Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 04, 2015, 12:07:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86831 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 [65] 66 67 ... 90
3201  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN: i got this from drudge on: July 06, 2010, 04:18:31 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/
3202  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: July 06, 2010, 04:14:29 PM
"The problem I was trying to point out is that our 'poor' are not poor, they just face a twisted set of life incentives: they are paid to stay inactive and have virtually unlimited time and money for eating."

I agree and would add...

And strip club and casino hopping.  CNN reports welfare payments are used for these as well.  I don't know why anyone would be surprised though.

Sometimes I still get astonished at how little many people know about what they eat and the number of calories in their foods.

I guess that is not surprising either when we hear often how little many of the kids today know.  For example they wouldn't know who George Washington was.  Ot they don't know we were originally a Bristish colony and so forth.



3203  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hall of Shame on: July 06, 2010, 02:24:19 PM
Coincidence?
 
*** Libya hints at taking BP stakeBy Andrew England in Abu Dhabi and Simeon Kerr in Dubai, FT.com
July 5, 2010 9:29 a.m. EDT

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: BP is active in Libya; it won a contract to explore for gas and oil in the north African state in 2007.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Top oil official Shokri Ghane said Libya's sovereign wealth fund should invest in BP
Comments come amid speculation BP is seeking to raise capital from Middle East
BP won a contract to explore for gas and oil in Libya in 2007
(FT) -- Libya's top oil official on Monday said that his country's sovereign wealth fund should invest in BP to take advantage of the troubled company's falling share price.

Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya's national oil company, made the comments amid speculation that BP was seeking to raise capital from the oil-rich Middle East.

"BP is interesting now with the price lower by half and I still have trust in BP, I will recommend it to the LIA [the Libyan Investment Authority]," Mr Ghanem told Dow Jones.

Mr Ghanem's comments came after an official in the Gulf told the Financial Times that BP had already been reaching out to investment entities in the region, particularly those with which it already had relations.***
3204  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / middleclass taxpayers have no clout;thus no rights on: July 06, 2010, 02:17:26 PM
Probably all on this board has seen or will see this calculation on the costs of illegals to state budgets.  Non taxpayers, illegals all have more rights than the rest of us who pay the taxes - particularly the middle class tax payers.  Dems will of course deny these numbers and they will also point out this beckons and can easily be reckoned for and by "comprehensive reform".  Surely if we make illegals suddenly pay taxes and fines these budget shortfalls will all disappear. angry (sarcasm implied).
I am infuriated by one of the reform remedies is to make illegals pay all back taxes.  If this is not ridiculous.  How do you make people who were paid under the table in cash back taxes?  Does anyone think they are going to declare all their money - any more than bar tenders or waitresses/waiters do?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Cost_Study_2010_Budget_Gaps_vs_Costs.pdf
3205  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hall of Shame on: July 06, 2010, 11:04:38 AM
""There was a 50 percent chance that he would die in three months," he added, "but there was also a 50 percent chance that he would live longer."

One really has to ask the question:

Did Quadaffi bribe anyone here?

Now all of a sudden, we hear this.  This "doctor" should be investigated.

Again victom's families have to suffer because of leftist phoney compassion.
3206  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Kagan on: July 01, 2010, 03:22:18 PM
      
    
► SIGN UP FOR FREE NRO NEWSLETTERS
    
JULY 5, 2010, ISSUE   |   VIEW COVER   |   BUY LATEST ISSUE   |   SUBSCRIBE
Jonah Goldberg
June 30, 2010 12:01 A.M.

The Un-Borkable Elena Kagan
It doesn’t look like Kagan will be following the Kagan standard.

Say it ain’t so, Elena.

Elena Kagan thinks that the “Borking” of Robert Bork during his 1987 confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court would deserve a commemorative plate if the Franklin Mint launched a “Great Moments in Legal History” line of dishware.

This is not the time to rehearse all the reasons why Kagan is wrong on that score. Still, there is one adverse result of the Bork hearings worth dwelling on. Bork was the last Supreme Court nominee to give serious answers to serious questions. But because he was successfully anathematized by the Left, no nominee since has dared to show Borkian forthrightness.

Consider Monday’s thunderclap from the judicial Mount Olympus: The Second Amendment right to own a gun extends to state and local government. Personally, I think Justice Clarence Thomas’s separate opinion in favor of the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause over the due-process clause was the better argument. But that’s a debate for another day.

The more newsworthy opinion came from rookie Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She concurred with Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent, which held that there is no fundamental right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes,” Breyer wrote for the minority.

But when Sotomayor was before the Senate Judiciary Committee one year ago for her own confirmation hearings, she gave a very different impression of how she saw the issue. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy asked her, “Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court’s decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right?”

“Yes, sir,” she replied.

Both Sotomayor and Leahy festooned their colloquies with plenty of lawyerly escape hatches. That’s why Leahy asked the questions the way he did, and that’s why Sotomayor answered them the way she did. It’s also why he spun her answers into more than they were: “I do not see how any fair observer could regard [Sotomayor’s] testimony as hostile to the Second Amendment personal right to bear arms, a right she has embraced and recognizes.” He made it sound as though she was open to an expansive reading of the Second Amendment when everyone knew she wasn’t. (As a judge, she was hardly a hero of the NRA.)

Here’s the point: Sotomayor wasn’t an exception to the rule; she was following it.

Although the Bork inquisition was a largely partisan affair, the consequences have yielded a bipartisan sham. Republican and Democratic nominees alike are trained to say as little as possible and to stay a razor’s width on the side of truthfulness. The point is not to give the best, most thoughtful, or most honest answer, but to give the answer that makes it the most difficult for senators to vote against you. It’s as if we expect nominees to demonstrate — one last time — everything we hate and distrust about lawyers before they don their priestly robes.

Nobody is shocked that Sotomayor has revealed herself to be the liberal everyone knew her to be. But the fact that everyone was in on the lie is just further evidence of the sham Supreme Court hearings have become. They are a nonviolent and fairly bloodless cousin to totalitarian show trials, where everyone follows a script and politicians pretend to be “gravely concerned” and “shocked” upon “discovering” things they already knew.

And that’s why Kagan should be the hero of this tale. She has vociferously argued that the “Bork hearings were great . . . the best thing that ever happened to constitutional democracy.” She has lamented how, ever since, the hearings process has become nothing more that “a repetition of platitudes.” Kagan once implored senators to dig deep into the nominee’s “constitutional views and commitments.”

Alas, it doesn’t look like Kagan will be following the Kagan standard. On Tuesday morning, she distanced herself as best she could from those views. And when asked by Sen. Jeff Sessions whether she is a “legal progressive” — something pretty much all objective observers and her own friends and former colleagues know her to be — the brilliant and scholarly Kagan claimed to have no idea what the term even means.

After his rejection by the Senate, Bork wrote a masterful book, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. The title of the book about Kagan might well be titled The Tempting of Kagan: The Political Seduction of the Process.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

 
 © National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved.

 
 

3207  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: June 30, 2010, 07:23:37 PM
From the New England Journal.  The lead article!  That is why I hate this journal.  No political agenda here - yeah right.

***Published at www.nejm.org June 30, 2010 (10.1056/NEJMp1006890) 

Bracing for the Impact of Expanded Second Amendment Rights

Julie D. Cantor, J.D.
 
Otis McDonald thought he needed a gun. Not just any gun. Something more agile than his hunting shotguns. Something to deter the seedy element that had, over the years, infected his Chicago neighborhood with drugs and crime from threatening his life and breaking into his home yet again. He thought he needed a handgun. But city laws that effectively banned handgun possession by private citizens stood in his way.

Two years ago, McDonald agreed to be the lead plaintiff in a case orchestrated to challenge those laws as violations of the Second Amendment. The lawsuit began the very day the Supreme Court laid the constitutional groundwork for it in District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision it announced after a nearly 70-year hiatus from Second Amendment jurisprudence. In Heller, a five-to-four decision in which the justices split along familiar philosophical lines, the Court struck down a Washington, DC, ordinance that, among other things, banned handguns. It held that the Second Amendment includes the right of individuals to possess firearms, including handguns, at home for self-defense. But because Heller involved federal law, the case left open the question of whether the Second Amendment affects state and local government action. Most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights' protections do.

(Table)

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

   Number of Murders and Justifiable Homicides Committed with Handguns.
 
 
 
We now have the answer. On June 28, in another five-to-four decision that mirrored the Heller voting, the Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporated" the right described in Heller. Over the past 50 years, the Court has used that clause to extend enumerated federal rights, and a plurality of justices followed that approach in this case. The "right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" is now "fully applicable" to the states. The case shifts the constitutional landscape, and its five opinions — collectively clocking in at over 200 pages — illustrate sharp divisions in the justices' views of history, the judicial role, and constitutional law.

Justice Samuel Alito's plurality opinion, referencing a physician-assisted–suicide case, explained that the right described in Heller is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"1 and is "among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence, which no other justice joined, argued that a different phrase within the Fourteenth Amendment, the Privileges or Immunities Clause, created the better analytic framework for deciding the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. Although McDonald and his fellow petitioners favored that approach, the plurality passed on the opportunity, which would have required disturbing a line of cases that dates to the post–Civil War period. (If the petitioners' goal was to convince the Court to revive that theory — and they devoted nearly their entire 72-page brief to arguing for it — they won the battle but lost the war.) Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia wrote for themselves in dueling opinions. Justice Stevens's dissent, the coda to his career, offered a fluid view of "liberty" and suggested that a focus on "deeply rooted" rights was flawed, since it could sanction racist laws. And in a characteristically biting concurrence, Justice Scalia dismantled Justice Stevens's approach and lambasted certain "liberty" cases, such as those addressing abortion and gay rights, as unconstrained exercises in judicial lawmaking in which judges impose their moral values and, consequently, undercut democracy.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in an impassioned dissent that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor joined, proffered a states'-rights view usually embraced by the Court's conservative wing and argued that Heller should be overturned, or at least not extended. In his view, the Court "should not look to history alone," especially in cases like this one, for which the historical record is mixed, in its decision making — it should "consider the basic values that underlie a constitutional provision and their contemporary significance" as well as "the relevant consequences and practical justifications" of a decision.

Like Justice Breyer, physicians are well aware that esoteric questions of constitutional law may have real-world implications. Gun violence is a major public health concern, resulting in more than 30,000 deaths and about twice as many injuries annually. The cost of gun violence is prohibitive. Scholars estimate that its yearly total tops $100 billion.2 Handguns are particularly troubling. Research links their presence to substantially increased risks of suicide and homicide, especially for women living in abusive settings. And for children, "gun safety" is an oxymoron. To the extent that McDonald means more handguns, physicians have reason to be concerned. But any hysteria that this case inspires should, for the moment, be tempered.

In the aftermath of Heller, many in the public health community worried that the decision would unleash a torrent of guns on the public, bringing sudden, high spikes in rates of injury and death. Though it is too early to be completely reassured, dire predictions have not yet been realized. Heller did not create an unfettered right. As the Court explained in that opinion, it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Thus far, it has not given lower courts a license to annihilate gun-control laws; in the more than 200 post-Heller federal and state cases, courts have left the legal status quo largely intact.3 Perhaps coincidentally, recent rates of violent crime have been at historic lows.

Conventional wisdom suggests that, even after McDonald, most gun-control laws will withstand scrutiny. In the Court`s view, its decision "does not imperil every law regulating firearms," and quoting Heller, it perceives no threat to "such longstanding regulatory measures as 'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,' 'laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'" Total handgun bans will probably fall — and their effectiveness is uncertain in any event — but otherwise the impact of this sea change in constitutional law may be modest. Still, it will be years, even decades, before that conclusion is clear. And the possibility of more guns in homes, especially handguns, is troubling, as is the lack of guidance the Court's opinion offered to lower courts. For their part, physicians should remain vigilant and address gun issues, such as access and storage, with patients, especially those who may be suicidal, have survived domestic violence, or live with children. We can only hope that in hindsight, bleak post-Heller, post-McDonald forecasts will seem hyperbolic.

Otis McDonald has not won yet. A lower court will now decide whether the laws that thwarted him are constitutional. But McDonald is surely a foothold to victory. In all likelihood, he will get his gun. Ironically, that handgun may not be the panacea he seeks. It will not address the root causes of the drug- and gang-related crime plaguing his neighborhood. Its promise of safety may be illusory, and it may just increase the risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental injury and death of those who live in or, like his grandchildren, visit his home. It may also create legal problems. If he kills a neighborhood thug in self-defense, the odds that he will be held blameless are slim: in every year from 2004 through 2008, less than 2.5% of handgun-related killings by private citizens were deemed justifiable homicides.4 McDonald has, however, secured a measure of immortality; he will forever be associated with the case that bears his name.

That case marks another installment in high-minded constitutional debates. But we should not forget that the collateral damage from firearms, especially handguns, is breathtaking. In the face of staggering statistics about eminently avoidable gun-related harms, perhaps the wisest play for this newfound constitutional right is not to use it at all.


Disclosure forms provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.


Source Information

From Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, Santa Monica, CA, and the UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles.

This article (10.1056/NEJMp1006890) was published on June 30, 2010, at NEJM.org.

References


Washington v. Gluckberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).
Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Gun violence: the real costs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Post-Heller litigation summary. San Francisco: Legal Community Against Violence, 2010. (Accessed June 30, 2010, at http://www.lcav.org/content/post-heller_summary.pdf)
Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009. (Accessed June 30, 2010, at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html.)

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.****
 
3208  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: June 30, 2010, 07:12:34 PM
Yes one would think so.  It does seem turned upside down when one thinks of it.  In what other country are poor people FAT?
I suppose that is one of the knocks against inexpensive fast food, the types we see rapant in poor neighborhoods - that it is very high in calories.
No one goes to these places to eat salad and yogurt.
Some of the cheapest foods are fattening.  Like pasta, cakes, rice.
I think that has something to do with it as well as cultural, social etc.

It beats burning the calories like the illegals who after some years here will look more like us I guess.

3209  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Bribery-a curse on humanity on: June 29, 2010, 09:56:02 AM
The Russian spy ring has features a lot like what I and Katherine go through with the people who have moved in our neighborhood.  There are several of them. Same thing.  They blend in with the neighbors raise their kids act like they are just law abiding citizens paying the bills like everyone else.  All the while they watch our mail box, watch the house wait for any opportunity to get in, watch anyone who comes into the house, such as work men etc.  Then approach those people if they think they can bribe them to serve a useful purpose for the next time they come into the house.  We were recently robbed again of jewelry this way.
The power of the bribe is unfortunately and sadly totally unstoppable.  I am not aware of anyone who doesn't seem to be able to be bribed so it seems.

What did Bamster call it?  "The culture of the birbe" when speaking of other countries?  Sad truth is it is a way of life everwhere including here.

So  neighbors and friends of the spy ring are stunned about the Russian spying. All I can say to them is they have learned a good lesson in life from this.
As I have myself over the last ten years.
3210  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 27, 2010, 01:56:51 PM
I know Jews are unhappy with this.  Whether many of them would vote for a Republican in 12 is still not likely IMHO although I would love to be wrong here.

This presents a real opportunity for a Republican to reach out for Jewish voters.  We are a small lot but many (not me) have mucho money and influence and the power that comes with it.  I firmly believe Jews helped get the ONE into power.  Not just Soros but others.

This to me represents how Bamster can con those around him into thinking he is for them.  This to me is an example of a pathological liar and possibly some sort of psychopath or personailty disorder.  I am very glad some Jews, at least, are waking up and realizing what the other 20% like myself, and more prominent conservative Jews such as David Horowitz, Bernie Goldberg, Aaron Klein, Marc Levin, Crafty Dog ( grin) and others already know.
3211  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 26, 2010, 04:00:10 PM
I like the psychanalytic thoughts.  I don't like psychobable for purposes of excusing behavior.  Like, "well the guy was abused as a child" so child abusing as an adult is therefore forgivable.

But I do think this kind of analysis is necessary to help understand what we are dealing with in this case.  Particularly for those of us who are convinced this guy is hell bent on destroying the country.

The ONE is certainly some sort of megalomaniac.  I am convinced he has some sort of personality disorder as well.

I think most personality disorders typically include lack of insight to oneself and thus a real inability to see when one is wrong.  It is always "someone elses" fault. 
Schizotypal is interesting. I guess I could read up on this one but I doubt this fits him as much as something more like narcisstic,, or psycopathic personality disorder.  Bamster doesn't strike me so much as weird, eccentric or odd, as widely overconfident that he can fix the world, that he always knows what is best, true lack of guilt, true lack of real compassion, grandiosity, he is smarter than the entire world,
deceit, pathological lying, overt charm, and ability to lull people into like some sort of web, manipulative, using of other people's for one's own purpose until no longer convenient. 
These are all characteristics of personality disorders.  I think the author is thinking that his delusions of grandeur are so fantastic he almost has to be somewhere along the scale of psychotically delusional.  Perhaps.  But shcizotypals are not I don't think likely to manipulate and charm others so easily.  And true of psychopaths they are often very charming and such good liars that one does not know how much damage they have inflicted on those around them until - it is too late.  Sound familiar???

Clinton certainly had some of the narcistic personality disorder traits with regard to self love, pathologic lying, deceit, phoney emotion or empathy except when such displays suited his goals.  I don't think he ever had any guilt for any of his behavior.  It was all the fault of his political enemies.  His only remorse was clearly only insomuch as it annoyed or irritated him personally or affected his image.  I could never completely say he was totally a narcisstic personality disorder though. 

At least my take anyway.

As for this:

"Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will
not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama
will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today."

So far this is proven correct.   He has only gotten away with it because of large majorities in both houses.  The MSM loves to shout about his acheivements at getting through health care and now financial reform.  We all know this happened not because of him but rather *despite* him.

And this is precisely why, if the Republicans can even win one house and stop his agenda I believe and have posted that IMO he will fold like an injured pelican stuck in oil.  I think he is incapable of anything other than pursuing his delusions.  And that makes him even more dangerous and ever more the reason he must be stopped. 



3212  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: June 26, 2010, 01:11:02 PM
"of their children's system."

should be:  of their children' *status*.
3213  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 26, 2010, 01:08:33 PM
Now we agree.  grin Thanks for your response.

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

I agree and have posted this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is significant, outrageous. angry

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



   

 
3214  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN-stop kidding me on: June 26, 2010, 11:08:31 AM
"I don't quite get it; while I am not in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, we already did it once."

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

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

As for raising the number for legal citizenship pathway I have been quite clear I personally am completely against that.  What I am for is encouraging legal Americans to work harder and stop relying on 1/2 of the country to continue supporting them through taxation - period.  It is really quite simple.  The problem is the politicians are for themselves - not for the good of this nation.   
3215  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Too few "clinics" target obesity - on: June 25, 2010, 12:15:18 PM
I wonder if the fact that many insurers as well as Medicare do not pay providers for treating people who are overweight has anyhting to do with this.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

More information

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

— Robert Preidt

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

Last Updated: June 25, 2010

Copyright © 2010 HealthDay. All rights reserved.***
3216  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN question on: June 25, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
You state:

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think we should do??


3217  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 25, 2010, 10:39:58 AM
U.S. Department of Illegal Alien Labor
By Michelle Malkin  •  June 25, 2010 08:49 AM

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3218  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russia-US "reset" on: June 24, 2010, 03:34:53 PM
If I wasn't crying out loud I would be laughing out loud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medvedev began his U.S. visit in California, where he toured Silicon Valley high-tech firms as part of his push to establish a high-tech center in Russia.***
3219  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: June 24, 2010, 02:51:23 PM
I guess I missed something here as teachers and police officers are generally not Fed empolyees but work for towns, cities, counties etc.

But I think my point about public sector unions is still the same.
3220  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glen Beck:show on unions on: June 24, 2010, 02:48:10 PM
I awoke in the middle of the night and turned on cable and the GB show pops up.  This was an interesting show about unions in America.
The untold story.  The rest of the story not told in liberal schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now thier strategy is almost a form of reverse racism.

3221  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 23, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
isabell,
I agree with 100%.
I was watching a person from that small town in Nebraska that wants to enforce illegal immigration law being interviewed.
She was so nervous so hesitant to speak the truth for fear of being called a bigot.  She starts off with the obligatory, "I am not a racist" line.  It is obvious illegals and the Dems in this country who want their votes are using the threat of the "racist" or "bigot" label like a gun to the heads of legal residents who speak up.  This is crazy.
***All empolyers in the USA should simply scour the world for people willing to work for less.
Hey why not?  We dcould replace the entire work force of the whole country.
So what if they are illegal.  Or why not make the legal and give them work visas.***

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

The American way, yes JDN?

 
3222  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction:above is part2 this is final part3 on: June 23, 2010, 11:19:06 AM

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

< Previous Page 1 2 3
3223  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / part one on: June 23, 2010, 11:14:29 AM
 Mort Zuckerman: World Sees Obama as Incompetent and Amateur
The president is well-intentioned but can't walk the walk on the world stage
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted June 18, 2010
President Obama came into office as the heir to a great foreign policy legacy enjoyed by every recent U.S. president. Why? Because the United States stands on top of the power ladder, not necessarily as the dominant power, but certainly as the leading one. As such we are the sole nation capable of exercising global leadership on a whole range of international issues from security, trade, and climate to counterterrorism. We also benefit from the fact that most countries distrust the United States far less than they distrust one another, so we uniquely have the power to build coalitions. As a result, most of the world still looks to Washington for help in their region and protection against potential regional threats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2 3 Next Page >
3224  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: June 23, 2010, 11:08:45 AM
Mort is clearly not thrilled with Joe-Bama's (my nick name) approach to Israel.  I would guess that has some cause for this piece from an otherwise liberal/Democrat Jewish writer

Part one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2 3 Next Page >
3225  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 23, 2010, 10:59:59 AM
Actually I wan't trying to correct you.  I was just wondering where the concept of a "Pashtun" country came from.
Only because I never heard about it before.  It seems like an intriguing idea but the perception I am left from the MSM is that this region is filled with a bunch of decentralized tribes.
3226  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: June 22, 2010, 11:16:53 AM
Doug,
I read the piece.
I am not an economist but even so nearly everything he says seems wrong headed and stubborn just to support his present day liberal desires.
He is totally nuts.
Or according to his logic we should be praying for a gigantic war with tax rates skyrocketing to the 90% range for the highest incomes.
The war must devastate our competitors, China, Europe, etc. so we emerge on top like 1945.
Like you I don't want to spend any more time on this nonsense.



3227  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Roger Freidman is a dupe on: June 21, 2010, 02:26:27 PM
From Roger Freidman:

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

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


John Mayer would know she didn't write the songs as she claimed.  He didn't/doesn't write his either.
3228  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 21, 2010, 12:35:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Durand_Line_Border_Between_Afghanistan_And_Pakistan.jpg

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

Where did this come from?

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

"while taking out Pak's nuke program."

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

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

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


3229  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / corr2:"make it legal" on: June 21, 2010, 10:29:52 AM
not illegal.
sorry for 2 mistakes.
3230  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / corr.:"10% less pay" on: June 21, 2010, 10:28:57 AM
eom
3231  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 21, 2010, 10:10:18 AM
"As a patient, or as a client, or as an employer, don't you want someone who goes the extra 5-10%?"

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

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

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

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

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



 
3232  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Example of how music crime works? on: June 20, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
I am not sure if this is example of how organized crime in the entertainment industry works or just coicidence.

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

I cannot get this segment to print:

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

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

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


 
ccp
Power User

Posts: 1264


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
 
 Report to moderator    71.250.236.43 
 
 
 
Body-by-Guinness
Power User

Posts: 1948


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

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

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

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

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

Added Romanoff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Romanoff statement

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

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

Here are the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 1948

3233  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 20, 2010, 02:42:43 PM
I posted this on June 2 on the cognitive dissonance thread while posting of Obama:

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

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

I also stated this in our house.

I don't know if coincidence or not.

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

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

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

3234  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 20, 2010, 02:25:31 PM
"He gave me a quizzical look and said they "don't work as hard". 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3235  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 19, 2010, 01:27:02 PM
BBG,

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

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

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

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

Illegals - go home.  Your welcome here after you get in line.  Not before.  EOM.
3236  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: June 18, 2010, 03:40:17 PM
""Nations have passed away and left no traces, And history gives the naked cause of it - One single simple reason in all cases; They fell because their peoples were not fit."-Rudyard Kipling"

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

We are fat on our own success.

The end for us too??
3237  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 18, 2010, 02:35:39 PM
Well no.  It is not quite clear and no it is not futile.
You conveniently leave out the rest of the sentence,
"*and* subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

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

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

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

How does one make a new amendment?

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



3238  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ENOUGH!I say, as I think *most* Americans on: June 18, 2010, 12:45:10 PM
Lets keep giving it away like dopes.  anything for a darn vote!  Hey it ain't their money.
I don't want our country to be feared but I would like to be respected.  Not dumped on and abused.
I don't think Republicans are afraid/unwilling to confront illegals because they provide cheap labor.  I think they are afraid of offending Latino *voters*  Rove said republicans go after illegals and we lose Latino voters for generations.  However I think this country has crossed a threshold wherein a majority want the illegal invasion CRISES stopped now - yesterday!  The tipping or boiling-over point, so to speak, is the dismal economy.  People are not only thinking how we are being abused by foreigners invading our country but are *feeling the pain* of laying down their taxes, life savings,  for anchor baby benefits, like medicaid, food stamps, education property taxes, health care and more.   For God's sake with all the unempolyment why can't the real American born high school drop out/grad/college grad mow my lawn?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3239  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 18, 2010, 10:40:57 AM
"There are many different, legitimate, ways to intepret the Constitution.  Some of the most common include attempting to discern the original intent (as GM has done) and literalism (as I have done)."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Fred Elbel    Updated: 26 June, 2009***
3240  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 17, 2010, 09:52:21 AM
"it was the 14th amendment that gave that right"

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

3241  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 17, 2010, 09:48:41 AM
Recently I spoke to someone who has a lot of contact with big health insurance payers here in NJ.  He states the main reason health insurance is so high is the facility costs such as hospitals.  They have to recoup there losses in providing care to the uninsured.  They are only able to recoup half their costs.  Half of those costs are illegals.
So here in NJ the cost of insurance is in part so high because we are paying for the care of illegals.

It must be unbelievable in the Southwest.
3242  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 17, 2010, 09:42:21 AM
He is too "professorial".  He is too cool, calm, and not "emotional" enough.  He needs to show "anger".  These are examples of the left's 'criticism' of their guy.  It is never the message.  Just how it is delivered.  When the tax increases hit next year the economy will be crushed.  Hopefully the lame duck Congress will not be able to pass a host of more expensive legislation that will make the economy even more stressed as Marc Levin thinks.  Though I fear he is probably right that they will try to do this.

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

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

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

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



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

Video: BP's $20 billion cleanup fund

Video: Obama faces moratorium backlash

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

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

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

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

iReporter:Obama's speech too fuzzy on details

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

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

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

3243  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Giving, charity on: June 16, 2010, 11:25:11 AM
To me it depends on what they are giving to.  Gates is a globalist.  What we really need is more jobs and in the US people willing to work.  Is better tasting malaria pills such a great thing?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3244  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 16, 2010, 11:08:08 AM
***We already provide strategic security for Chinese mining interests in Afghanistan -- having been chumped by the Karzai government out of the gate. Now the Chinese will arrive in hordes, bribing and smiling.

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

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

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

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


3245  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: June 15, 2010, 11:40:46 AM
Maybe this could get them off the opium poppy for income.
3246  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 14, 2010, 12:07:42 PM
After some thought and offiers for low rates I re subscribed to the Economist.  It has some interesting stuff that I won't find elsewhere but there is clearly a leftist bent.
The authors pretend (IMO consciously or subconsciosly) to be objective and unbiased but they are not.  They basically right off the "right" as they call them as basically the party of no and a bunch of quacks.  Fox is considered total fringe and Beck though not mentioned by name would be considered wacko.

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

http://www.economist.com/printedition/
3247  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 14, 2010, 09:53:50 AM
***David Nesenoff, the Long Island rabbi who triggered Thomas's resignation by asking for her thoughts on Israel, says he has received death threats and more than 25,000 e-mails, many of them obscene and hate-filled. One called him a "dirty Jew," saying: "Hittler [sic] was right! Time for you to go back in the oven!"

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

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

Finally a liberal Jew who is seeing the liberal Jews who would even sell out Israel to support their liberal agenda which is a more socialist (progressive, liberal whatever label you want to put on it) world order. Does the yiddish word mazzoltov apply?  It's about time some of them wake up and stop worrying about who nice, and humanitarian they need to portray themselves out of guilt or hypocracy.  One can be a good person, a good citizen without having to be masochistic dope.
3248  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 13, 2010, 03:53:31 PM
"Like most issues; there are two sides...
Don't single out Helen Thomas"

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

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

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

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

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

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



 
3249  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Correction"*n*ow";not"*l*ow Dem..." on: June 13, 2010, 12:38:04 PM
correction:made.eom
3250  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rabbi Nesnoff.On Kurtz.Hallalueh!!! on: June 13, 2010, 12:36:09 PM
It was intersting to see Rabbi Nesenoff on Howard Kurtz this AM.  He defined himself as a liberal NY Jew admired Helen Thomas and did not set out to "ambush her".  He also expressed his anxiety over his being attacked rather than Helen Thomas.  What I didn't expect was his mention that he will have to re-examine his low Democratic party identification.  In other words liberal Jews must have been some of the ones attacking HIM for videoing Helen Thomas.  He is now soul searching questioning which party he should be a member of.  I say it is about time Liberal Jews wake up.  This is further evidence that at least some Jews will wake up and recognize Republicans, Tea partiers are NOT worse than Nazis.  They are not the enemy.  This was for me a hallulueh moment.  The first time I ever saw a liberal Jewish person actually question this on the air!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 [65] 66 67 ... 90
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!