Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2014, 07:39:25 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83455 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 85
2851  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: August 02, 2010, 01:34:13 PM
Rachel,
Do you have any sense about what proportion of Muslims or Christian Arabs in Israel feel like Khaldi?

MSM like interviews with the disenchanted not people like Khaldi.  Particularly, if they fit into the liberal agenda.

For example I doubt Soledad O'Brien would want to interview this guy.  She would much more quickly jump to interview the angry Arab Muslim who exclaims discirimination.
 
2852  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / yeah right. It is all racial. on: August 02, 2010, 10:37:15 AM
Is this not ridiculous?  Now people are trying to say that the Rangel, Waters thing is racial.  Of course.  What else is new?  Sharpton was on cable this weekend not explicitly saying this just stating one has to ask this question.  He still refuses to apologize for his lies with Twana Brawley.  He is on the cover of some mag supposedly with the title of reinventing himself.  To me he is still the same race baiting hustler he has always been.  I don't know why msm keeps giving him some sort of legitimacy.  I guess they still find his BS still fits their liberal agenda and incorporates him into the progressive strategy to get fight republicans.

2853  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / another scam attempt this AM on: August 02, 2010, 10:29:35 AM
This morning as I leave the house I see a large dump truck next to our back yard fence gate with guy sitting there reading paper, our "neighbor" who is a plant sitting on her porch like she does off and on all day everyday smoking her cigarette on the other side of house, new guy who just moved in standing in his driveway directly next to our house, pickup truck from guy named Mcyintire who I have found following me, his vehicle is registered to son who moved in the house three doors down.  He doesn't live there he lives 30 minutes away but the truck is registered to the son.   they moved out from Brooklyn .  They *all* moved in after us.

They were hoping to get in the house after I leave and if Katherine lets out the dogs in our yard and by accident leaves the back door unattended even for minutes.

They will know exactly where in our house to go, understand from monitoring us the time needed to do what they need to do, and sit and wait, and have all the people in the scam in place.  They will get in the house, take what they want and leave no obvious trace.  The only thing(s) missing will be related to songs, lyrics, copyrights, documents related to Fidelity trading scam where they were robbing Katherine by some insider at the trading desk or at Fidelity.

I don't know who is the one calling the shots behind all these low level bozos who are being dircted by someone who is a professional crook who does this for a living for the music industry middle men.  I am told the big guys corporate execs at sony, disney, Gaffner etc. are not directly doing this.  They are reportedly just looking the other way.  I am not so sure.  But that is what some have told me.

I have been told there is an Irish Mafia that has a group that does this as well as the Italians.  The Blacks in music of course are all associatecd with the drug gangs.

It is obvious to us that when there is something they *must* get in our house we see more and more obvious people wlaking dogs, smoking cigarettes, parking in the Chruch lot next to our house.  We get offers for service, like a plumber who is offering low rates (just while we happen to need one), left on our door, on the local cable station, the neigbhors two doors down, the Flanagens had a miad crew come in driving the exact same model '95 black Caddy I used to drive.  Not only that after a slid on ice and crack into a sign pole causing a dent in the front, so did their car later show a dent almost exactly the same location as mine.  I suspect they were going to park it where I usually park my car and make it look like it was me at my house while they were in the house.




2854  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: August 01, 2010, 02:30:59 PM
Rachel,

"Some Bedouin--Muslim also serve in the IDF."

Perhaps my perception is wrong about the difference between Arab Christains and Muslims with regards to their perception, attitudes, and interaction with Jews.  Feel free to ellaborate and teach me.  I am not an expert in the area.
2855  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: August 01, 2010, 02:28:01 PM
"CCP,  The female equivalent might be shopping, not gazing at men."

Yes you are right!  I could have a shelf titled "men's health" with playboy and penthouse mags and a "women's health" shelf loaded with retail catalogues.

Patients may not mind waiting for their doctor too!   grin

Hugh Hefner will pick up on this and promote his mag and website claiming them for health benefits.  Hey look at the master breast connoiseur himself - what is he 90 and still going?
2856  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: July 31, 2010, 10:59:11 AM
JDN,

I don't know how soon after one is granted amnesty they will be able to vote.  Perhaps you are right and it wouldn't be soon enough to give Bamster all thse votes.

The larger more despicible situation is this guy can alter the course of our history by granting amnesty to tens of millions who will largely vote for a party that taxes and spends money to buy votes of their contstuents.  And not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  The founders gave too much power to the President in retrospect.
Wikepedia even points out how this was troubling to them from day one. 

I see no reason why bama wouldn't do this.  It totally fits with his goals of distributing wealth to buy votes and keep power.  Again does anyone for one second think the Dems would be stalling for this if these people were not going to vote for them.  Sure come to this country and vote for socialistic programs that distributes money to them.  I don't know why American Blacks do not see this as screwing them as well.  As well as the Latinos who cme here legally.
2857  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama pardon all illegals on: July 30, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
From wikepedia.  The constitution grants pardon power to the Pres.  So nothing can stop Bamster from doing this.  I predict he will.  Suppose in 2012 he loses reelection.  Nothing can stop him as a lame duck from pardoning 20 million illegals before he walks out the door.  And I believe he will do it if it comes to that.  I wonder if the founders ever imagined this.  I believe Obama will do it sooner if he can get away with it politically.  Suppose he simply decides to do this before the election.  He will then have 20 million more people to vote for him.  I wonder how long in advance he would have to do this so the illegals can register/qualify to vote for him.

Reagan made a big mistake setting precedent for this.   

****In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[12]

All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the United States Department of Justice. The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II).[13]

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Many pardons have been controversial. Critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft dodgers, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and Bill Clinton's commutation of sentences for 16 members of FALN in 1999 and of 140 people on his last day in office, including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. Most recently, George W. Bush's commutation of the prison term of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was controversial.

The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[14]

It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.[15] However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry Ossian Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)[16]

While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, pardon recipients may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of their residence regarding the procedures for restoring their state civil rights.****

[edit] State law
2858  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Princess Chelsea on: July 30, 2010, 12:10:36 PM
I don't care if the Clintons spend whatever they want for their only daughter's wedding.  It is just the hyporcracy of it all.  Chelsea who is some sort of assistant fund raiser for NYU has a building set aside for her that is the size of half a city block!  Marrying her hedge fund guy who is the son of a convicted crook.
NYU which is going global setting up the liberal child of their favorite liberal secretary of state.  The same liberal who feels that succesful people don't pay enough.  The hypocracy of limousine liberals is astounding.  Obviously grooming Chelsea for public office.  This folks, is big money/political power at its worst: 
 
****I'm constantly amazed at how much some money people blow on the Great White Wedding.

But Chelsea Clinton's forthcoming extravaganza takes the cake. The $11,000 cake, reportedly.

So in honor of this weekend's crazy Gilded Age circus, here are seven financial messages for would-be brides, grooms—and their parents.

1. Yes, the wedding-industrial complex marches on. The Age of Austerity? Ha. If you thought the recession was going to kill the GWW, think again. "We're in a recession-resistant industry," says Carley Roney, editor-in-chief of Knot Inc.'s TheKnot, the weddings website. The company's data suggest that the price of the median wedding, which dropped from $19,000 to $17,500 from 2008 to 2009, has now stabilized this year. Revenues rose 16% in the first quarter of 2010.

View Full Image

AFP/Getty Images
 
A sign outside a store in Rhinebeck, N.Y., where Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky are to be married on Saturday.
2. Spending a fortune on a wedding is a choice, not a necessity. Chelsea's wedding is likely to cost $2 million to $3 million, says Ms. Roney. But first daughter Jenna Bush managed to hold a somewhat quieter affair for a lot less when she got married two years ago. She invited about 200 guests and held the wedding on her parents' ranch in Texas. It was hardly cheap, but at $100,000, the tab wasn't even in the same ballpark.

3. Spend what you can afford. Sure, the Clintons are spending a lot, but they are rich. Their net worth was estimated at $35 million not long ago. Chelsea is their only child. And Bill gets paid about $250,000 a speech. After taxes, that's about $160,000. So he could clear a $3 million tab for Chelsea's big day with 19 speeches. Even at one speech a day, that's three weeks' work. The average family maybe earns $3,000 in three weeks. Yet they spend about $17,500 on a wedding.

4. Look at the hourly costs. For Chelsea's event, if the ceremony starts at 6 p.m. and the guests party into the small hours, the whole affair may last maybe 11 hours. For $3 million, that's $270,000 an hour. How much fun can anyone have in an hour? Even if you're, say, doing the tango with Oprah Winfrey? Look at the numbers for a regular wedding. A $17,500 event that lasts 11 hours is costing you about $1,500 an hour. If it lasts only, say, six hours, you're spending nearly $3,000 an hour. Enjoy.

More
Rhinebeck Wedding Gridlock Rhinebeck Conspiracy Theory 5. The lifetime cost is off the map. People get angry when I point this out. But if your money earns, say, 4% a year above inflation, every dollar you save at age 20 will grow to about $6 by the time you retire. So that $17,500 will grow to about $100,000. If you're financially secure, maybe it doesn't matter so much. But most middle-class Americans are in a far more precarious situation than they realize. They have saved little, if anything, for their retirement, and they are deeply in debt. (Household debts are about twice what they were a decade ago.) And we've seen what can happen to jobs and wages in a slump. In these circumstances, saving money instead of spending it matters very much.

6. You might—possibly—be able to profit from others' extravagance. For those who still play the market, Knot Inc. may be of speculative interest. With its stock trading at $8, the company's entire market value is down to $270 million. It has about $130 million of cash and equivalents and no debt. Operating cash flow last year was $12 million. Results are due next week. One to watch.

7. How do you cut costs and still have a great wedding? Avoid Saturdays and peak seasons, says Ms. Roney. Avoid fancy venues and big cities. Make it more casual: A lot of the money goes toward those big formal dinners. And invite fewer guests. Five hundred people is going to cost you, even if they're not famous.

Bottom line? Think more like Jenna Bush, and less like Chelsea Clinton.

Write to Brett Arends at brett.arends@wsj.com

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved***
2859  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: July 29, 2010, 01:49:51 PM
I dunno....

Should I start recommending this to my male patients?

Should I rec. to my female pts they start staring at mens private parts ten minutes a day?

Maybe we should change the magazine selection in the waiting room.  I mean it is all in the name of improving health.
My practice might even take off.....
2860  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: July 29, 2010, 01:03:44 PM
"Arab Christian family"

I doubt she would feel this way if she were an Arab Muslim.

It is not so much the Arab part - it is the Muslim part that want the Jews wiped out.
2861  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / British system not a model for us?! on: July 28, 2010, 11:35:33 AM
Coincidentally, the woman from England who was touting the British system as being so good afterwards told of a new born nephew having mental status alterations.
To make a long story short it took days to finally have a cat scan of her brain approved wherein they found a fractured skull and a bleed that they think was probably due to forceps injury during child birth.
She later recanted and reportedly said that "maybe the British health care system is not so good".

If weasle Berwick has his way we will all have no choice.  As far as progressives are concerned it is "inevitable".  If not with this bill then the next one.  Caveat emptor, Reid recently saying we will get a public option. [shoved down our throats] 
2862  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: July 28, 2010, 11:29:56 AM
This lady has some courage.

Being a whistleblower against a President, especially this one, is sure to bring heat on her life.

The left will make her pay for this, personally, financially, emotionally, and in every possible to make her suffer.

Many criticize whistleblowers for doing it for money.  I don't know the circumstances of why this person is doing it.

But as long as they are telling the truth they deserve to make money.  Otherwise no one will come forward and have their life ruined for ideology alone. (or very rare).
2863  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: July 27, 2010, 10:22:41 AM
It certainly seems that it is all political that we are starting to hear NOW rumors of war with Iran before the election with sagged poll numbers.

Better to change the subject when your domestic ideology is not popular before an election, eh?

This is not just cynical.  It is just connecting the dots.
2864  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / gel instead of fillings? on: July 27, 2010, 09:30:27 AM
 Gel that can help decayed teeth grow back could end fillings
By Pat Hagan

Open wide: Thanks to a new gel, soon this won't hurt
A gel that can help decayed teeth grow back in just weeks may mean an end to fillings.

The gel, which is being developed by scientists in France, works by prompting cells in teeth to start multiplying. They then form healthy new tooth tissue that gradually replaces what has been lost to decay.

Researchers say in lab studies it took just four weeks to restore teeth back to their original healthy state. The gel contains melanocyte-stimulating hormone, or MSH.

We produce this in the pituitary gland, a pea-sized gland just behind the bridge of the nose.

MSH is already known to play an important part in determining skin colour - the more you have, the darker your flesh tone.

But recent studies suggest MSH may also play a crucial role in stimulating bone regeneration.

As bone and teeth are very similar in their structure, a team of scientists at the National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris tested if the hormone could stimulate tooth growth.

Their findings, published in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Nano, could signal hurtnot just an end to fillings, but the dreaded dentist drill as well. Tooth decay is a major public health problem in Britain. Around £45m a year is spent treating decayed teeth and by the age of 15, teenagers have had an average of 2.5 teeth filled or removed.

Decay is caused by bacteria, called streptococcus mutans, that live in the mouth and feed on sugar in the diet. Once the bacteria stick to the enamel, they trigger a process called demineralisation - they turn sugar in the diet into a harmful acid that starts to create holes in the teeth.

For decades, the main treatment for cavities has been to 'drill and fill'. However, an estimated one in five Britons suffers from dental phobia, a fear of dentists which means some would rather endure pain and suffering than face the prospect of having their teeth drilled.

The new treatment is painless. And although fillings halt decay, they can come loose and sometimes need refilling.

Experts believe new tooth cells would be stronger and a permanent solution.

The French team mixed MSH with a chemical called poly-L-glutamic acid. This is a substance often used to transport drugs inside the body because it can survive the harsh environments, such as the stomach, that might destroy medicines before they get a chance to work.

The mixture was then turned into a gel and rubbed on to cells, called dental pulp fibroblasts, taken from extracted human teeth. These cells are the kind that help new tooth tissue to grow.

But until now there has been no way of 'switching' them back on once they have been destroyed by dental decay. The researchers found the gel triggered the growth of new cells and also helped with adhesion - the process by which new dental cells 'lock' together.

This is important because it produces strong tooth pulp and enamel which could make the decayed tooth as good as new.

In a separate experiment, the French scientists applied the gel to the teeth of mice with dental cavities. In just one month, the cavities had disappeared. The gel is still undergoing testing but could be available for use within three to five years.

Professor Damien Walmsley, the British Dental Association's scientific adviser, said the gel could be an interesting new development, but stressed it is unlikely to be able to repair teeth that have been extensively damaged by decay.

'There are a lot of exciting developments in this field, of which this is one,' he said. 'It looks promising, but we will have to wait for the results to come back from clinical trials and its use will be restricted to treating small areas of dental decay.'

Scientists have developed a 'tongue' gel as part of a new approach to tackling bad breath and preventing tooth decay.

Halitosis is usually caused by bacteria in the mouth. The latest treatment, developed by Meridol, takes a mechanical and chemical approach. It consists of a tongue scraper, gel and mouth wash.

The extra-flat tongue cleaner is used to scrape bacteria off the tongue. The tongue gel and mouthwash are anti-bacterial and contain chemicals that attach themselves to odour-producing compounds, which are then flushed out with the mouthwash. Both gel and mouthwash contain fluoride.

2865  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: July 26, 2010, 10:28:06 AM
I don't know how accurate or complete this list is but I cannot deny, as a Jew, how many obviously Jewish names there are on this list (over 40).

It rather does give weight to the notion that Jews do have a unusually large influence in media.  That said I am proud of our accomplishments and not disparaging them.

OTOH I just don't get the reason or even justification for the liberal bias of so many of my fellow Jews.  They think they are being intellectual but I look at them as being foolish.



2866  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant on: July 22, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
This has been my default search.  I was doing a search "CNN and Bobby Seales".  I was trying to find out who was the CNN anouncer who told Seales it was a "privilege" to have him on the show.  I posted this last week.  I noticed O'Reilly literally that evening then had a 30 second shot of her saying this on the show I saw and commented rather sarcastically "a privilege, really?'

When I did the serach it says "latest posts by ccp" and there is my post on the issue from the board.  I tried to do latest posts for others from the board and some of them also come up.  I get to bing from the msn site:

http://www.msn.com/
2867  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / live on the net on: July 22, 2010, 02:11:08 PM
Just thought I would serve notice that our posts here go *right* to the internet courtesy bing search though I don't get it with google or yahoo search.

Do a search on bing on your user name

for example:

"latest post crafty dog" and see what comes up.
2868  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Republicans:Puerto Rico for statehood? on: July 20, 2010, 03:06:42 PM
Interesting read from G Will:

Through Puerto Rico, the GOP can reach out to Hispanics

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Republican governor -- a very Republican governor -- has an idea for solving one of his party's conundrums. The party should listen to Luis Fortuno, the Reaganite who resides in Puerto Rico's executive mansion.

Conservatives need a strategy for addressing the immigration issue without alienating America's largest and most rapidly growing minority. Conservatives believe the southern border must be secured before there can be "comprehensive" immigration reform that resolves the status of the 11 million illegal immigrants. But this policy risks making Republicans seem hostile to Hispanics.

Fortuno wants Republicans to couple insistence on border enforcement with support for Puerto Rican statehood. This, he says, would resonate deeply among Hispanics nationwide. His premise is that many factors -- particularly, the Telemundo and Univision television channels -- have created a common consciousness among Hispanics in America.

How many know that Puerto Ricans are American citizens? That every president since Truman has affirmed Puerto Rico's right to opt for independence or statehood? That every Republican platform since 1968 has endorsed Puerto Rico's right to choose statehood? That Ronald Reagan, announcing his candidacy in 1979, said, "I favor statehood for Puerto Rico"?

 FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

  Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
 
 
Fortuno supports H.R. 2499 (also supported by such House conservatives as Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence and former Republican Study Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling), which would provide for a plebiscite on the island's current status. If a majority favor this status, the question could be asked again in eight years. If a majority vote for change, a second plebiscite would offer a choice among the current status, independence, "sovereignty in association with the United States" and statehood.

Puerto Rico, which is only half as far from Florida as Hawaii is from California, is about the size of Connecticut. Its population is larger than the populations of 24 states. There are, however, problems.

Puerto Rico's per capita income ($14,905) is only 50 percent of that of the poorest state (Mississippi, $30,103) and 27 percent of the richest (Connecticut, $54,397). The fact that Puerto Ricans are at home in American society does not entail the conclusion that the commonwealth, a distinct cultural and linguistic entity (most on the island do not speak English), belongs in the federal union. Currently, Puerto Ricans pay federal income taxes only on income from off the island.

Fortuno says the present system has failed to prevent the income disparity with the mainland from widening. But America does not want lukewarm citizens. In three referendums (1967, 1993, 1998), Puerto Ricans favored the status quo -- an unincorporated territory -- over statehood. In 1998, the vote was 50.4 percent to 46.5 percent. In the 1950s, the last time the federal union was enlarged, Hawaiians and Alaskans overwhelmingly supported statehood.

Many Republicans suspect that congressional Democrats support statehood for the same reason they want to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state -- to get two more senators (and in Puerto Rico's case, perhaps six members of the House). Such Republicans mistakenly assume that the island's population of 4 million has the same Democratic disposition as the 4.2 million Puerto Ricans in the Bronx and elsewhere on the mainland.

Fortuno disagrees, noting that while Republicans on the mainland were losing in 2008, he was elected in the island's biggest landslide in 44 years. The party he leads won more than two-thirds of the seats in both houses of the legislature and three-fifths of the mayoralties, including that of San Juan. Fortuno, who calls himself a "values candidate" and goes to Catholic services almost every day, says that Puerto Ricans are culturally conservative -- 78 percent are pro-life, 91 percent oppose same-sex marriage and 30 percent of the 85 percent who are Christian are evangelicals. A majority supports his agenda, which includes tax and spending cuts, trimming 16,000 from public payrolls to begin eliminating the deficit that was 45 percent of the size of the budget.

Fortuno, 49, who has degrees from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and the University of Virginia's law school, looks half his age. "Republicans," he says, "cannot continue to oppose every Hispanic issue." If he is correct that Puerto Rican statehood is, or can become, such an issue, Republicans should hear him out.

The United States acquired Puerto Rico 112 years ago in the testosterone spill called the Spanish-American War. Before another century passes, perhaps Puerto Ricans' ambivalence about their somewhat ambiguous status can be rectified to the advantage of Republicans.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

2869  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: July 20, 2010, 01:49:10 PM
Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru

You know what.  It is time we expolre suing these countries for damages they cause us with the drugs they send over.

We need a Prez that will stand up to this abus of our country.  Not one who sides with THEM! angry


2870  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Race in America on: July 20, 2010, 11:29:11 AM
Bill Ayers, the man who helped launch Bama's political career.   For Ayers Obama's Presidency is all about settling scores.   The msm give Bama a pass for the most part on this topic.  They refuse to connect dots.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/19/bill-ayers-is-back/
2871  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 19, 2010, 12:40:11 PM
I spoke to a young lady from England recently.  She states anyone can go to a doctor in England and it is "free".  Five minutes later she says they all put in 11% of their pay into the National Health Care system.

2872  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 19, 2010, 12:37:35 PM
He certainly pursues an active social life.
2873  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Here it comes again on: July 17, 2010, 02:28:51 PM
Doug,
Yes the E is for Ellis.  I never knew that was his middle name, or even that his first name is John.

On another note IT is starting again.  Could anyone really have thought that either of them would simply go away?

It is no accident we are seeing  more headlines of Hillary lately.  I only post the news item below as an example of increasing Assoc Press releases about Hillary.  As always they follow her and discuss what she is doing without EVER being able to document ANY accomplishment on her part in anything she does.  As Crafty has so deftly pointed out with the simple question, what has Hillary ever accomplished?  The answer is nothing. Yet the MSM would have us believe she is and has accomplished so much for the country and the world.  Did we already here "rumors" that foreign leaders are "confiding" to her that they do not like Bmaster's policies.
 I am sick to think that we will be hearing and seeing more of her from lovers of Clinton and co. who are panicking over the failures of the ONE.  And of course behind the scenes she will encourage this while pretending to be loyal to the greatest super human who ever lived.  Pretending she is not interested in 2012 while waiting (and praying) for the "groundswell" of support with screams of "you go and girl", and "run Hillary run!"  Then she will due her duty for America and patriotically answer the people's calling for her to bring "Clintonism" back to save us (and of course the world).

***Clinton on key Afghan mission as US war fears grow
             Clinton AFP By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – Sat Jul 17, 11:39 am ET
WASHINGTON – As concerns grow about the war in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to South Asia on a mission aimed at refining the goals of the nearly 9-year-old conflict.

U.S. lawmakers are increasingly questioning the course of the war. The number of soldiers from the U.S. and other countries in the international coalition in Afghanistan is on the rise. Corruption is a deep problem in Afghanistan, and members of Congress wonder about the utility of massive aid to both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton will attend an international conference in Kabul on Tuesday where the Afghan government is expected to outline plans to improve security, reintegrate militants into society and crack down on corruption. She also plans to stop in Pakistan to push greater cooperation between Islamabad and Kabul.

Clinton, who left Washington on Saturday, will meet up in the week ahead with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in South Korea, where tensions with the communist North have risen after the sinking of a South Korean warship that was blamed on the North.

She will finish her trip in Vietnam for discussions with regional leaders. Among the topics will be the upcoming elections in Myanmar.

At the Kabul conference, she will renew Washington's commitment to support Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government, but press him to follow through on reform pledges he made earlier this year.

Richard Holbrooke, President Barack Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, has said the conference "will be a very important international demonstration of support" for Karzai and his administration.

But Holbrooke acknowledges concerns that the war and the reconstruction effort are not going as hoped or planned.

He told Congress this past week that "there are significant elements of movement forward in many areas, but I do not yet see a definitive turning point in either direction."

Last month was the deadliest of the war for international forces: 103 coalition troops were killed, despite the infusion of tens of thousands of new U.S. troops. So far in July, 54 international troops have died, 39 of them American. An American service member was killed by a blast in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, and an American died in a blast in the south on Friday.

International troops working with Afghan forces say they have killed or captured dozens of senior insurgent figures since April as they aggressively step up operations against the Taliban leadership. But those successes haven't slowed the pace of militant attacks, which continue daily, killing dozens of people each month.

The administration has said it will review its Afghan strategy at year's end. The slow progress against the Taliban and the disruptive effects of the firing of the outspoken American commander there last month, have led to a growing unease among many in Congress, including leading members of Obama's own party.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it's not clear that the administration has a solid strategy for prevailing. The committee's top Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, decried "a lack of clarity" about U.S. war goals.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said that while there remains "solid support" for the war among Democrats, "there's also the beginnings of fraying of that support."

In the House, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., has put a hold on nearly $4 billion in assistance to Afghanistan, demanding that allegations of corruption be addressed and that the Afghan government be held accountable.***

___

2874  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krauthammer: don't underestimate Obama on: July 16, 2010, 03:42:19 PM
I don't agree with Charles on this one.  He gives Bamster way too much credit comparing him to Reagan with regards to accomplishments in putting into law their ideologies.  Reagan never had majorities in either houses (I don't think).  Bamster started out with super majorities in both.  They barely could squeek out legislation despite having big majorities.  It is overrated to state Bamster got the legislation through.  No one was listening to him later in the discourse.  No one is listening to him now.  Additionally, Bamster has an adoring media, and of course the liberal academia.  Reagan never had this.  Reagan got his policies through despite these oppositions. With Bamster the policies got through despite his failures.  Once Bamster has one or both houses against him he will fold.  I do agree though that great damage is already done and will be hard if at all possible to reverse once we trun back Bamsterism.  It doesn't help that Bamster was lucky to have the opportunity to pick two Justices already in his first term.

So in short the problem is not over-estimating Bamster.  He is way overrated.  The point is not to over-estimating the Republicans to straighten out this mess.
In that regard I agree with Charles - Republicans be careful!

****Obama's next act

By Charles Krauthammer

 http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In the political marketplace, there's now a run on Obama shares. The left is disappointed with the president. Independents are abandoning him in droves. And the right is already dancing on his political grave, salivating about November when, his own press secretary admitted Sunday, Democrats might lose the House.

I have a warning for Republicans: Don't underestimate Barack Obama.

Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.

Second, there is major financial reform, which passed Congress on Thursday. Economists argue whether it will prevent meltdowns and bailouts as promised. But there is no argument that it will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace. Its 2,300 pages will create at least 243 new regulations that will affect not only, as many assume, the big banks but just about everyone, including, as noted in one summary (the Wall Street Journal), "storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus."

Third is the near $1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in U.S. history. And that's not even counting nationalizing the student loan program, regulating carbon emissions by Environmental Protection Agency fiat, and still-fitful attempts to pass cap-and-trade through Congress.

But Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.

These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare's $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement -- and no longer available for deficit reduction.

The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long. The critics don't understand the big picture. Obama's transformational agenda is a play in two acts.

Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.

The next burst of ideological energy -- massive regulation of the energy economy, federalizing higher education and "comprehensive" immigration reform (i.e., amnesty) -- will require a second mandate, meaning reelection in 2012.

That's why there's so much tension between Obama and congressional Democrats. For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign.

Obama is down, but it's very early in the play. Like Reagan, he came here to do things. And he's done much in his first 500 days. What he has left to do he knows must await his next 500 days -- those that come after reelection.

The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans. Republicans underestimate him at their peril.


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.****


2875  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: July 16, 2010, 12:40:51 PM
"he or I underestimate"

Sorry, I meant he or I do NOT underestimate" the Dems willingness to bribe voters with taxpayer money.
2876  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: July 16, 2010, 12:38:28 PM
"Christie of NJ is showing a lot of testicular fortitude of the sort we need for budget issues, but is unknown to me with regard to other matters."

May I suggest we all keep our eye open to this guy.  Everytime I hear him on talk shows he sounds better and better.  This guy learns.  He improves. Some have criticised him for not being "conservative" enough.  They are worng and he is right.  He cannot win if he comes out to as to "right".  We are in a Demcoratic state.  One out of three New Jerseans have been reported to be on some sort of dole.

Taxes are astronomical. Costs of living are high.  Most are working class.  They are struggling.  Unions are powerful.  Private unions and public unions.  They have a stranglehold on the Dem party.  Cristie seems to have been able to get past this more than anyone could have hoped.  Even Bob Grant says his accomplishments on union concessions while hardly great are still impressive.  He held teachers to I think a 2% raise rather thna 4 to 5%.

Corruption in local, county, state government is legendary though I doubt any more than anywhere else in the US, or at least the NE or West coast or other major metropolitan areas.

Watch this guy.  His learning curve, going from someone who could barely talk and give speeches to someone who is quite logical, convincing, charismatic, realistic, and taking on the unions by going to voters directly is so far impressive to me.  FINALLY we have someone who is doing what needs to be done.  And people are agreeing with him.  Yet as he has said, he has not won, and it remains to be seen the final result, he or I underestimate the use of bribery by the Dems to buy votes amongst working class, and dole receiving voters.
2877  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: July 16, 2010, 11:39:45 AM
Again it is the Jews who get singled out for their abuse of blacks with slavery and other issues.  Were there not Catholics, Presbyterian, Prostestant slave owners.
And why does not Farrakhan note the Muslim "white" Arab slave traders who brought Black Africans from the interior of the continent to the coast and sell them to white slave traders?

Where is his outrage of this?

So Blacks are outraged about Al Quada using Blacks from Africa as cannon fodder for their war against the West?

Arabs enslaved blacks for hundreds of years.  So what's the surprise?

Again, it is get the Jews.

This is one reason why I am annoyed at liberal Jews who think that they have so much in common with Blacks with discrimination and all and think Blacks appreciate there is long history of fighting for the rights of Blacks during civil rights along with fighting for their own civil rights.

They think Blacks appreciate them.  Well let me tell you, most don't.

Again liberal Jews are dupes imo.

It doesn't take high IQ to connect the dots.  Farrakhan hates Jews, as does Reverend Wright.  Bamster sat in Wright's church for decades.  Bamster is pressuring Israel and clearly has altered the balance of power with the  Israelis/Palestinians towards the latter.  Gee, and liberal Jews are surprised?  And yet many still support Bamster?

Like I said the alternative is worse then Nazism to liberal Jews - Republicans!  Crafty, I really think we will see Clinton getting more and more support from many Jews.
They could never stand voting for a Repub alternative to Bamster.  They will either sit at home during the polls, or come up with an alternative - and Hillary is number one at this time.  Or they will vote for Bamster anyway and sell Israel down the river.
They are that stubborn and stupid while they shot themselves in the head tryiing to pretend how they are such humanitarians and do gooders.
2878  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN - thnx on: July 16, 2010, 10:27:25 AM
JDN,
Thank you for sharing this story.
My grandfather died of pancreatic cancer before I was born.  My middle name is after him.

I do believe that if Berwick has his way your wife would likely have been sent to hospice.
I don't think some sort of cost effective control is unreasonable when we are providing care free of charge courtesy of taxpayers to those who don't pay for whatever reason but I reject out of hand the notion that all of us must be forced into the same system and that is only FAIR as Berwick contends.  I just cancelled my sbscription to the NEJM.  I find THEM obnoxious!
Health care is not a right.  Yet, I don't think we can't be a humane society and provide some care to those who can't pay, but health care is never free and for those of us who do pay or choose to pay we have a right too, to get the best and not simply the most cost effective care.

Berwick, the little Harvard  data and bean counting weasel will throw all kinds of numbers at you stating more is not necessarily better, and infant mortality, and life span and all the rest of liberal ivy league garbage.  But I guarantee you, when he, his family or members of our fearless progressive government get sick  they will want and demand world class care.

BTW, I don't find you obnoxious.  We agree on a lot and I like diversity of opinion. 
I hope your wife continues to do well.  Thanks to the US research complex there is always hope of new drugs coming out.  Bamster should be going around the world (as well as this communist clown Berwick) praising US health care.  It is broken but if one gets really sick I don't want to be anywhere else.


2879  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 15, 2010, 04:04:17 PM
"As for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force this was the group that stopped recommending mammograms for women at average risk between ages 40 and 50 that just last year resulted in a gigantic uproar from other medical groups, babe organizations, political pundits, that gave the cable industry a nice chance to make a buck discussing ad nauseum for months."
Sorry already noted in the article posted by BBG.

And clarify:

" The concept of a medical home is not for prevention as much as it is  a central point as a command center to manage care or ration care based on 'cost effective' formulas."  Not my opinion.  I meant that that is Berwick's opinion and overall goal.
I can't wait to see the elites and their families at Harvard and in Congress, and the Senate have to go on managed medicaid like the rest of us.  I am not holding my breath.




2880  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 15, 2010, 03:14:22 PM
From Obama's director of Health,Human,Services:

"Too many Americans don't get the preventive care they need to stay healthy and keep health-care costs down for all of us," Sebelius said.

From Obama's new health czar or whatever he is called:

"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."

As for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force this was the group that stopped recommending mammograms for women at average risk between ages 40 and 50 that just last year resulted in a gigantic uproar from other medical groups, babe organizations, political pundits, that gave the cable industry a nice chance to make a buck discussing ad nauseum for months.
2881  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "E" in twelve? on: July 15, 2010, 02:38:53 PM
H in 1988, W in 2000, and E in 12?
From Huffington Post:

2010 Bush Revival, Bush 3rd Term, Bush Brand, Bush Gillespie, Bush Jeb, Bush Reemergence, Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush 2012, Jeb Bush Revival, Karl Rove, Rosenberg Bush, Rove Bush, Simon Rosenberg, Politics News

Simon Rosenberg is the most bullish of Democratic strategists. The former Clinton administration official and head of the young non-profit group NDN has been the chief proponent of the belief that Barack Obama's election produced the opportunity for a "30-to-40-year era of Democratic dominance." A specialist in the political habits of different demographic groups (specifically Hispanics), he insists that, absent a drastic makeover, the GOP risks cementing itself "as irrelevant to the 21st century."

Sagging poll numbers and policy setbacks have done little to dissuade these rosy prognostications. There's only one thing that makes Rosenberg nervous: another Bush.

"Jeb [Bush] is married to a Latina, is fluent in Spanish, speaks on Univision as a commentator, his Spanish is that good," Rosenberg said of the former Florida governor and brother to the 43rd president during a lunch at NDN headquarters last week. "And if you look at the electoral map in 2012, you have to assume that Obama is going to have a very hard time in holding North Carolina and Virginia. The industrial Midwest, where the auto decline has been huge, has weakened Obama's numbers... a great deal. So Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin become a bit more wobbly. So if you're Barack Obama, the firewall is the Latin belt from Florida to southwestern California. And there is only one Republican who can break through that firewall. And it is Jeb."

Such a sentiment, Rosenberg admits, carries a slight hint of hysteria. After all, there is a good chunk of the country that recoils at the idea of another pol with the Bush surname. But that chunk has begun narrowing. And even within Democratic circles, there is an emerging belief that in a Republican Party filled with base-pleasing dramatizers or bland conservatives, Jeb stands out.

"The vast majority of the voting public yearns for a non-Bush," said longtime Democratic strategist Donna Brazille. But, she added, "Jeb has the talent, the experience and the ability to rebuild the GOP's tent."

"I believe Jeb Bush could run," said Stanley Greenberg, a longtime Democratic pollster. "He is more of a genuine conservative than Romney. Bush is a big hangover, but not impossible." The question, Greenberg asks, is "does his immigration position get him into primary trouble?"

Talk of a prospective Jeb Bush presidential run in the 2012 election is, by definition, speculative. But Rosenberg's frankness in acknowledging his fears gets at a larger, more immediate political phenomenon. Roughly one-and-a-half years after George W. Bush left office with abysmal approval ratings and the likelihood of historical ignominy, the Bush brand is vying once more for political relevance. Within Republican circles, the fear that once accompanied any association with the 43rd president has diminished. There remain, of course, substantive critiques of Bush's presidency. And news that the former president would be releasing his book right around the time of the November election ignited some consternation among Republicans on Thursday.

Story continues below

But the criticisms are mainly offered as a method of distinguishing oneself as a fresh, fiscally sound breed of Republican. Behind the scenes, some of the major figures from the Bush years have assumed influential roles.

Karl Rove, the strategist chiefly responsible for George W. Bush's rise to political prominence, has become the de facto Yoda of the Republican Party, dispensing wisdom in private and from his various public perches. Ed Gillespie, the former RNC chair and Bush hand, has assumed a more institutionally important position, launching a public opinion firm (Resurgent Republic) as well as a election-oriented organization (American Crossroads) that is promising to spend big on the 2010 elections. To be sure, many Bush-linked figures have become, essentially, apolitical in the post-administration era (think: former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman). But others have yet to kill the political bug, such as Sara Taylor, an ex-Rove aide who now plays an important role with likely 2012 candidate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

And then there is Jeb. The former governor, GOP officials say, has become increasingly engaged in charting the future of Republican politics. In addition to working closely with House leadership on various rebranding efforts, he helped craft the delicate strategy that the party took in the Florida Senate Republican primary. Understanding that the National Republican Senatorial Committee was essentially obligated to put its support behind his successor, Charlie Crist, he cautioned chairman John Cornyn (R-Tex) to anticipate Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio's rise. The committee was, subsequently, well-positioned to handle Crist's GOP defection.

"I am running into him more around the country than before I would have expected, more [than] when he was governor," said Grover Norquist, head of the influential Americans for Tax Reform and a connected Republican tactician if there ever was one. "As I travel around, I hear Jeb Bush was here last week or is coming next month. And I didn't hear that when he was governor..."

What kind of impact the Bush reemergence will have on the broader landscape is a hotly debated question within both party circles. During the 2008 cycle, these officials were marginalized -- either burned out from the past eight years or too toxic for prospective candidates to touch (the McCain campaign, famously, had a fiery relationship with the former president and his team). Now back on, what one operative called "political terra firma," they have already positioned themselves as the axis around which the GOP's election strategies will turn. Both Rove and Gillespie have used their Rolodexes to recruit major donors and their reputations to pow-wow with some of the more high-profile candidates.

Of course, there's some self-aggrandizement going on, several officials cautioned anonymously. Rove, in particular, is often described as more interested in advancing his own brand, often by overstating his influence. "Karl seems to be mostly in the Karl Rove business," said one GOP operative. "Selling books, going on TV, writing for the Wall Street Journal, speaking engagements. I don't know much advising he is doing."

But that sentiment is not shared by everyone. Indeed, at a time when the campaign committees (mainly the RNC) have floundered, more top-flight Republicans are looking at the operatives who led the Bush years as the closest they can get to a sure thing.

"I think that those two particularly [Rove and Gillespie] bring a credibility," says Norquist. "If you want to write a really big check, you trust Ed Gillespie and Rove will spend $1 million wisely... Both of them you can look at through the prism of the last six election cycles. They've won some and lost some but they are always shooting in the right direction."

Whether that direction ends up being right for the GOP in 2010 remains to be seen. For Democrats, Rove's involvement has been cheered -- in as much as it's created the ideal boogeyman to get the 2010 blood flowing.

"He is larger than life all across the spectrum," explained Tracy Sefl, a Democratic strategist who has worked on campaigns at all levels of governance. "His contradiction is being well-known for the colossal failures attributed to his watch and also being well-known for his intellectual, strategic abilities."

But the major question is whether or not the old Bush guard is properly suited for the modern GOP. Rove, to this point, has had two high-profile endorsement busts: Sen. Bob Bennett in the Utah Republican primary, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Texas gubernatorial primary. In each instance, he found himself on the wrong side of the Tea Party movement. Whether those are simply glitches in a broader effort to get Republicans elected or indicative of the grassroots and the Bush clan not operating off the same playbook is a major question going forward. And it's one that Jeb Bush -- as he ponders a potential 2012 bid -- will have to consider as well.

"I think that Bush-ism is still alive," said John Feehery, a longtime GOP consultant. "There is, however, an anti-Bushism in the party associated with the Rand Paul crowd. They don't like neocons and government. And Sarah Palin could be seen as part of that group... What people like about Jeb Bush is that he is smart and conservative and well-liked by the base... If there is going to be a Bush revival, Jeb is going to be the leader of that revival. But he has to contend with that [anti-Bushism]."
2882  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Race in America on: July 15, 2010, 02:02:28 PM
Everytime I hear critics try to bash the tea party as racist all I can think of is the response is simple

What *real* racist organization would just love to have more people of color in it?

Why the teaparty wants *more* people of color to join them!  Not exclude the party.   Everyone knows real racist groups exclude those they hate.

Everytime I see a teaparty person on cable sit and have to defend the party (same for Republicans) all I can think of is they simply say we are not racist and we want more Latinos, more Blacks, more Asians to join us as Americans.  Why so hard?
2883  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: July 15, 2010, 01:55:41 PM
Great article BBG; looking well ahead.  I haven't seen this before.
Bamster would have to be thrown out in 2012.  Or else he could still have veto power from 2014 to 16.  Of course if the Cans can get 66 seats....

It is nice to dream.  Unleash America's potential!  Bring us back the faith in ourselves and place in the world.

We just need a few good men... and women.
2884  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 15, 2010, 12:26:53 PM
Yes he is as dishonest as they come.
Probably your right.  He will continue to demogague and deceive the public to the bitter end rather than moving to the middle in actions as well as phoney rhetoric to garner more "independents" or otherwise voters who change their minds from one day to the next.

I don't think Repubs could ever get 60 votes on ideology alone, ie. Reaganism and that is why I am calling on a leader who can give more of a roadmap and be able to convince Americans that the bama way is the wrong way, not just for America as a whole but all of us - if anything is to be left.
2885  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: July 15, 2010, 12:09:16 PM
Good summary of what is in the plans for us with regards to Health care.

Take these for example from the new controller of one seventh of the economy, Berwick:

1) ***"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."***
Well if the issue is costs than this is probably true that these things are overrated.  But this is my point.  The concept of a medical home is not for prevention as much as it is  a central point as a command center to manage care or ration care based on 'cost effective' formulas.

2) ****"Young doctors and nurses should emerge from training understanding the values of standardization and the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy."***
This is key.  I don't know if it is obvious to lay people if you will, perhaps it is.  But what this means is that doctors (and there patients) will not be granted the freddom to practice as they see fit in a given situation or case.  Doctors and nurses will need to be "taught", if you will, or better yet forced, to do what they are told with regards to how and what care they deliver.  And that is the big goal of HIT in health care.  All of the data that gets put in will travel to Dr. Berwick's and team's office where he and his friends at Harvard will be able to study endless reams of data, and take there analysis, do studies, design studies, then dictate back to health care providers what they MUST do in any given situation.
I don't necessarily object to this - it is managed care.  What I object to is that all of us will be FORCED into this situation whether we like it or not, whether we are able and willing to pay more or not.  Whether we have earned it, whether some abuse the system and the rest.   IT is HMO medicaid care forced on every person in America whether a citizen, legal immigrant, or illegal immigrant.  It is true communism of the health care system.

 
***Barack Obama's incredible "recess appointment" of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is probably the most significant domestic-policy personnel decision in a generation. It is more important to the direction of the country than Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

The court's decisions are subject to the tempering influence of nine competing minds. Dr. Berwick would direct an agency that has a budget bigger than the Pentagon. Decisions by the CMS shape American medicine.

Dr. Berwick's ideas on the design and purpose of the U.S. system of medicine aren't merely about "change." They would be revolutionary.

One may agree with these views or not, but for the president to tell the American people they have to simply accept this through anything so flaccid as a recess appointment is beyond outrageous. It isn't acceptable.

 
Daniel Henninger discusses President Obama's incredible "recess appointment" of Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, was taken aback at the end-around: "Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power."

Let's look, then, at what President Obama won't let the American electorate hear Dr. Berwick say in front of a committee of Congress. These excerpts are from past speeches and articles by Dr. Berwick:

"I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do."

"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."

"Please don't put your faith in market forces. It's a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can."

"Indeed, the Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs."

"It may therefore be necessary to set a legislative target for the growth of spending at 1.5 percentage points below currently projected increases and to grant the federal government the authority to reduce updates in Medicare fees if the target is exceeded."

"About 8% of GDP is plenty for 'best known' care."

"A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply."

View Full Image

AP Photo/ Goodman Media International, Inc.
 
Donald Berwick
"The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property."

"Health care is a common good—single payer, speaking and buying for the common good."

"And it's important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like."

"Hence, those working in health care delivery may be faced with situations in which it seems that the best course is to manipulate the flawed system for the benefit of a specific patient or segment of the population, rather than to work to improve the delivery of care for all. Such manipulation produces more flaws, and the downward spiral continues."

"For-profit, entrepreneurial providers of medical imaging, renal dialysis, and outpatient surgery, for example, may find their business opportunities constrained."

"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."

"I would place a commitment to excellence—standardization to the best-known method—above clinician autonomy as a rule for care."

"Health care has taken a century to learn how badly we need the best of Frederick Taylor [the father of scientific management]. If we can't standardize appropriate parts of our processes to absolute reliability, we cannot approach perfection."

"Young doctors and nurses should emerge from training understanding the values of standardization and the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy."

"Political leaders in the Labour Government have become more enamored of the use of market forces and choice as an engine for change, rather than planned, centrally coordinated technical support."

"The U.K has people in charge of its health care—people with the clear duty and much of the authority to take on the challenge of changing the system as a whole. The U.S. does not."

***
There is no need to rehearse the analogies in literature and social thought that Dr. Berwick's ideas summon. That the Obama White House would try to push this past public scrutiny with a recess appointment says more about Barack Obama than it does Dr. Berwick.

Vilifying Dr. Berwick alone for his views is in a way beside the point. Within Mr. Obama's circle they all think like this. Defeat Dr. Berwick, and they will send up 50 more who would pursue the same goals.

If the American people want the world Dr. Berwick wishes to give them, that's their choice. But they must be given that choice with full, televised confirmation hearings.

Barack Obama, Donald Berwick and the rest may fancy themselves philosopher kings who know what we need without the need to inform or persuade us first. That's not how it works here. That is Sen. Baucus's point.

It should be clear why Berwick is bigger than Kagan. We need a large public debate over these views, over what Mr. Obama has said his health plan would and would not do. We need to find out if every Democrat in Congress and every Democrat writing newspaper columns and blogs agrees with Dr. Berwick about clinical and individual autonomy and about leaders with plans.

Then we need to build an election around whether we want to go down the road Dr. Berwick has planned for us, or start dismantling the one that President Obama paved through Congress on a partisan vote.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved***

2886  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 14, 2010, 12:54:17 PM
The only thing worse than the damage Obama is doing to this nation would be if he were to suddenly triangulate and become popular again ala Clinton.  I hope his enlisting Clinton is not a signal he is doing just that.  Clinton proved that swing voters have short memories and will vote for the popular message of the day and forgive everything else.  IF bamster does this he could regain his popularity which is not good for the US.  I hope he keeps up the lefitst agenda till he gets booted out.  Just my take anyway.  From the man whose strategy kept the best con in chief in office a second term:

****By Dick Morris 07.14.2010 Published on TheHill.com on July 13, 2010

Any president facing a recession has a basic conundrum to resolve: If he doesn’t try to make people believe that a recovery is in progress, nobody will. But if he tries to make them believe that all is getting better, he risks being seen as out of touch at best or insensitive at worst.

It was just such a predicament that landed George H.W. Bush in trouble in 1991 when he preached that the economy was emerging from the recession, only to be seen as rich and elitist for his efforts. Things got so bad that this verbally challenged president once blurted out his staff’s strategy memo by saying, “Message: I care.” That was about as well-received as Nixon’s statement that “I am not a crook.”


Now Obama is trying to sell the unsellable — that the economy is getting better. In Nevada, he said: “But the question is, No. 1: Are we on the right track? And the answer is, yes.” Presumably those who are gullible enough to think they can beat the casino odds in Vegas are ripe for this form of self-delusion, but it leaves the rest of us cold. The fact is that, when asked directly in polls whether the U.S. is on the right or the wrong track, by more than two to one, Americans feel the nation is on the wrong track.

Fifteen million are unemployed and, adding in underemployed, part-time workers and those who have given up looking, the total is 26 million. So Obama’s statements of confidence are a bit like Herbert Hoover’s ritual incantation that “Prosperity is just around the corner.”

Polls show that 70 percent of Americans do not believe that the stimulus program has worked and a similar percentage feel the best thing we could do to create jobs is to cut taxes.

But Obama’s conundrum is that if he is not the font of optimism, who will be? Economists are increasingly coming to see that the so-called recovery was, in fact, a false dawn and that we are entering a double-dip recession (if, indeed, we ever left the initial downturn). In our book 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan, we predict a false dawn followed by a double dip — and now it is upon us.

It is now time for the Republicans to counterattack against Obama by calling him out of touch with the realities of the economy and to take advantage of the commonly held idea that the president doesn’t know what is going on in the streets. In Obama’s case, the GOP cannot then turn “out of touch” into an accusation of insensitivity (as the Democrats did to Bush-41). But they can push the idea that Obama is so wrapped up in his liberal ideology that he cannot see the reality in front of him — that big spending stimulus hasn’t worked and won’t work.

The Fox News poll now shows that 55 percent of all likely voters feel that it is appropriate to call Obama a socialist. This epithet, which most Americans did not see fit to use even a few months ago, fits him well. Republicans should make the point that he is willing to sacrifice all for his ideology and that he is blind to the reality of the damage his spending and borrowing are causing.

When a president runs around the country saying things that two-thirds of America does not believe, it is time to counterattack vigorously and show how out of touch he really is.

Then, with every invocation of optimism, Obama will be digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole.****
2887  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Economic reality for a change on: July 14, 2010, 12:46:33 PM
Sounds like panic mode if you ask me.  There is nothing magical about Clinton.  He was fortunate to have an internet boom/bubble while he was in office along with improved efficiencies/productivity that all burst just after he left.  Tax cuts kept things going for awhile. 
I don't think one needs to be an economist (whose predictions are next to guessing anyway) to see that until we lower expectations, raise retirement on Soc. Security on a national scale and localities stop allowing public employees to retire before 65 with pensions funded by tax payers, somehow hold down medical costs, and people wake up and realize they have to accept jobs they don't like (at least younger people who are fit to work physical labor) instead of sitting at home collecting checks then I don't see any long term upside.  Even tax cuts will only do so much for so long.

Although I am a primary care physician and the "medical home" model is bieng pushed, quite frankly, I don't see it as a means to reign in on costs unless, one means rationing care.  This idea of saving money by keeping people "healthy" (as though I can get everyone to start excercising and eating like a vegetarian etc.) is absurd.  Indeed it may/probably raises long term costs by keeping people alive longer utilizing more Soc. Sec. Medicare, and  health care dolllars on the backs of fewer workers.

When people died within three years of retirement (in the 1930's) rather than 15 (or if you are a public employee who can retire at 48, thus *35* years) the costs to taxpayers/workers was obviously less than it is now.  And of course this is even without stating the fact that there are far more older non working people for far fewer workers today.

Unless Clinton is ready to face these facts than forget about him.  And until Cans can do the same, tax cutting while I agree with overall is great and a lot better than bigger government, is unfortunately not the long term answer by itself.

****Obama enlists Bill Clinton's aid on economy
           WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama sought Wednesday to lift sagging confidence in his economic stewardship by enlisting the help of predecessor Bill Clinton, as a leading business group issued a scathing critique of the administration's policies.

Clinton, who presided over the 1990s economic boom, was to join Obama at a White House meeting with business leaders at 2:35 p.m. Eastern time to encourage job creation and investment, including in clean energy.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a leading business group, issued a rebuke of Obama's economic agenda, accusing him and his Democrats in Congress of neglecting job creation and hampering growth with burdensome regulatory and tax policies.

Four months before the November congressional elections, Republicans have tried to paint Obama and his Democrats as anti-business.

Obama is increasingly turning to former President Clinton to help win over voters and the business community.

Clinton, seen by many in corporate America as sympathetic, has helped the White House by campaigning for Democratic candidates running in November's elections.

And Obama Tuesday named former Clinton administration veteran Jack Lew as the White House budget chief to help cut the huge deficit.

With unemployment stubbornly high, polls have reinforced Democrats' fears of big losses in November.

A survey by The Washington Post-ABC News showed 54 percent of Americans disapproved of Obama's leadership on the economy. In a CBS News poll, only 40 percent of Americans said they approved of Obama's handling of the economy.

JOBS SAVED

To counter such perceptions, the administration trumpeted an analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers that said government funding of clean energy, economic development, construction projects and other initiatives was spurring "co-investment" by the private sector.

The report, unveiled by CEA Chairman Christina Romer and Vice President Joseph Biden, estimated that Obama's $862 billion economic stimulus package had saved or created roughly 3 million jobs, and was on track to meet its goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.

"The impact of the fiscal stimulus suggest that the (Recovery Act) has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent," the report said.

"Real GDP growth is expected to remain steady in the second half of 2010 and throughout 2011."

But an open letter from the Chamber of Commerce threatened to overshadow that analysis. The Chamber's letter gave Obama credit for stabilizing the economy and preventing another Great Depression.

"But once accomplished, the congressional leadership and the administration took their eyes off the ball," the letter said.

"They neglected America's number one priority -- creating the more than 20 million jobs we need over the next 10 years for those who lost their jobs, have left the job market, or were cut to part-time status -- as well as new entrants into our workforce."

The Chamber released the letter to coincide with its "Jobs for America" summit in Washington Wednesday.

High budget deficits are among the complaints business groups have lodged against the Obama administration. A healthcare overhaul, financial regulatory reform and proposals to cap carbon emissions are cited by some corporate chieftains as examples of regulatory overreach.

(Additional reporting by Alister Bull and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Beech)****

2888  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: July 13, 2010, 10:35:39 AM
"let’s also focus on what the government is hiding"

It has become quite hard to conclude it is just incompetence and not the desired goal of Bamster - blame big oil and let the spill wreck the Gulf for his greeen agenda.
Yet MSM will NEVER report this - including Cooper.
2889  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: July 13, 2010, 10:31:51 AM
Actually I saw the Barnes article.

The challenge is to convince the hoards of Americans who rely on unemployment, who work for beans paying their bills from week to week, that this is best for them as well as the country overall.

Maybe Ryan can be that point spokesperson.  Like Gingrich was in 1994.  I like Gingrich but I think it better if we can get new faces. We need someone who also evokes empathy - Gingrich does not and never has.

We need someone who can show he gets the "pain" while he is telling us the truth about the sacrifices we must all make to get out of this mess.
2890  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: July 13, 2010, 10:03:48 AM
This should be under future of republican party but I cannot post a reply under that thread.

It is amazing and discouraging to see in today's Washington Post poll that fewer people have faith in the Republican party than Democrats.

The cans have not convinced people they have answers to our problems either.

People struggling to pay for food shelter, heat etc. dependent on dole checks from week to week.  I am sure they fear the cans get control that they may very well be literally in the streets standing on food lines.

How does a party respond to this?  I know - "trickle down".  But a majority don't appear to believe in this.  W tried "compassionate conservativism.  Daschle was a crook.  Now what?  I see roudmaps coming out from Hannity to others.  Yet nothing catches on.  Simply speaking Reaganism is NOT the answer.

Simply bashing Bamster is only half the answer.
2891  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Charles also notes the One's "modesty" on: July 12, 2010, 03:44:21 PM
***The selective modesty of Barack Obama

By Charles Krauthammer

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Remember NASA? It once represented to the world the apogee of American scientific and technological achievement. Here is President Obama's vision of NASA's mission, as explained by administrator Charles Bolden:

"One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering."

Apart from the psychobabble -- farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer -- what's the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far -- but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.

Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence -- lauding, for example, Russia's contribution to the space station. Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the United States to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.

For good measure, Bolden added that the United States cannot get to Mars without international assistance. Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of President John Kennedy's 1961 pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.

There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy's. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in France, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Which of course means: If we're all exceptional, no one is.

Take human rights. After Obama's April meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we, too, are working on perfecting our own democracy.

Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with China about human rights, the U.S. side brought up Arizona's immigration law -- "early and often." As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents and suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.

Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama's modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America's alleged failing -- from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11.

It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the word "I."

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to Cabinet members and other high government officials as "my" -- "my secretary of homeland security," "my national security team," "my ambassador." The more normal -- and respectful -- usage is to say "the," as in "the secretary of state." These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution -- not just the man who appointed them.

It's a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama's exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies -- both about himself.

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's.


Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on Charles Krauthammer's column by clicking by clicking here.****
2892  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part two on: July 12, 2010, 12:31:30 PM
New Jersey Governor Defies Political Expectations
Published: July 11, 2010
But lawmakers in both parties say the governor and his team — a mix of old Trenton hands and people who worked for him in the United States attorney’s office — have been strategically smart as well as lucky. Mr. Christie chose top aides, led by Richard Bagger, his chief of staff and a former legislator, who have been able to smooth private negotiations when people are battling in public.

Related
News Analysis: Showdown Over N.J. Budget Is Avoided for Now (June 30, 2010)
Christie, Shunning Precedent, Drops Justice From Court (May 4, 2010)
Times Topic: Christopher ChristieFrom the start, the governor served notice that he saw the public employees’ unions as a central part of the state’s problems, and that he meant to take them on. His first day in office, he signed an executive order, later struck down in court, to limit their ability to finance campaigns. The first bills he signed limited spending on pensions and benefits. He relished months of verbal sparring with the teachers’ union, and analysts say he got the upper hand.

Mr. Christie said there was no plan to put the unions front and center, though some of his aides say privately that it was quite intentional.

But on controlling local government spending and taxes, he acknowledged that “yes, absolutely,” there was a political strategy to doing things in a particular order. The governor’s budget reduced school aid, leading to predictions that districts would raise property taxes. He blamed the teachers’ union for any increases and proposed capping property tax increases. Now he is using that cap as leverage for a package of bills, which has met union opposition, to help towns and school districts control spending.

The governor even pointed to areas where he might, uncharacteristically, tread lightly rather than face fierce resistance, like banning the holding of two or more government jobs simultaneously, a common practice among legislators.

It remains to be seen how well Mr. Christie will wear on New Jersey voters. Over the next year, people will begin to see the effects of his policies in their schools and towns, in his cut in funds for family planning or, for government workers, in their paychecks. The need to focus on fiscal issues has obscured some other areas where his positions are less popular, like his opposition to abortion.

It is also unclear how he would govern in boom times, when austerity is a harder sell. The governor said he would have preferred not to make some of his budget cuts, but suggested that in any climate he would have pushed for less government.

He said, “It’s more philosophical than a matter of necessity.”

2893  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part one on: July 12, 2010, 12:30:26 PM
Why is Chritie succeeding where Schwarenegger failed?  Perhaps it is timing.  People are finally waking up to the dire straits some states are in due to public spending.

New Jersey Governor Defies Political Expectations
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: July 11, 2010
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, N.J. — A momentous deal to cap property taxes was all but done, but Gov. Chris Christie was taking no chances, barnstorming the state to commiserate with squeezed homeowners and keep pressure on the Legislature.

 Jodi Hilton for The New York Times
Lawmakers in both parties say Gov. Chris Christie and his team have been smart as well as lucky.

Related
News Analysis: Showdown Over N.J. Budget Is Avoided for Now (June 30, 2010)
Christie, Shunning Precedent, Drops Justice From Court (May 4, 2010)
Times Topic: Christopher ChristieOutside a farmhouse here in central New Jersey last week, buttoned up in a dark suit despite the triple-digit heat, Mr. Christie promised to tackle rising pension costs, transportation financing, municipal spending — all while poking fun at his opponents, the news media and, mostly, himself.

When a reporter suggested that the governor do a rain dance, he said, “Don’t want to miss that, baby.” And in the rare instance of his withholding judgment on an issue, he said he preferred to know something about the issue before opining, although, he added, tongue in cheek, that actual knowledge was not necessarily a requirement.

It was a model taste of Mr. Christie, six months into his term as governor: blunt, energetic, clearly enjoying himself.

And having his way.

Mr. Christie has turned out to be a far more deft politician than his detractors — and even some supporters — had expected, making few compromises as he pursues a broad agenda for remaking New Jersey’s free-spending political culture. So far, polls suggest, the public is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

“The most important thing in public life, in a job like governor, is for the people you’re representing to know exactly where you stand,” Mr. Christie said in an interview on Friday. “People who disagree with me on things at least have a sense of comfort in knowing where I’m coming from.”

In a mostly blue state where Democrats control the Legislature, Mr. Christie, a Republican, won election last year mostly because of the deep unpopularity of his opponent, Gov. Jon S. Corzine. Mr. Christie, a former federal prosecutor known for aggression rather than deal-making, took office to predictions that his hard-charging style would not work in the labyrinth of Trenton, where factions of party, region and interest group would slow him down.

Instead, he confronted the powerful public employees’ unions and won, cutting future pensions and benefits, and persuaded voters to defeat hundreds of local school budgets. He got nearly everything he wanted in the state budget, making the deepest cuts in generations. And the Assembly is expected this week to give final passage to one of his cherished goals: a cap on local property taxes.

The governor has repeatedly used his powers more confrontationally than his predecessors, wading into school budget fights, freezing the actions of semiautonomous public authorities and breaking with tradition by refusing to reappoint a State Supreme Court justice.

“I think we all underestimated his political skill coming in,” said Brigid Harrison, a political science professor at Montclair State University. “You can’t deny that he’s been a tour de force in Trenton. He has managed to control the legislative agenda more than other governors, despite having a Legislature controlled by the opposite party.”

The governor has a direct, pithy speaking style — the sharp rise in property taxes in the past decade, he said, “is not a mystery; it’s a mandate” — often leavened by humor. And he is relentless, willing to hammer any message repeatedly and take on any critic, and he rarely meanders or evades a question.

When a reporter called him confrontational at news conference, Mr. Christie said, “You must be the thinnest-skinned guy in America,” adding that the reporter had never seen him when he was furious.

The few public opinion polls conducted so far show that he has not had the sharp drop in approval that often accompanies serious budget cuts, though most of the pain from those cuts has not yet been felt.

“He’s a much better communicator than we realized, and people seem to be willing to go along with him for now,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “He uses clear language, he doesn’t mince words, he’s funny, and he says what he thinks.”

Mr. Christie has become a favorite of conservatives across the country, and some talk of him as presidential material, though he insists, “No way is it going to happen.”

So far, circumstances have worked in Mr. Christie’s favor. The State Senate has a new president, Stephen M. Sweeney, who is seen as less liberal than his predecessor, Richard J. Codey, and more inclined to work with the governor. The recession, rising taxes and New Jersey’s perilous financial situation give persuasive power to the call to rein in government, and give Democrats who might disagree little room to maneuver.

“I think the tough times have dictated straight talk and forceful moves, and that fits him quite well,” said George Norcross III, a Democratic power broker from Camden County.

2894  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / This incongruety is another sign of a personality disorder on: July 12, 2010, 11:26:55 AM
Doug,
Good point.  An irony I didn't think of.
He has historically criticized the US as being "arrogant" yet who is more arrogant than the ONE who goes around the world lecturing everyone as the professor King who is teaching a world of children on right and wrong?
Another sign of psychopathic lack of self insight.  This guy is far from normal.
2895  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geraldo vs. Shabazz on: July 12, 2010, 11:04:18 AM
Crafty,
Shabazz called Geraldo a sell out.  Geraldo told Shabazz his calling for racial war is crazy and reparations are basically what the Great Sociaety has been and it has given us a generation (or three) of dependent angry serfs.  Geraldo, instead of calling for killing of white babies how about telling African Americans to pull up their pants and be fathers.
I think this is it:

http://www.breitbart.tv/geraldo-takes-black-panther-leader-to-schoolfox-anchor-eviscerates-shabazz/
2896  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geraldo vs Shabbaz on: July 12, 2010, 09:59:26 AM
Kudos to Geraldo Rivera for calling out "Zulu" on his show over the weekend. 
2897  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government Programs, spending, budget process on: July 12, 2010, 09:53:48 AM
Doug
Interesting you post this.  This AM on morning cable it was pointed out that the governor of W Virginia won by the largest margin by a governor in decades ~ 75% to 25 % in 2008.
He is a Democrat.  When will West Virginians learn?
Wasn't this the state whose union goons got JFK the Democratic nomination in 1960?

Someone could probably do a study of this.  It is not about the poeple.  It is about the politicians keeping power.

2898  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Black Panthers on: July 11, 2010, 01:11:55 PM
After hearing CNN news anchor thank Bobby Seales for explaining the "difference" (?) between his original Black Panthers he helped found and the "new" (if one calls them that) Balck Panthers for being a guest and explicitly telling him, "it is a great honor having you on the show" (could anyone imagine any CNN news anchor say that to any conservative) I have been looking aournd on line trying to get more information on Black Panthers.  As a kid growing up all I can remember is blacks with large Afros holding AK 47's yelling about down with the whites, and what was her bank robber name, Angela Davis etc.

I cannot verify the objectiveness of any of the stuff I find online but here is one website.  Clearly the connection between Black Panthers and Marxism is as close as two crossed fingers.  Free health care, housing, food, transfer of wealth, educational revisionism, quotas etc.  The liberal movement that Obama embraces is all right here.  The anger at the United States expressed here (remember Michelle Obama's statement that was something to the effect, "for the first time I am not ashamed of this country?.
I would say that the only diffference is Obama not only wants to redistribute everything domestically in the US but also wants to do it on a global scale  by redistributing US wealth around the world.  The radical nature of Obama is so obvious.  And yet the MSM continues to cover for him.  And try to marginalize those who do call him on it from Fox, radio etc.

Indeed those at CNN, ("it is an *HONOR* to have you on our show" - she says to cop killing, Marxist, American hating, violent preaching Bobby Seales) could not make their views as radical hippies from the 60's any more obvious.

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

****
Ten-Point Program
 The Ten Point Plan
WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.
We believe that Black and oppressed people will not be free until we are able to determine our destinies in our own communities ourselves, by fully controlling all the institutions which exist in our communities.


WE WANT FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE.
We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every person employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.


WE WANT AN END TO THE ROBBERY BY THE CAPITALISTS OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES.
We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. We will accept the payment in currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of our fifty million Black people. Therefore, we feel this is a modest demand that we make.


WE WANT DECENT HOUSING, FIT FOR THE SHELTER OF HUMAN BEINGS.
We believe that if the landlords will not give decent housing to our Black and oppressed communities, then housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that the people in our communities, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for the people.


WE WANT DECENT EDUCATION FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS DECADENT AMERICAN SOCIETY. WE WANT EDUCATION THAT TEACHES US OUR TRUE HISTORY AND OUR ROLE IN THE PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY.
We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of the self. If you do not have knowledge of yourself and your position in the society and in the world, then you will have little chance to know anything else.


WE WANT COMPLETELY FREE HEALTH CARE FOR All BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE.
We believe that the government must provide, free of charge, for the people, health facilities which will not only treat our illnesses, most of which have come about as a result of our oppression, but which will also develop preventive medical programs to guarantee our future survival. We believe that mass health education and research programs must be developed to give all Black and oppressed people access to advanced scientific and medical information, so we may provide our selves with proper medical attention and care.


WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO POLICE BRUTALITY AND MURDER OF BLACK PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR, All OPPRESSED PEOPLE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
We believe that the racist and fascist government of the United States uses its domestic enforcement agencies to carry out its program of oppression against black people, other people of color and poor people inside the united States. We believe it is our right, therefore, to defend ourselves against such armed forces and that all Black and oppressed people should be armed for self defense of our homes and communities against these fascist police forces.


WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION.
We believe that the various conflicts which exist around the world stem directly from the aggressive desire of the United States ruling circle and government to force its domination upon the oppressed people of the world. We believe that if the United States government or its lackeys do not cease these aggressive wars it is the right of the people to defend themselves by any means necessary against their aggressors.


WE WANT FREEDOM FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE NOW HELD IN U. S. FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY AND MILITARY PRISONS AND JAILS. WE WANT TRIALS BY A JURY OF PEERS FOR All PERSONS CHARGED WITH SO-CALLED CRIMES UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.
We believe that the many Black and poor oppressed people now held in United States prisons and jails have not received fair and impartial trials under a racist and fascist judicial system and should be free from incarceration. We believe in the ultimate elimination of all wretched, inhuman penal institutions, because the masses of men and women imprisoned inside the United States or by the United States military are the victims of oppressive conditions which are the real cause of their imprisonment. We believe that when persons are brought to trial they must be guaranteed, by the United States, juries of their peers, attorneys of their choice and freedom from imprisonment while awaiting trial.


WE WANT LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are most disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.****





 

2899  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter.vs.Kristol on: July 11, 2010, 12:35:35 PM
My "arm chair" opinions tends to agree with Kristol, FWIW, but I don't agree with fighting in Afghanistan-"Pocky"stan with one arm tied behind our backs.  If we are going to fightn enemy than we should fight them not coddle them.

****Ann Coulter's recent column "Bill Kristol Must Resign" may have officially kicked off the next great schism within the conservative movement. At issue is the war in Afghanistan -- and, more specifically, whether Republicans should support President Obama's approach to a conflict that has now lasted for Americans far longer than World War II.

Mocking neoconservatives, Coulter wrote: "Bill Kristol [editor of The Weekly Standard] and Liz Cheney have demanded that [Michael] Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)"

Coulter failed at convincing Kristol to resign -- she never says from what. In fact, channeling Michael Steele, who vows to stay on as party chief, Kristol responded: "I ain't going anywhere." But she may have succeeded at advancing a major debate.

Until now, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule, adhered to by most on the right, that conservative Republicans would vigorously oppose Obama's liberal domestic policies while supporting his efforts to win in Afghanistan. After all, Republicans had staunchly backed George W. Bush when he made the case for fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Changing course now would seem craven -- playing politics with national security. And so, in foreign policy, Obama was criticized from the right only when he appeared to be showing weakness, not when he displayed toughness.

But recent comments from Steele have sparked a debate that was probably long overdue. Notwithstanding the fact that Steele almost immediately backtracked, some conservatives began defending the substance of Steele's comments. "Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right," Coulter wrote. "Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well."

This is a serious point. As Politics Daily's own David Corn recently wrote:
The war in Afghanistan is President Obama's war and partly of the president's choosing. Sure, Obama inherited the conflict. Bush initiated the military action in Afghanistan after 9/11 -- and then veered into Iraq before the war in Afghanistan was resolved. Yet Obama, after much deliberation, decided to change the nature of the Afghanistan war. In December, following many weeks of review, he announced he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and he embraced the counterinsurgency plan proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was then commanding U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
There was always skepticism on the left about Obama's decision to escalate the war -- perhaps even to waging war there in the first place. And if the commander in chief is losing any significant portion of the right when it comes to Afghanistan, his policies could be on perilous ground.

One of the ideas advanced by Coulter is that Bush wisely kept a relatively small footprint in Afghanistan, while choosing instead to invade Iraq -- terrain more hospitable for a traditional ground war. There is some revisionism at work here, and it must be said that prominent voices, like Liz Cheney's (not to mention Gen. David Petraeus'), were raised in support of the surge in Afghanistan. Still, it's fair to broach the question raised by Steele and Coulter: Would Bush be doing anything differently today in terms of Afghanistan?

Or is Coulter's position a less high-minded one? After a decade of defending Bush's actions, and getting beat up for it, are Republicans now saying it's time for a Democratic president to get the Bush treatment?

Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire. George Will and Tony Blankley have raised that very point. But Coulter has made it in a way that directly -- and personally -- challenges conservative orthodoxy. And it's catching on. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tweeted Coulter's column out to his followers, adding, "Thank you, Ann Coulter. She speaks out against the GOP now being for permanent war. She is right."

And if conservatives are asked to choose sides between, say, the elected leader of the Republican National Committee (Steele) and the titular head of the Democratic National Committee (Obama), how many will decide that Obama's Afghanistan policies are not worth the trouble? Maybe it was unavoidable, but it does seem as if Coulter's comments today hearken back to the 1990s -- when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office -- and conservatives criticized his efforts in places like Bosnia and Kosovo as "nation building."

Clearly, things have changed since 2008, when candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney represented the mainstream viewpoint, and when Congressman Ron Paul was essentially mocked for his isolationist tendencies and his desire for a "humble foreign policy." Today, Paul's positions are enjoying resurgence, and his son, Rand Paul, is poised to be elected to the U.S. Senate. How quickly things change.

Regardless, debating this policy is healthy, and conservatives are justified to have this discussion. There are conservative arguments to be made for -- or against -- continuing the war in Afghanistan, just as I believe a principled conservative case could have been made (and was, in some quarters) against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a debate that conservatives, and all Americans, should keep having. War is not something to be entered into lightly; nor should support for it ever be contingent on whether the commander in chief has a D after his name, or an R.
Filed Under: Republicans, Afghanistan, Conservatives, Military, Analysis
Tagged: Afghanistan war, ann coulter, Bill Kristol, conservatives, liz cheney, Michael Steele, war
More articles from Matt Lewis »****
2900  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bamster is definitely some sort of personality disorder on: July 10, 2010, 01:05:52 PM
Some would say blaming everything on something, or someone else is "politics" as usual.  It is also a red flag for some sort of personality disorder or even a psychopathic personality.  This guy is such an incredible liar that he can get up and say things that he knows are NOT true, that he knows listeners know are NOT true and yet he says them anyway without a wince, a pause, a blush, and with the convincingness of a cold blooded con artist.  He has to be some sort of personality disorder.
I think he is a psychopath with narcissistic, delusional megalomanic like features.  He is also a very angry man.

****Obama: Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein
U.S. president tells Channel 2 Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without coordinating with the U.S.
By Haaretz Service
Tags: Barack Obama Benjamin Netanyahu Middle East peace Israel news U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.

In an interview aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied "I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern."

  U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walking at the White House, on July 6, 2010.
 
Photo by: Reuters 
Obama spoke to Channel 2's Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an "excellent" meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.

Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.

During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."

"Ironically, I've got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate," Obama said.

"I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there's the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West," Obama went on to say.
 

Obama added that he believed a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved within his current term. "I think [Netanyahu] understands we've got a fairly narrow window of opportunity… We probably won’t have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized. It’s going to be difficult."

The American President entirely sidestepped the question of whether the U.S. would pressure Israel to extend a current 10-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements, failing to give a clear answer. The moratorium is set to expire in September, and Netanyahu has announced that he would not extend the timeframe. The U.S., however, views continued Israeli settlement construction as a serious obstacle to peace efforts.

When asked whether he thought Netanyahu was the right man to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, the U.S. President said that "I think Prime Minister Netanyahu may be very well positioned to bring this about," adding that Israel will have to overcome many hurdles in order to affect the change required to "secure Israel for another 60 years"

In a separate interview with another Israeli media outlet, Obama proclaimed that he was not "blindly optimistic" regarding the chances of a Middle East peace agreement.
Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process, he said in another yet-to-be-aired interview that was taped on Wednesday. He noted during the interview that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be "a great source of hope."

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Netanyahu told U.S. Jewish leaders that direct Palestinian-Israeli talks would begin "very soon", but warned that they would be "very, very tough."
Netanyahu told his cabinet earlier this week before flying to Washington that the time had come for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prepare to meet directly with the Israelis, as it was the only way to advance peace.

Israelis and Palestinians have been holding indirect talks mediated by Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell. Aides to Obama sounded a hopeful tone regarding the negotiations last week, telling reporters that the shuttle diplomacy between the two sides had paid off and the gaps have narrowed.

At a meeting with representatives of Jewish organizations at the Plaza Hotel late Wednesday, Netanyahu discussed the efforts to promote Middle East peace. "This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation," he said, adding "the sooner the better."
"Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will," he said.****
 
Pages: 1 ... 56 57 [58] 59 60 ... 85
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!