"

2/3 of us in the US are overweight or obese.

We are fat on our own success.

The end for us too??
2876  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 18, 2010, 02:35:39 PM
Well no.  It is not quite clear and no it is not futile.
You conveniently leave out the rest of the sentence,
"*and* subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

Legal vs. illegal aliens can certainly be viewed differently with regards to the second half of this sentence.

"better if you truly believe it should be changed
to spend time, money, and energy to amend the Constitution."

Well ok.  Lets look at this option.  Does this take 2/3 Senate vote?

How does one make a new amendment?

I don't care how we get it done.  It has to be done.  Our national security is at stake.  We are less looked at as a land of opportunity and more like a bank.



2877  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ENOUGH!I say, as I think *most* Americans on: June 18, 2010, 12:45:10 PM
Lets keep giving it away like dopes.  anything for a darn vote!  Hey it ain't their money.
I don't want our country to be feared but I would like to be respected.  Not dumped on and abused.
I don't think Republicans are afraid/unwilling to confront illegals because they provide cheap labor.  I think they are afraid of offending Latino *voters*  Rove said republicans go after illegals and we lose Latino voters for generations.  However I think this country has crossed a threshold wherein a majority want the illegal invasion CRISES stopped now - yesterday!  The tipping or boiling-over point, so to speak, is the dismal economy.  People are not only thinking how we are being abused by foreigners invading our country but are *feeling the pain* of laying down their taxes, life savings,  for anchor baby benefits, like medicaid, food stamps, education property taxes, health care and more.   For God's sake with all the unempolyment why can't the real American born high school drop out/grad/college grad mow my lawn?


By Michelle Malkin  •  June 18, 2010 01:58 AM

***Club Fed for illegal aliens
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Thanks to their international “human rights” advocates, Gitmo detainees receive art therapy, movie nights and video games at their U.S. taxpayer-funded camp in Cuba. Now, the left’s bleeding heart lobby wants to provide similar taxpayer-sponsored perks to illegal alien detainees on American soil. Welcome to the open-borders Club Fed.

According to an internal Department of Homeland Security e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency plans a radical overhaul of the immigration detention system. No, the reforms will not increase the nation’s measly, chronically underfunded detention bed capacity — fewer than 35,000 beds last fiscal year to cover an estimated illegal alien population of between 12 million and 20 million. The Obama ICE leadership is headed in the exact opposite direction.

ICE chief John Morton — the same man who signaled last month that he may refuse to process illegal aliens sent to him by Arizona law enforcement officials — has already eliminated 50 detention facilities. This despite a DHS inspector general report released last spring exposing the federal government’s bipartisan failure to expand detention space capacity to end the dangerous game of illegal alien “catch and release.”

Instead, among the p.c. makeover measures under consideration or about to be made by Obama’s ICE agency in the next 30 days:

– “Softening” the physical appearance of privately contracted detention facilities with “hanging plants.”

- Giving illegal alien detainees e-mail access and free Internet-based phone service.

- Abandoning lockdowns, lights-out, visitor screening and detention uniform requirements.

- Serving fresh veggies and continental breakfast and providing Bingo sessions, arts and crafts classes, and, yes, movie nights.

Ensuring humane treatment of detainees is one thing. This, on the other hand, is beyond ridiculous. Detention centers should be clean, safe and temporary way stations for illegal immigrants on their way out the door. These proposals turn the immigration detention centers into permanent Dave & Buster’s-style comfort zones for illegal aliens biding their time until the next amnesty. Dancing lessons? Game halls? This is an invitation for abuse — and a recipe for exploitation by smugglers and drug cartels. Open-borders and civil liberties activists will end up endangering DHS/ICE workers — and the rest of us — under the guise of “immigrant human rights.”

The left-wing campaign by the American Civil Liberties Union, change.org and illegal alien activists targeting our detention system began in earnest after 9/11. Under the Bush administration, hundreds of illegal aliens of Arab descent were detained and questioned as “material witnesses” in counterterrorism probes. The use of immigration laws in the war against Islamic jihadists became a rallying point for the open-borders propagandists.

The New York Times hysterically reported that most of these post-9/11 detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, 60 percent of the 762 immigrants detained after the 9/11 attacks were charged within 72 hours. And the Justice Department inspector general found that there were legitimate reasons for delay in the remaining cases, including logistical disruptions in New York City after 9/11, such as electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. Immigrant abuse charges were hurled recklessly by the likes of Al Gore, who slandered DHS’s detention program during a paid appearance in Saudi Arabia — despite the DOJ’s failure to find any such patterns.

The truth got lost along the way. So did common sense. Allowing illegal alien terror suspects to roam free in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks would have been a dereliction of duty. And countless homeland security experts and DHS inspector general reports have repeatedly spotlighted lax enforcement in the detention safety net over the past decade.

Hundreds of thousands of “absconders” remain on the loose because of failure (or refusal) to detain them. The immigration lawyers’ racket has lobbied for compassionate “alternatives” to detention that routinely result in deportation fugitives simply ditching the process and disappearing.

Their goal is not to improve detention. Their goal is to sabotage it — all while law-breakers munch on croissants and joyfully shout “BINGO!”***

2878  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 18, 2010, 10:40:57 AM
"There are many different, legitimate, ways to intepret the Constitution.  Some of the most common include attempting to discern the original intent (as GM has done) and literalism (as I have done)."

Another "intent" would be of not just founding fathers which ever group we decide on is that group but of those who came up with the 14th amendment.
Please forgive if this is out of place in the context of the ongoing discussion here (since I am not an attorney) but I think this could be included here.

***Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

 Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.



For more information, see:
1.   P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)

2.   Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Illegal Aliens and American Medicine The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 (Spring 2005)

3.   Al Knight, Track 'anchor babies', Denver Post (September 11, 2002)

4.   Al Knight, Change U.S. law on anchor babies, Denver Post (June 22, 2005)

5.   Tom DeWeese, The Mexican Fifth Column (January 27, 2003)

6.   Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

7.   Tom DeWeese, The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion (American policy Center)

8.   P.A. Madison, Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance The Federalist Blog (December 17, 2005)

9.   Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)

10.   William Buchanan, HR-73 -- Protecting America's Sovereignty, The Social Contract (Fall, 1999) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark 1898 Supreme Court case

11.   Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation's Future -- Part Two -- Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter, 2005) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark court case

12.   U.S. Supreme Court ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (Findlaw, 1884)

13.   U.S. Supreme Court Slaughter-House cases ('Lectric Law Library, 1873) http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case30.htm

Author: Fred Elbel    Updated: 26 June, 2009***
2879  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 17, 2010, 09:52:21 AM
"it was the 14th amendment that gave that right"

IF a pregnant woman comes here on vacation, or if one come here for some other reason and delivers the baby here than that baby is automatically a citizen?

2880  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 17, 2010, 09:48:41 AM
Recently I spoke to someone who has a lot of contact with big health insurance payers here in NJ.  He states the main reason health insurance is so high is the facility costs such as hospitals.  They have to recoup there losses in providing care to the uninsured.  They are only able to recoup half their costs.  Half of those costs are illegals.
So here in NJ the cost of insurance is in part so high because we are paying for the care of illegals.

It must be unbelievable in the Southwest.
2881  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 17, 2010, 09:42:21 AM
He is too "professorial".  He is too cool, calm, and not "emotional" enough.  He needs to show "anger".  These are examples of the left's 'criticism' of their guy.  It is never the message.  Just how it is delivered.  When the tax increases hit next year the economy will be crushed.  Hopefully the lame duck Congress will not be able to pass a host of more expensive legislation that will make the economy even more stressed as Marc Levin thinks.  Though I fear he is probably right that they will try to do this.

****Language guru: Obama speech too 'professorial' for his target audienceBy the CNN Wire Staff
June 17, 2010 10:23 a.m. EDT
Obama lays out Gulf strategySTORY HIGHLIGHTS
Speech may have gone over heads of audience
Plaudits for "oil began spewing"
"Not Obama at his best"
(CNN) -- President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.

He singled out this sentence from Obama as unfortunate: "That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy."



Video: Stupak: Apology 'not good enough' for BP

Video: BP's $20 billion cleanup fund

Video: Obama faces moratorium backlash

Video: Cleaning the Gulf's oil-soaked birds
RELATED TOPICS
English Language
The White House
Barack Obama
"A little less professorial, less academic and more ordinary," Payack recommended. "That's the type of phraseology that makes you (appear) aloof and out of touch."

The monitor's chief word analyst found these three sentences insensitive: "Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years."

"You shouldn't be saying that in Katrina land," said Payack, referring to the 2005 hurricane that devastated the Gulf Coast. "New Orleans lost a third of its population; it's still recovering."

But he praised Obama's phrase "oil began spewing" as active and graphic.

iReporter:Obama's speech too fuzzy on details

At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said.

Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.

"The scores indicate that this was not Obama at his best, especially when attempting to make an emotional connection to the American people," he added.****

2882  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Giving, charity on: June 16, 2010, 11:25:11 AM
To me it depends on what they are giving to.  Gates is a globalist.  What we really need is more jobs and in the US people willing to work.  Is better tasting malaria pills such a great thing?"

***June 16, 2010, 7:00 am
The $600 billion challenge
Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett are asking the nation's billionaires to pledge to give at least half their net worth to charity, in their lifetimes or at death. If their campaign succeeds, it could change the face of philanthropy.

Flying cross-country in March, Bill Gates stopped in Omaha to lunch near the airport with Warren Buffett at a Hollywood Diner, giving it a small place in history as one venue where the two made plans for their drive to boost giving. Buffett paid for lunch. Click on the photo for more pictures.

By Carol J. Loomis, senior editor-at-large

FORTUNE -- Just over a year ago, in May 2009, word leaked to the press that the two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, had organized and presided over a confidential dinner meeting of billionaires in New York City. David Rockefeller was said to have been a host, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Oprah Winfrey to have been among those attending, and philanthropy to have been the main subject.

Pushed by the press to explain, Buffett and Gates declined. But that certainly didn't dim the media's interest in reaching for descriptions of the meeting: The Chronicle of Philanthropy called it "unprecedented"; both ABC News and the Houston Chronicle went for "clandestine"; a New York magazine parody gleefully imagined George Soros to have been starstruck in the presence of Oprah. One radio broadcaster painted a dark picture: "Ladies and gentlemen, there's mischief afoot and it does not bode well for the rest of us." No, no, rebutted the former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Patty Stonesifer, who had been at the meeting and had reluctantly emerged to combat the rumors. The event, she told the Seattle Times, was simply a group of friends and colleagues "discussing ideas" about philanthropy.

And so it was. But that discussion -- to be fully described for the first time in this article -- has the potential to dramatically change the philanthropic behavior of Americans, inducing them to step up the amounts they give. With that dinner meeting, Gates and Buffett started what can be called the biggest fundraising drive in history. They'd welcome donors of any kind. But their direct target is billionaires, whom the two men wish to see greatly raise the amounts they give to charities, of any and all kinds. That wish was not mathematically framed at the time of the New York meeting. But as two other U.S. dinners were held (though not leaked), Buffett and Gates and his wife, Melinda, set the goal: They are driving to get the super-rich, starting with the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, to pledge -- literally pledge -- at least 50% of their net worth to charity during their lifetimes or at death.

Without a doubt, that plan could create a colossal jump in the dollars going to philanthropy, though of what size is a puzzle we'll get to. To begin with, a word about this article you are reading. It is the first public disclosure of what Buffett and Melinda and Bill Gates are trying to do. Over the past couple of months Fortune has interviewed the three principals as the project has unfolded, as well as a group of billionaires who have signed up to add their names to the Gates/Buffett campaign.

In a sense this article is also an echo of two other Fortune stories, both featuring Buffett on the cover. The first, published in 1986, was "Should you leave it all to the children?" To that query, Buffett emphatically said no. The second article, "Warren Buffett gives it away," which appeared in 2006, disclosed Buffett's intention to gradually give away his Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) fortune to five foundations, chief among them the world's largest, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Buffett's thinking on the disposition of his wealth, see "My philanthropic pledge.")

Since then, in four years of contributions, Buffett has given the foundation $6.4 billion, not counting the 2010 gift, to be made this summer. The foundation in turn has in that same period combined Buffett's money and its immense gifts from the Gateses to raise its level of giving to about $3 billion a year, much of it for world health. One small example: the Medicines for Malaria Venture, heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, has worked with pharmaceutical company Novartis (NVS) to develop good-tasting malaria pills and distribute them to millions of children -- the principal victims of the disease -- in 24 countries.

Another fact about the 2006 Buffett article is that it was written by yours truly, Carol Loomis, a senior editor-at-large of Fortune. Besides that, I am a longtime friend of Buffett's and editor of his annual letter to Berkshire's shareholders. Through him, my husband, John Loomis, and I have also come to know Melinda and Bill Gates socially. The Loomis team has even occasionally played bridge against Warren and Bill.


LOOK WHO CAME TO DINNER: The crowd at the inaugural event added up to a list that would make any charity – or any conspiracy theorist – swoon. Left to right: Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, Eli and Edythe Broad, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, Chuck Feeney, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Julian Robertson, John and Tashia Morgridge, Pete Peterson
All that said, the question of what philanthropy might gain from the Gates/Buffett drive rests, at its outset, on a mystery: what the wealthiest Americans are giving now. Most of them aren't telling, and outsiders can't pierce the veil. For that matter, the Forbes 400 list, while a valiant try, is a best-guess estimate both as to the cast of characters and as to their net worth. (Buffett says he knows of two Berkshire shareholders who should be on the list but have been missed.) As Bill Gates sums it up, "The list is imprecise."

Those qualifiers noted, the magazine stated the 2009 net worth of the Forbes 400 to be around $1.2 trillion. So if those 400 were to give 50% of that net worth away during their lifetimes or at death, that would be $600 billion. You can think of that colossal amount as what the Buffett and Gates team is stalking -- at a minimum.

Leaving aside the Forbes 400 and looking simply at Internal Revenue Service data for both annual giving and estate taxes, we can piece together a picture of how far the very rich might be from a figure like that $600 billion. Start with an admirable fact about Americans as a whole: The U.S. outdoes all other countries in philanthropic generosity, annually giving in the neighborhood of $300 billion.

Some of that gets reported as charitable deductions on the tax filings made by individuals. But taxpayers at low income levels don't tend to itemize, taking the standard deduction instead. At higher income levels, charitable gift data begin to mean something. To take one example for 2007 (the latest data available), the 18,394 individual taxpayers having adjusted gross income of $10 million or more reported charitable gifts equal to about $32.8 billion, or 5.84% of their $562 billion in income.

And billionaires? Here, the best picture -- though it's flawed -- emerges from statistics that the IRS has for almost two decades been releasing on each year's 400 largest individual taxpayers, a changing universe obviously. The decision of the government to track this particular number of citizens may or may not have been spurred by the annual publication of the Forbes list. In any case, the two 400 batches, though surely overlapping, cannot be identical -- for one reason because the IRS data deal with income, not net worth.

The IRS facts for 2007 show that the 400 biggest taxpayers had a total adjusted income of $138 billion, and just over $11 billion was taken as a charitable deduction, a proportion of about 8%. The amount deducted, we need quickly to add, must be adjusted upward because it would have been limited for certain gifts, among them very large ones such as Buffett's $1.8 billion donation that year to the Gates Foundation. Even so, it is hard to imagine the $11 billion rising, by any means, to more than $15 billion. If we accept $15 billion as a reasonable estimate, that would mean that the 400 biggest taxpayers gave 11% of their income to charity -- just a bit more than tithing.

Is it possible that annual giving misses the bigger picture? One could imagine that the very rich build their net worth during their lifetimes and then put large charitable bequests into their wills. Estate tax data, unfortunately, make hash of that scenario, as 2008 statistics show. The number of taxpayers making estate tax filings that year was 38,000, and these filers had gross estates totaling $229 billion. Four-fifths of those taxpayers made no charitable bequests at death. The 7,214 who did make bequests gave $28 billion. And that's only 12% of the $229 billion gross estate value posted by the entire 38,000.

All told, the data suggest that there is a huge gap between what the very rich are giving now and what the Gateses and Buffett would like to suggest is appropriate -- that 50%, or better, of net worth. The question is how many people of wealth will buy their argument.

Buffett, Gates, and Gates -- who have a combined net worth of around $100 billion -- have already committed most of their money to charity.

The seminal event in this campaign was that billionaires' gathering in May 2009 -- the First Supper, if you will. The Gateses credit Buffett with the basic idea: that a small group of dedicated philanthropists be somehow assembled to discuss strategies for spreading the gospel to others. The Gateses proceeded to arrange the event. Bill Gates says, with a grin, "If you had to depend on Warren to organize this dinner, it might never have happened." In his office, meanwhile, Buffett scrawled out a name for a new file, "Great Givers."

The first item filed was a copy of a March 4 letter that Buffett and Gates sent to the patriarch of philanthropy, David Rockefeller, to ask that he host the meeting. Rockefeller, now 95, told Fortune that the request was "a surprise but a pleasure." As a site for the event, he picked the elegant and very private President's House at Rockefeller University in New York City, whose board he has been on for 70 years. He also tapped his son David Jr., 68, to go with him to the meeting.

The event was scheduled for 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5 -- a day urgently desired by Bill Gates, who wanted to fit the meeting into a short U.S. break he'd be taking from a three-month European stay with his family. Because Melinda elected to remain in Europe with their three children, she did not attend the first dinner, but lined herself up for any that followed. (The Gateses have considered this campaign to be a personal matter for them, not in any way a project of the Gates Foundation.)

Melinda also insisted from the start that both husbands and wives be invited to the dinners, sure that both would be important to any discussion. Her reasoning: "Even if he's the one that made the money, she's going to be a real gatekeeper. And she's got to go along with any philanthropic plan, because it affects her and it affects their kids."***

2883  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 16, 2010, 11:08:08 AM
***We already provide strategic security for Chinese mining interests in Afghanistan -- having been chumped by the Karzai government out of the gate. Now the Chinese will arrive in hordes, bribing and smiling.

Back in the happy-face United States, optimists insist that these Afghan finds will fund good government, security and development. Ain't gonna happen. A country living on aid and opium won't go Harvard Business School when megawealth floods in (the opium trade won't disappear, either). And the environmental damage will put BP to shame.

It's high time to ask ourselves the basic question about Afghanistan that we've avoided since we made the decision to stay: What do we get out of it?

"Chinese access to strategic minerals" is not an adequate answer.***

Interesting stuff.  A lot of food for thought.  Has anyone begun to try to answer Ralph's question:  What do we get out of it?  All this over OBL.


2884  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 15, 2010, 11:40:46 AM
Maybe this could get them off the opium poppy for income.
2885  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 14, 2010, 12:07:42 PM
After some thought and offiers for low rates I re subscribed to the Economist.  It has some interesting stuff that I won't find elsewhere but there is clearly a leftist bent.
The authors pretend (IMO consciously or subconsciosly) to be objective and unbiased but they are not.  They basically right off the "right" as they call them as basically the party of no and a bunch of quacks.  Fox is considered total fringe and Beck though not mentioned by name would be considered wacko.

JUst looking at this issue's cover one can guess what's inside.  Look closely at the picture. Anti- illegal Immigration is just a bunch of biggots. Fox news is a fox, etc.  In the articles the "right" is always concluded to be wrong headed, a bunch of quacks, or the like.  I am afraid this mag is "MSM".

http://www.economist.com/printedition/
2886  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 14, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
***David Nesenoff, the Long Island rabbi who triggered Thomas's resignation by asking for her thoughts on Israel, says he has received death threats and more than 25,000 e-mails, many of them obscene and hate-filled. One called him a "dirty Jew," saying: "Hittler [sic] was right! Time for you to go back in the oven!"

Nesenoff also says "there are individuals within the media" who are "pursuing an agenda," though he declines to identify them. (Critics have derided him for portraying a stereotypical Mexican with a bad accent in a video on his Web site, which the rabbi dismisses as a harmless Purim skit.) Had they called, Nesenoff says, he would have explained that he has founded an anti-bias task force, consulted for the Justice Department in the Denny's restaurant discrimination case and spoken with Mel Gibson about his drunken, anti-Semitic rant.***

The other very interesting (to me) part of seeing Nesenoff of cable (I think it was Kurtz though maybe another program) was how he essentially questioned his affilition with the Democratic party.  He so much as said he will be reviewing his party affiliation.  See my post in the "media thread".

Finally a liberal Jew who is seeing the liberal Jews who would even sell out Israel to support their liberal agenda which is a more socialist (progressive, liberal whatever label you want to put on it) world order. Does the yiddish word mazzoltov apply?  It's about time some of them wake up and stop worrying about who nice, and humanitarian they need to portray themselves out of guilt or hypocracy.  One can be a good person, a good citizen without having to be masochistic dope.
2887  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 13, 2010, 03:53:31 PM
"Like most issues; there are two sides...
Don't single out Helen Thomas"

Who singled her out?  Her comments speak for herself and are quite clear.

"To accept this appalling hypocrisy is to be complicit in the racism of our age."

Actually I rarely if ever heard anyone say that Palestinians can't live in Israel.  JDN have you ever heard of the two state solution?
Proposed and refused by Arabs since the 1940's.

To say that Helen Thomas career was so distinguished is a bit over done to say the least.

JDN, perhaps I can find a Neo Nazi, interview him or her and then post here his/her "side" to the story.

I don't personally recall ever hearing Jews go around saying Palestinians should be eradicated, wiped out or driven into the sea.



 
2888  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Correction"*n*ow";not"*l*ow Dem..." on: June 13, 2010, 12:38:04 PM
correction:made.eom
2889  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rabbi Nesnoff.On Kurtz.Hallalueh!!! on: June 13, 2010, 12:36:09 PM
It was intersting to see Rabbi Nesenoff on Howard Kurtz this AM.  He defined himself as a liberal NY Jew admired Helen Thomas and did not set out to "ambush her".  He also expressed his anxiety over his being attacked rather than Helen Thomas.  What I didn't expect was his mention that he will have to re-examine his low Democratic party identification.  In other words liberal Jews must have been some of the ones attacking HIM for videoing Helen Thomas.  He is now soul searching questioning which party he should be a member of.  I say it is about time Liberal Jews wake up.  This is further evidence that at least some Jews will wake up and recognize Republicans, Tea partiers are NOT worse than Nazis.  They are not the enemy.  This was for me a hallulueh moment.  The first time I ever saw a liberal Jewish person actually question this on the air!

****Rabbi Nesenoff's 25,000 Pieces of Hate Mail
Submitted by Jason Miller on Tue, 06/08/2010 - 23:26
 This photo of Charles Manson was sent to Rabbi David Nesenoff
Before this past weekend, Rabbi David Nesenoff was a virtually unknown rabbi who lives and works on Long Island. When his teenage son finished his high school exams and uploaded a 2-minute video of Helen Thomas expressing her anti-Israel views on the Whitehouse lawn, Nesenoff gained global fame. That 2-minute video on his RabbiLIVE.com website brought Helen Thomas' long career in journalism to an abrupt and embarrassing end.

In addition to the media inquiries, Rabbi Nesenoff has also received some 25,000 messages of hate in the past few days since uploading the Helen Thomas video for worldwide consumption. Tonight, he updated the RabbiLIVE.com website to read:

RabbiLIVE.com reported a story from the White House lawn.

We received over twenty five thousand pieces of hate mail. Emails will be continuously posted TONIGHT.

"Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies." -Elie Wiesel

Nesenoff and his son, the site's webmaster, will post some of the nastiest, hate-filled email messages they received without concealing the sender's name or email address.

The first posting to the site includes the text "Helen Thomas was right" followed by profanity and an apparent threat to the rabbi and his family. The sender also attached a photograph of death row inmate and convicted mass murdering cult leader Charles Manson with a swastika tattoo between his eyes.

This is undoubtedly not what Rabbi Nesenoff expected when he posted the now famous Helen Thomas video.****

 
2890  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 12, 2010, 07:04:54 PM
"Why should the great eco-Gulliver be ensnared by some Lilliputian oil spill lapping round his boots? He flew in to Cairo to give one of the most historically historic speeches in history to the Muslim world. Why should such a colossus lower his visionary gaze to contemplate some no-account nickel-’n’-dime racket like the Iranian nuclear program?"

LOL.
If the trend continues and republicans take back at least one house I predict the colossus of the world (not Rhodes-in his own megalomanic mind) will fold like one of those basement fold up bridge table chairs.
2891  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 12, 2010, 03:56:26 PM
Doug writes,

"If we want to ignore the primacy of family (the founders didn't), then take the baby, grant citizenship, deport the trespassing parents, and see how many more come for that loophole."

And that is it in a nutshell.  Those coming illegally know quite well what a spectacle this would make.  And that is the meaning of "anchor" baby.

Hillary has said that breaking up families and mass deportion would not, and cannot happen.  We all KNOW she would not say this if the groups we are talking were predominantly Republican voters. 

While possible I don't think the reverse would (at least in theory) be true; that is that conservatives would sell out America simply for more votes.  Perhaps, Republicans would sell us out too, but I really don't think they would do so in such obnoxious, cynical,  hypocritical, and deceitful fashion.

It also seems quite clear to me we won't have to round everyone up and handcuff them and send them home on military trains watching MSLSD and CNN showing hoards of crying screaming illegals having their families broken up for the world to see and play the international "emotional/sympathy card".

The reports that 100 K illegals have already left Arizona because they "don't feel welcome" (laughing out loud at that one) absolutely proves that we need cut off the job loophole, the ID loophole, the free benefits and the rest will take care of itself.

If we could stop this ridiculous abuse of the born here automatic citizen here than we have the royal flush and the problem is mostly fixed - albeit ID fraud etc, visa fraud, application fraud etc.

I would think, another way to get around this born here citizen no questions asked loophole is national security and the obligation of the Feds to protect our borders. 

Any legal experts here have any thoughts on that?   JDN suggests this is to some extent a long recognized exception when speaking of "enemy" combatants.

As for Asians who come here just to give birth so their kids can be citizens (dual); I wonder how much this goes on?

I bet it is common.  The Chinese meld into China towns and work in the backs of Chinese restaurants.  Those from many countries are doing the same thing.  50K Irish in NYC.  Someone is giving them work.

Also getting relatives onto Medicare, social security.  It is rampant.  And our government does nothing.
IMO we need not sit back and throw up our hands and say as JDN states,  "It is futile to challenge it".

We just need polticians with courage.  I am convinced now that the majority of Americans would be behind them.  Marc Levin recently pointed out a poll that noted the Dem/Rep voting stats for Latinos has, at least so far not changed since the Az law suggesting those Latinos who believe in Republican values have not changed their minds because of it.  I am encouraged we must proceed and get this problem addressed.

I am not interested in hurting anyone, Latino or otherwise but I am not interested in being stupid and giving the my country away.
2892  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part two on: June 11, 2010, 04:30:58 PM
2)  Secure Our Borders!Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means
By P.A. Madison

I have been bombarded lately with requests to revisit the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendments “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language. Some desire confirmation whether the language simply implies temporary obedience to laws, while others want to confirm whether it requires something more direct and substantial. I’ll spare the reader a lengthy treatise by making this short and to the point.

Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution.

One reason for the absence of an early-defined national birthright rule is that States had decided for themselves who were its citizens by virtue of being born within the limits of the State. Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as citizens of the States.

After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. The practice of England at the time was every person born within the realm of the King was a natural born subject by virtue of birth alone. In the United States, such a rule was not strictly followed as children born to black slaves, transient aliens, or Indians, followed the condition of their father.

Virginia for example, enacted an early birthright law sponsored by Thomas Jefferson in May of 1779 that specifically required the father to be a citizen: “[A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth…shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth…”

Conceivably, Congress could had from the beginning attempted to include a defined birthright rule under the laws of naturalization – whether due to place of birth or parentage – but would have found, just as the Thirty-Ninth Congress had discovered, to be no simple matter as individual States had differing opinions over who should, or should not, be its citizens.As a rule, the nation considered only those patriotic immigrants who came here for the exclusive purpose to settling amongst us, bringing with them wealth, like habits and customs as those worthy to become part of our society. More importantly, those willing to renounce all prior allegiances to their country of origin and swear fidelity to this one. Paupers, vagabonds and imperialist were universally despised.Imagine for a moment Congress debating during the constitutional convention, or even years following the adoption of the Constitution, a national criterion for establishing citizenship by birth of all persons as practiced under English common law. Firstly, that would have been rejected by a number of States as placing men of color on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon race. This in return forcing perhaps an attempt to compromise using the words “free white men,” with that in return being rejected by some northern States as repugnant of the Declaration’s “all men are created equal.”Moreover, there undoubtly would been terrible disputes over the fact the nation was attempting to adopt common law as general law, something more than a few considered derogatory. James Madison succinctly illustrates such dilemma to George Washington:

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.

So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States, that is to say, not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States as a nation – not merely its laws only.

In other words, there is no such thing as American citizenship without allegiance to the nation. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the country, who might join the forces of another country against you? This goes to the core of American allegiance.

Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.

If anyone needs any confirmation of the above conclusion, need only to view Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress had adopted as national law in the year 1866: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull felt the words, “That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens” would be more than sufficient to fulfill this goal. However, after investigation it was found the United States had no authority to make citizens of those temporarily residing in the United States who owed only a “temporary allegiance.”

This is why it was later demanded that a complete and immediate allegiance – that is, “not owing allegiance to anyone else” – be established under a constitutional amendment and not merely a temporary allegiance.

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said this language meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” As applied to aliens, this meant those aliens who first declared their intent to become citizens of the United States, and who had renounced their allegiance to some other sovereignty as required under U.S. naturalization laws.

During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country, and of course, the question of Indians. Chinese, if one remembers their history, where a major concern on the part of citizens on the pacific coast and occupied a great deal of the news of the time (mostly all negative).

Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.

Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard then settled upon a construction for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

The above statements by Howard and Trumbull give us a good idea of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment means: Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign power, which in return allows the United States to exercise full and complete jurisdiction over the person.

To understand how an alien might not owe allegiance to some other sovereignty upon arrival to this country, one need to look no further then the naturalization laws of the United States. Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.

Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first compiled with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” He could only be referring to the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation.

On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.” Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law.

A citizen owes the same quality of allegiance to their nation of origin as does their country’s ambassador and foreign ministers while within the limits of another nation unless they freely decide to renounce their allegiance in accordance to law. In other words, it would be preposterous to consider under the meaning given to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that a French subject visiting the United States was not a subject of France, but completely subject to the will of the United States while within the limits of the nation without first consenting to expatriation.

The United States has always, as a matter of law, considered new arrivals subjects of the country from which they owed their allegiance. As a matter of law, new arrivals were recognized as bearing the allegiance of the country of their origin. No more is this evident then with the recording of the certificate of intent to become a citizen of the United States:

James Spratt, a native of Ireland, aged about twenty-six years, bearing allegiance to the king of Great Britain and Ireland, who emigrated from Ireland and arrived in the United States on the 1st of June 1812, and intends to reside within the jurisdiction and under the government of the United States, makes report of himself for naturalization according to the acts of congress in that case made and provided, the 14th of April anno domini 1817, in the clerk’s office of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington: and on the 14th of May 1817, the said James Spratt personally appeared in open court, and declared on oath, that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, &c.

James Spratt would be considered completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with owing no other nation his allegiance under the Fourteenth Amendment. Children born to him would under the Fourteenth Amendment, be citizens of the United States even though he might not yet been awarded citizenship himself. It should be pointed out that woman were not naturalized individually, but only became naturalized by virtue of marriage to a male who became naturalized himself.

Those who were not qualified under naturalization laws of the United States to become citizens of the United States would be unable to renounce their prior allegiances and consent to the full jurisdiction of the United States as needed to become a citizen. This is how children born to Indian’s and Asians were prevented from becoming citizens themselves under the language chosen.

What changed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment? Not much really. States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York had already a 1857 code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls…”

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted identical language as New York.

In 1898, some thirty years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States argued a Chinese man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco could not be a citizen of the United States because his parents were not subjects of the United States at the time of his birth, but the subjects of the emperor of China. (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark)

The Government had it right and the Supreme Court got it all wrong (deliberately) by deciding the language under old English common law, something the adopted national rule departed sharply from. Additionally, Howard made no reference to citizenship as having anything to do with common law, but virtue of “natural law” and “national law.”

Under old English common law, neither expressed allegiance or, the lack of it, was a requirement for birthright. The Thirty-Ninth congress by contrast, made the lack of owing allegiance to some other sovereignty an advance prerequisite, and by doing so, departed from the common law rule.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers). Instead, there were classes of persons no one desired to make citizens, while also being classes of persons national law prohibited from becoming citizens.

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.

2893  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / legal analysis:anchor babies are not automatic citizens(1of2) on: June 11, 2010, 04:30:40 PM
Finally a bill introduced in Arizona to challenge this phoney interpretation of the Constitution.  Of course it will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court and if Bama can pack it to a majority with liberals it will lose as will the United States but that said I like the legal analysis in the article posted after the Time magazine article that is posted below. I think the second article makes a very good case that children of illegals are not simply subject to the jurisdiction of the US simply by residing here when they are born.  If both their parents are here illegally then both parents are subject to and thus citizens of another country.  Therefore so are their children.  What I didn't realize is  that before 1868 there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that proclaimed anyone born here is an automatic citizen.  It was enacted in 1868 in the 14th amendment apparently to protect blacks and their children.  Not anyone walking over a border and setting up shop in the US.  And since the slave ancestors of Blacks were dragged here in chains, unlike any other group in our history this provision certainly makes sense as it was meant to apply to them.

The Arizona law, if enacted, will need to go to the Supreme Court to clarify.  Obviously a liberal Court will strike it down.  A conservative Court will uphold it.

1)   Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals
"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave. (See pictures of the Great Wall of America.)

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Those who oppose the bill say it would lead to more discrimination and divide the community. Among them is Phoenix resident Susan Vie, who is leading a citizen group that's behind an opposing ballot initiative. She moved to the U.S. 30 years ago from Argentina, became a naturalized citizen and now works as a client-relations representative for a vaccine company. "I see a lot of hate and racism behind it," Vie says. "Consequently, I believe it will create - and it's creating it now - a separation in our society." She adds, "When people look at me, they will think, 'Is she legal or illegal?' I can already feel it right now." Vie's citizen initiative would prohibit SB 1070 from taking affect, place a three-year moratorium on all related laws - including the anchor baby bill - to buy more time for federal immigration reform. Her group is racing to collect 153,365 signatures by July 1 to qualify for the Nov. 2 general election.

Both sides expect the anchor baby bill to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court before it is enacted. "I think it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional. I can't imagine a federal judge saying this would be OK," says Dan Barr, a longtime Phoenix lawyer and constitutional litigator. Potentially joining the anchor baby bill at the Supreme Court may be SB 1070, which Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law in April. It is set to take effect July 29, but at least five courtroom challenges have been filed against it. Pearce says he will win them all.

            
2894  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Who is doomed? on: June 11, 2010, 10:47:17 AM
My personal opinion the only one doomed is Ahmadinejad.  Israel will have to try to bomb out all their nuclear sites.  If they can't do it with conventional weapons they will have to use nucs.  I know this means an eternity of revenge in the region but as it stands now Jews should not go to the gas chambers without a fight this time.  I wish I was in more of a position to personally help.  Obama has made the decision not to intervene except with ridiculous sanctions.  We can argue all day back and forth what the US should/should not do but it clear what Israelis have to do.  Again the only other hope is some miraculous regime change in Iran.
Calling in an army of liberal or greedy lawyers is not going to fix this.

***Iran's Ahmadinejad says Israel is 'doomed'
By D'Arcy Doran (AFP) – 4 hours ago

SHANGHAI — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday Israel was "doomed" and singled out US President Barack Obama for scorn, blaming Washington for orchestrating new nuclear sanctions against Tehran.

Speaking during a visit to the World Expo in Shanghai, Ahmadinejad denounced the UN Security Council's sanctions resolution adopted Wednesday with Chinese and Russian backing as "worthless paper".

The firebrand leader accused global nuclear powers of "monopolising" atomic technology and said the new sanctions would "have no effect" -- reserving most of his tough rhetoric for the United States, not his ally Beijing.

Swatting aside the US leader's offers of dialogue and rapprochement if Iran relents on its nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad said: "I think President Obama has made a big mistake... he knows the resolution will have no effect.

"Very soon he will come to understand he has not made the right choice and he has blocked the way to having friendly ties with the Iranian people."

Ahmadinejad chose a visit to his country's national pavilion during "Iran Day" at the Shanghai Expo over an appearance at a regional security summit in Uzbekistan attended by the Chinese and Russian leaders.

Chinese President Hu Jintao and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev are in Tashkent for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

The SCO on Friday snubbed Iran's membership bid, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the group's new guidelines did not allow countries under UN sanctions to join, leaving Tehran increasingly isolated over its refusal to renounce uranium enrichment.

Ahmadinejad's visit to the Expo comes at a delicate time in Tehran's relations with China, one of the Council's five permanent veto-wielding members.

His government had earlier reacted furiously to China's decision to fall into line with the United States and other powers that accuse Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad nevertheless shied away from criticising Beijing, which has emerged as Iran's closest trading partner.

"The main problem is the US administration, and we have no problem with others," he told reporters, accusing the United States of seeking to "swallow" the Middle East.

"Not only China but others also announced the resolution is going to open a way for diplomacy."

The UN resolution expands an arms embargo and bars Iran from sensitive activities such as uranium mining.

It also authorises states to conduct high-seas inspections of vessels believed to be ferrying banned items for Iran and adds 40 entities to a list of people and groups subject to travel restrictions and financial sanctions.

Not for the first time, Ahmadinejad reserved his harshest rhetoric for Israel.

"It is clear the United States is not against nuclear bombs because they have a Zionist regime with nuclear bombs in the region," he said.

"They are trying to save the Zionist regime, but the Zionist regime will not survive. It is doomed."

Israel, which has the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear arsenal, regards Iran as its principal threat after repeated predictions by Ahmadinejad of the Jewish state's demise.

Israeli leaders have refused to rule out a resort to military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Ahmadinejad said the entire architecture of global power was built to keep out smaller states.

"We have always said the Security Council is a tool in the hands of the United States. It is not democratic, it is a tool of dictatorship," he said.

"Five powers have the veto right and the nuclear bombs and the monopoly and they want to monopolise nuclear energy for themselves," he added.

Russia appears to be taking a tougher line with Iran. Officials said Friday that Moscow would comply strictly with the new UN sanctions, and signalled that a deal to supply Iran with air-defence missiles was now off.

China has kept up a more emollient line on Iran. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Thursday that China "highly values relations with Iran and feels they are conducive to regional peace, stability and development."

An aide to Ahmadinejad told AFP he would leave Shanghai later Friday.***
2895  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: June 11, 2010, 09:56:02 AM
It is interesting to see the rift between UK and OBama unfold.  I would suppose he is no longer their favorite guy.
His handling of the spill by blaming incessantly BP and doing everything possible to avoid responsibility and shift 100% blame on them is analagous to his everall style.
He is not a compromiser, or someone who brings sides together.  He is actually a divider.  He makes divisions worse.

The idea he never spoke to the CEO of BP, the idea he only needs to know whose ass to kick is on the face of it the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time.
Very Jimmy "Carteresque".  Clearly indicative of incompetence.  He claims the buck stops here - except when it comes to taking responsibility.

UK was mad at Bush I guess for getting them into Iraq, Afghanistan.

Well now how do they like Obama now.  When push comes to shove the buck is always thrown to someone else from this guy.

2896  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Unions on: June 10, 2010, 04:13:10 PM
Unions and Dems.  Yes it seems like a viscous cycle.  People are forced to join unions, give dues, and invariably every union I am aware of spends money getting Democrats elected who in turn are obliged to cow-tow to the unions and probably willingly do so to keep the cash and other support coming.
In NJ the teachers union do this and *always* support the Democrat.


 
2897  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 09, 2010, 11:20:01 AM
The Gaza blockade has been a smashing success with regards to it's original intent which was to reduce rockets screaming into Israel.  If you look at the number of rockets launched the numbers are way down from a few years ago.

Not a peep from MSM about that.   All we hear now is that it is a public relations disaster and the policy Gaza blockade policy MUST be reviewed and of course changed by Israel.  This is the spin, even among idiot (IMO) liberal Jews.  They also spin the handling of the confrontation as being bungled. 

"The most ambitious of the two plans has been devised by members of Israel's National Student Union, who this week announced their intention to set sail toward Turkey, in an effort to bring humanitarian aid to the "oppressed people of Turkish Kurdistan" and to members of the "Turkish Armenian minority."

Seems like a good PR move, but the MSM will ignore or talk it down.  The UN will of course somehow find a way to spin this criticize Israel anyway.


 
2898  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: June 07, 2010, 01:28:01 PM
***Back to 1980, the most prominent Democrat in the Senate did not wait for a second term to end to challenge the failed sitting President in his own party.***

Doug,  You may be right.  If Bamster keeps up the cluelessness some Dems may very well want to challenge him in 2012.

I guess the only good thing about Bamster's pursuit of a fantastic social life while the world (gently) weeps is that it keeps him from focusing on destroying this country further.  I think Schumer could live without an endorsement from Paul McCartney.

2899  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: June 07, 2010, 12:51:06 PM
As a Republican I have asked this question time and time again.  I have noticed other right leaning Jews asking the same questions.  Whether this actually satisfactorly answers why so many Jews are such liberals I am not sure but at least someone has the courage to finally write about it.  I am not sure what to make of Dick Morris who as everyone knows helped Clinton get popular in the polls till he was caught with a girl.  I guess it could be said that behind every successful man is a good woman and behind the downfall of every successful man is a bad girl.  In any case:
 
****By Dick Morris 06.5.2010 A Book Review By DICK MORRIS of Why Are Jews Liberals? By Norman Podhoretz

It is the question that sooner or later baffles every political pundit, consultant, expert, or observer. Why do American Jews persist in their adoration of the Democratic Party? Why, like an abused spouse, do they tolerate Israel-bashing, support for the Palestinians and Democratic softness on terrorism and still return for more? As the richest demographic group in our population, why do they still vote for Obama and donate money to him when he specifically proposes to raise the taxes on those making more than $200,000 per year?

Why do they let liberal politicians embrace the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and still support them on Election Day?


I don´t have an answer and have never heard a satisfactory one from any leader of an American Jewish or pro-Israeli organization.

But Norman Podhoretz does and he explains his ideas in his brilliant book Why Are Jews Liberals?

American Jews, Podhoretz explains, grew up in liberal homes heavily influenced by the ideology they inherited from their Eastern European ancestors. There, in Russia and Germany, you either followed the Kaiser´s or the Czar´s line or were a Communist. Reacting to their exclusion and the pogroms that harassed them, these ghetto Jews readily embraced Marxism. Indeed, Marx was, himself, born a Jew and the majority of the first Bolshevik Politburo in 1917 were Jews. When Hitler railed against Jews and Communists, he often felt no need to distinguish between the two.

In the New World, communism morphed into socialism in the early years of the twentieth century when Eugene V. Debs won a million votes (almost 10%) on the Socialist Party ticket for President. Finally, under the more benign influence of FDR and the New Deal, this leftist impulse settled into the cozy niche of liberalism where it has remained ever since.

Zionism, also, closely identified itself with socialism and the Labor Party of Golda Meier and David Ben Gurion, which dominated Israel´s early years, pushed its ideological agenda. Kibbutzim were formed with communal living as a Fabian or utopian socialism took root in the holy land. So leftist were the early Israelis that Russia recognized the state of Israel even before the United States did in the hopes that it could become a socialist ally. The political majority which underscored this leftist bent was based on Jews descended from the ghettos of Europe — Ashkenazi Jews.

In the U.S. Jews stayed in the liberal camp not just out of conviction but also from fear of the Christian right. When fundamentalism reared its head in American politics, they feared that anti-Semitism would not be far behind. And, as the anti-communism of the McCarthy era targeted the Jewish intellectual establishment, their dependence on Democrats only increased.

It came as a shock to America´s Jews that first Nixon, then Reagan, and finally Bush-43 emerged as Israel´s strongest supporters. (The tepid backing Bush-41 gave the Jewish state was more in line with what they expected from the GOP). And it came as a total shock when the religious right became Israel´s strongest backer based on its biblical conviction that God had promised the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

But, by then, religion and even Israel had weakened their holds on American Jewish hearts. They attended religious services less than half as frequently as establishment Protestants and only one-third as often as Catholics or Evangelicals. Most Jews, Podhoretz notes, attended synagogue “four times a year” on the high holy days.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the socialist Ashkenazi-based Labor Party (led by Shimon Peres) fell to the campaigns of Menachem Begin and Bibi Netanyahu. Both had as their base the Sephardic Jews who came, not from Europe, but from Africa or the Middle East. They had no heritage of socialism, much less Marxism and had a healthy disrespect for their long term neighbors in the Arab world. To American Jews, they looked racist and embarrassed them in front of their liberal friends. When Obama accuses Netanyahu of “intransigence”, he echoes what liberal Jews themselves often think of the Israeli right-wing.

But Podhoretz´ book, written before Obama manifested such an anti-Israel bent, leaves unanswered the question of whether the pro-Palestinian bias of the current administration, not to mention its war on prosperity, will drive Jews away from their liberal moorings. The answer probably lies more with events than within Jewish thinking. As it becomes apparent that Israel faces a holocaust-like threat from Iranian nuclear weapons and the disastrous results of Obama´s socialist project become evident, Jews will likely gradually wean themselves away from the liberal Democratic Party. As it becomes more anti-Israel and anti-wealth, the Party will leave the Jews before the Jews realize it has left and themselves leave the party.

Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary Magazine, and long a leading voice of the neo-con movement, has diagnosed the Jewish addiction to liberalism and helped us to understand why it still dominates their thinking. He has solved the mystery. Now let’s see what we conservatives and Republican Jews can do with the knowledge he has given us.

Purchase Why Are Jews Liberals? from Amazon.com — Go Here Now

Purchase Why Are Jews Liberals? from Barnes&Noble.com — Go Here Now****


2900  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dems: Schumer in 2016 on: June 07, 2010, 09:45:45 AM
This morning while watching him give a lecture on the greatness of gigantic government made me realize who the next in line Democratic Presidential candidate will be (probably as Crafty thinks - not 2012 but 2016).
Another NE liberal lawyer.  Chuck Schumer.  This is the guy the Republicans better start studying and getting their answers to.
He is IMHO FAR more formidable than Bamster who doesn't have a clue.

He is the guy who is going to bring the fight right back at us.  He is in line to be the Senate Dem leader after Reid falls this fall.
Next will be the Presidential bid.  I don't think he will want to be Bamster's second fiddle for 2012 though it is possible.
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 83
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!