Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 24, 2017, 10:59:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101161 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1087 Members
Latest Member: R.K
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 137
3651  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / There is nothing wrong with single motherhood if the mother on: June 16, 2013, 10:53:52 AM
is responsible and not expecting taxpayers to pick up the tab.  Unfortunately single mothers who get government pay checks form a huge voter block.  They will nearly ALL vote for Hillary.    This article celebrates food stamps by celebrating Rosa Diaz who of course is just trying to feed her children. It sounds like she has NO other income and the only money for food is food stamps.  I thought food stamps are supposed to supplement not be the total sum to buy food.

Deep in the article is this, "For Diaz, who is five months pregnant, this means less anxiety about being able to feed her family all month long".  Instead of outrage we are supposed to accept the food stamp program as a blessing offered to feed *the children*.

Or this line, "At $384 a month, she usually pitched in an extra $100 of her own money to keep her family fed."  As though adding $25 bucks a week of her "own money" is doing US a favor!  Folks most of the time we are being robbed.  I doubt half of the food stamp program could be considered legitimate.  sad

****Food stamp hike helps families cope

$210M is likely to flow through Tenn.'s economy

Jul. 1

An increase in food stamp benefits in April under the federal stimulus package has helped single mother Rosa Diaz, 21, stock the pantry for her family, including her 2-year-old son, Reco Diaz, and her sister. BILLY KINGSLEY / THE TENNESSEAN

An increase in food stamp benefits in April under the federal stimulus package has helped single mother Rosa Diaz, 21, stock the pantry for her family, including her 2-year-old son, Reco Diaz, and her sister. BILLY KINGSLEY / THE TENNESSEAN
Written by

Bonna Johnson


Who will benefit from the nearly $5 billion in federal stimulus money that is expected to flow into Tennessee? The Tennessean goes to the front lines for a weekly report on how the money is being spent. Read more at


The food stamp program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) last October, although most people still refer to the monthly benefits as food stamps. In April, the federal stimulus program increased monthly benefits about 13 percent.

SNAP benefits can be used to purchase these items:
• Breads and cereals
• Fruits and vegetables
• Meats, fish, poultry
• Dairy products
• Seeds and plants that produce food for the household to eat

But not these items:
• Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
• Pet food
• Soap, paper products and household supplies
• Vitamins and medicines
• Food that will be eaten in the store
• Hot foods

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture


The food stamp program in Tennessee has grown dramatically as more households seek assistance in the worsening economy and as monthly payments got a boost in April through the federal stimulus package.

Month | Individuals | Households | Food stamps
May 2008 — 910,872 — 411,010 — $93.4 million
March 2009 — 1.06 million — 487,784 — $122 million
April 2009 — 1.08 million — 489,680 — $144 million
May 2009 — 1.09 million — 500,059 — $146 million

SOURCE: Tennessee Department of Human Services


Slowly cruising the aisles of her favorite grocery store, Rosa Diaz kept an eye out for specials to help her stock up on staples, like fruit juice and packaged snacks for her 2-year-old son.

"That's a decent price," Diaz said as she placed a couple of large jugs of orange juice, advertised at two for $3, in her shopping cart.

Ever since her food stamps increased in April — from $289 a month to $375 — the 21-year-old single mother can afford to fill up the pantry for her small family, which also includes her younger sister, and keep them fed until she gets more money the next month.

"Sometimes we came to the end of the month, and we didn't have any more food," said Diaz, who stretches her monthly allotment by staying away from expensive name brands and searching out sales at the H.G. Hill store near her apartment in Madison.

As part of the federal stimulus package, families on food stamps across the country got a boost in their monthly benefits of about 13.6 percent. On average, a family of four received an $80 increase per month, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The stimulus-funded bump in food stamp payments is intended to not only increase the purchasing power of poor families but also help the economy grow by infusing millions more into grocery stores, which in turn pay their employees and suppliers, and trickling down to the farmers growing crops and even the truckers hauling food.

In just the first three months since the increase in payments, an additional $49 million in stimulus funds has been spent in food stamps in Tennessee, according to Michelle Mowery Johnson, spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Human Services.

Over the course of the next fiscal year, which started July 1, some $210 million in stimulus funds is expected to flow through the Tennessee economy because of the increase in food stamps, she said.

Anti-hunger advocates don't expect recipients to start purchasing caviar and Perrier now that they have more money.

"I think the impact is probably that it's going to help people buy more food," said Brian Zralek, executive director of Manna Inc., a Nashville anti-hunger group.

For Diaz, who is five months pregnant, this means less anxiety about being able to feed her family all month long. Indeed, benefit amounts have not kept pace with the cost of groceries and needed to be increased anyway, said Richard Dobbs, policy director for food stamps at DHS.

"It's really helped," Diaz said. "They needed to do something."

At the same time, though, it's not going to help her buy a new car or pay her rent, she said. The worsening economy, plus a bit of bad luck, has made it increasingly difficult for the young mother to make ends meet.

She had been working with her mother and sister in a cleaning business, but as the economy took a downward turn, they lost clients. After her car was wrecked recently, she's had no regular transportation to get to the clients they have left.

"Things are still hard," Diaz said.

A second stimulus

Diaz isn't the only one feeling the limitations of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus package approved in February. There is already talk of a second stimulus even as Republicans criticize the current package for not working and failing to create jobs.

Enrollment in the food stamp program, which was recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has been rising in Tennessee as layoffs mount and the Tennessee unemployment rate climbed above 10 percent in May.

While the aim is to help poor families weather the recession, they likely would have gotten the same increase in October, when the federal government usually applies a cost-of-living adjustment anyway, Dobbs said. Because of the April increase, there won't be another increase this year, he said.

At the same time, though, he sees the higher payments as a way to help protect the jobs of cashiers and shelf stockers. And, "the more benefit we provide to (recipients) to purchase food, that frees up more income to pay rental expenses or utility bills or medical bills," Dobbs said.

Many grocers, though, have not noticed the extra injection of money into the economy and said it may take more time.

"The initial thought is that they haven't seen a direct impact from the food stamp increase," said Jarron Springer, president of the Tennessee Grocers and Convenience Store Association.

Christy Davis, a clerk with Johnny Howell Produce at the Nashville Farmers Market, said she's not noticed any change now that her food stamp customers have more to spend. About one-third of sales of Howell's farm-fresh produce are paid through food stamps, she said.

At the Madison H.G. Hill, business is up, but not so much from higher food stamp payments, said owner Todd Reese. "More people are going to the grocery store instead of eating out," he said.

Pump primer

Some economists credit an increase in food stamp amounts — along with unemployment benefits — as being the most effective way to prime the economy's pump.

"People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks," wrote Mark Zandi, an economist with Moody's, in a 2008 report. "These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients."

Infrastructure spending, no matter how "shovel-ready" the projects, won't help the economy so quickly, Zandi wrote in a forecast earlier this year.

Critics, though, say higher food stamp payments won't help the economy grow faster and instead will expand welfare spending to unaffordable levels.

"Every dollar Congress hands out from food stamps must be taxed or borrowed from someone else," said Brian Riedl, a senior federal budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, a critic of the stimulus package.

"You're taking water out of one side of the pool and dumping it into another side of the pool, but you haven't raised the water level."

Raising food stamp payments may be a humane policy, Riedl said, "but that doesn't mean you're growing the economy any faster."

It's perfectly fair to say you don't want people to starve, Riedl said, and that's what officials should use as a line of argument instead of claiming that the increase in food stamp payments will stimulate economic growth.

For Makeesha Ayodele, 30, it all comes down to feeding her two children, ages 10 and 4.

At $384 a month, she usually pitched in an extra $100 of her own money to keep her family fed.

When her payment rose to $440 in April, she could use some of that extra hundred bucks "to help pay part of my rent and keep the cell phone on," said Ayodele, who was back at the Nashville food stamps office last week trying to get back on the program after losing her benefits in May.

Contact Bonna Johnson at 615-726-5990 or****

3652  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Paid as full time government employee AND side consultant. on: June 16, 2013, 10:39:26 AM
This is legal?

What is this? huh

****Weiner wife Abedin being probed over employment status
By GEOFF EARLE, Bureau Chief
Last Updated: 1:31 AM, June 15, 2013
Posted:  8:15 PM, June 14, 2013

Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin

WASHINGTON — One of the Senate’s most aggressive investigators is probing longtime Hillary Rodham Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s employment status, asking how she got a sweetheart deal to be a private six-figure consultant while still serving as a top State Department official.

Abedin, one of Clinton’s most loyal aides, is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, who’s in the midst of a vigorous effort to beat back his own scandal and become mayor.

The inquiry by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), compiled in a three-page letter to Abedin and Secretary of State John Kerry, adds drama to Weiner’s bid.

Abedin has been essential to his attempt to move past his sexting scandal.

The couple hauled in as much as $350,000 in outside income on top of Abedin’s $135,000 government salary after Weiner quit Congress amid a sexting scandal when he got caught sending out Tweets of his crotch.

Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff when Clinton was secretary of state, later became a “special government employee” who was able to haul in cash as a private contractor.

The change in status came to light only last month. Abedin took on the new assignment after she gave birth to son Jordan and began working from New York.

One of the clients she did consulting work for while on the government payroll was Teneo Holdings, a firm founded by longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Band.

Grassley, the top Judiciary Committee Republican, wrote that he was concerned Abedin’s status “blurs the line between public- and private-sector employees, especially when employees receive full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work.”

He peppered Abedin and Kerry with 13 questions about her employment. Among them: “Who authorized the change in status in your official title?” and “Who was made aware of the change in status?”

A State Department official, noted there were 100 such consultants at the agency, saying, “Miss Abedin’s status was approved through the normal process.”

The official couldn’t immediately answer who signed off on the consulting deal, saying Abedin submitted it to the ethics office in June of last year.

A person close to Abedin said she voluntarily disclosed that she worked for Hillary Clinton personally – “to allow Huma to begin planning for [Clinton’s] activities post-State,” as well as for the Clinton foundation and Teneo Holdings.

The person added that Teneo conducts “no business” with State and that Abedin “did not provide ‘political intelligence.’”

One source diagnosed the situation this way: “She has the Clinton disease. When your husband gets knocked down, get up right away or else.”

Grassley’s letter quotes from Teneo’s Web site, on which the firm calls itself the “next chapter in strategic advisory.”

“In what ways did the department interact with the companies for which you consulted?” the letter asks

Grassley suggested Abedin was providing clients “political intelligence.”****
3653  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cheney on NSA IRS on: June 16, 2013, 10:29:12 AM
In Rare Interview, Dick Cheney Champions NSA Surveillance
National JournalBy Matt Berman | National Journal – 4 hrs ago...
Sunday show obsessives got a bit of a Father's Day treat on Sunday: Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to talk about, among other things, the NSA data collection program. In something of a Greatest Hits interview, the former vice president threw everything he has behind government surveillance. And, despite looking a bit rusty when his cell phone went off on air, he's still got it.

The interview kicked off with Cheney, who was introduced by Wallace as "the driving force behind increased government surveillance" in the Bush administration, calling leaker Edward Snowden a "traitor," and insinuating that he may have had help from within the NSA. Asked if Snowden was spying on behalf of China, the former vice president said he was "deeply suspicious," and that the U.S. will "need to be really aggressive" with China to extradite Snowden.

Cheney also pushed aside Sen. Rand Paul's reservations about the NSA program that he made on Fox News Sunday last week. When asked why the NSA has to "vacuum up" information on ordinary citizens, Cheney laughed off the suggestion, saying that "it's just a big bag of numbers that has been collected." And, getting right into the swing of being back defending government surveillance, Cheney slipped into the first-person plural: "The allegation is not that we get all this personal information on Aunt Fanny or Chris Wallace, that's not the way it works." Cheney also took some ownership—or at least authorship—of the data-collection, saying that he "worked with [former Director of National Intelligence] Mike Hayden when we set this program up."

And while the former vice-president had many nice things to say about the "fine" men leading the NSA, he had no kind words for the president. "I don't pay attention, frankly, to a lot of what Barack Obama says...I'm obviously not a fan." He also said that President Obama is "dead wrong" in suggesting that the War on Terror is winding down, and that "in terms of credibility, I don't think he has credibility."

And, just for good measure, Cheney threw in his two cents on the IRS scandal: "One of the worst abuses of power imaginable."

If Cheney wasn't enough for your Father's Day morning, you were in luck. As the former vice-president exited, Karl Rove entered the show's panel to talk Syria. Because what better way is there to spend Father's Day than to pretend it's still 2005. *****
3654  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Giving, charity, tithing on: June 16, 2013, 10:13:31 AM
I recall over 40 years ago my father telling my about a physician who was involved with the American Cancer Society who boasted about using donated ACS money to refurbish his office with furniture and medical equipment.

He vowed never to donate money to them.

Shakespeare said money is the root of all evil.

Someone on radio recently quoted Ann Rand saying the money is the root of much good. 

Both are true.

I have concluded people are not more evil than in the past.  We can just see it more now with the some of the revelations.  Unfortunately even with these revelations this is just the tiny tip of the ice berg.  Human nature does not change.   People have always been this way.
3655  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / New England Journal of Medicine author on: June 15, 2013, 04:37:33 AM
argues doctors should not force feed Guantanamo prisoners.  Mr. Smith argues the opposite:

*****National Review Online

July 1 Issue

Doctors Wrong to Help Guantanamo Hunger Strikers Strike

By  Wesley J. Smith

June 14, 2013 11:24 AM


I previously weighed in on the controversy over force-feeding Guantanamo prisoners. When their health is seriously deteriorating–but not before–forced feeding is right. Here is part of what I said then:

Look at it this way: If an inmate hanged himself and the guards could save him, should they instead stand back and let him swing?  Should doctors refuse to resuscitate a self-hanged prisoner because he clearly “wanted to die” or left a note refusing treatment?  Or, if prisoners decided to bash their heads repeatedly into a wall as a means of protest, should officials be prevented from restraining them and doctors be ethically prohibited from stanching the bleeding and binding up their wounds?  Of course not.

If that is true, it seems to me that the same rules apply to hunger strikes when they reach the point of health/life endangerment. And claiming that the strikers are not committing suicide, but willing to die to attain their political purpose–which would be political suicide–seems to me to be a distinction without a practical difference.

After my original post appeared, I was invited to debate the issue on BBC World Service. During that exchange, my doctor debate opponent said that Guantanamo doctors should actively assist hunger strikers by palliating their discomfort and otherwise help them keep the strike going without harming their health.

“That’s political activism, not medical ethics!,” I exploded. “Helping hunger strikers strike is not a doctor’s job.“

An article just published in the New England Journal of Medicine against forced feeding Guantanamo hunger strikers is also political, indeed, one aimed at influencing U.S. policy generally beyond the reaction to the hunger strike. From, “Guantanamo Bay: A Medical Ethics-free Zone?” by George J. Annas and others:

Guantanamo is not just going to fade away, and neither is the stain on medical ethics it represents. U.S. military physicians require help from their civilian counterparts to meet their ethical obligations and maintain professional ethics. In April the American Medical Association appropriately wrote the secretary of defense that “forced feeding of [competent] detainees violates core ethical values of the medical profession.” But more should be done. We believe that individual physicians and professional groups should use their political power to stop the force-feeding, primarily for the prisoners’ sake but also for that of their colleagues. They should approach congressional leaders, petition the DOD to rescind its 2006 instruction permitting force-feeding, and state clearly that no military physician should ever be required to violate medical ethics. We further believe that military physicians should refuse to participate in any act that unambiguously violates medical ethics.

Military physicians who refuse to follow orders that violate medical ethics should be actively and strongly supported. Professional organizations and medical licensing boards should make it clear that the military should not take disciplinary action against physicians for refusing to perform acts that violate medical ethics. If the military nonetheless disciplines physicians who refuse to violate ethical norms when ordered to do so, civilian physician organizations, future employers, and licensing boards should make it clear that military discipline action in this context will in no way prejudice the civilian standing of the affected physician.

Guantanamo has been described as a “legal black hole.” As it increasingly also becomes a medical ethics-free zone, we believe it’s time for the medical profession to take constructive political action to try to heal the damage and ensure that civilian and military physicians follow the same medical ethics principles.

I am aware that Annas’ opinion reflects the views of the bioethics and medical establishments. But urging military doctors to violate orders is no small thing–particularly since this isn’t a Mengele-type situation, where such refusal would be morally required. Indeed,the intervention is only necessary because of self-inflicted harm and the feeding seeks to prevent death and destruction of health, not cause it. In this sense, it is not the same thing at all as a cancer patient refusing chemotherapy.

Moreover, in this situation, Annas is urging that military doctors help the striking prisoners–at least some of whom are implacable enemies of the United States. This isn’t a case of tree sitters at Berkeley.

Here’s my bottom line:
1.The significant policy questions some raise about Guantanamo Bay are legitimate.
2.But Guantanamo inmates (and other prisoners generally) are not fully autonomous.
3.Prison authorities are responsible for the wellbeing of those under their authority.
4.Hunger striking is a legitimate political method of protest.
5.A prison doctor should not use her or his professional skills to facilitate such a strike to make it more effective–nor impede it–until and unless the prisoner’s life or health is at significant risk.
6.Forced feeding to prevent death is a legitimate medical act in the same way preventing a suicide attempter from dying is a legitimate medical act.
7.Allowing a striking prisoner to die would be unethical.
8.Prison authorities have the duty to maintain proper order within the facility, including, if necessary, force feeding hunger-striking prisoners in the most humane way practicable.
9.If that requires physician participation, so be it.

In short, nothing Annas and his co-authors wrote changed my mind.

© National Review Online 2013. All Rights Reserved.

3656  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 14, 2013, 10:52:18 PM
Yes .  He is going to ram as much liberal agenda through as he can over the next 3.5 yrs. 
Now we are going to get involved in Syria.  He we go again with the tail that wags the dog.

Have you noticed the Clintons in the news nearly every day now?

Bush Clinton again?   As much as I don't agree with Bush at least he and his family seem honorable.   I can't say the same for either of the Clintons or Obama.
3657  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyberwar and American Freedom on: June 13, 2013, 10:27:10 PM
"There are right ways to go about whistleblowing."


What is a right way in this case?

Who else but the media would he go to in order to avoid a cover-up?
3658  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 13, 2013, 10:21:59 PM
"Non-citizens easily get drivers licenses in MN, by either disclosing their status or by simply checking the citizen box and getting it on their license."

What a joke!  On us. angry

"If most of your family is in, uh, Canada, let's say, and uniting your family is the top priority, then go home and be with your family"

Exactly.  People come here and have babies ok the baby is a citizen by having been born here but the parents never will be.   Ok you can stay with your baby in this country but you will never have the privileges of citizenship and never be eligible for any government benefits.  No one is forcing you to stay and no one forced you to come here. 

I can hear it now - oh but your only hurting the children.  What about the country we are leaving to our children and those who came here legally. 

We don't even have leaders who are standing up to this.  Only those who are appeasing. 

BTW, what is this gay marriage amendment doing in an immigration bill?  I want this abuse of us to stop. 
3659  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 13, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
With regards to verifying who people are doctors offices do it all the time.   Usually they ask for insurance card and SSN.  I absolutely do not agree that it is our business what a person's SSN is.  I really don't know how that got started and seems to have become a standard. 

With the HIPPA laws being so strict about privacy it is probably reasonable we ask for some ID to ensure a person is who they say they are.

The 50%??? of us who pay taxes and work and who hire knowingly illegals for our gardens, our maids, our Kentucky Fried Chickens, our farms, our nannies.  We are just as much to blame as the those who go on the dole.   

Maybe some of all the above would be avoided if...

If government would simply make a simple and fair and lower across the board tax system, freaking simply enforce law already on the books and make them simpler and easier for everyone to understand maybe some of the stealing, the cheating, the graft, the skimming, the bribery, etc.  Maybe just SOME of it would go away. 

Does anyone follow what I am saying?  And I don't mean that in a confrontational way.  I am not sure if I am expressing my ideology my thoughts very well.

I would like a leader who wants a free and fair society with simple ethical and legal and clear cut boundaries.  One in which people are not encourage to cheat , those who do are held accountable (including the 1%).

The private sector cannot be allowed to run rampant or we get robber barons.  But government cannot operate on its own or we get tyranny.

Neither the left or the right seem to have the right balance.  NOR does the misguided middle which is all about "compromise".

There is another path.  Another way to get there.  The Tea Party is closer to it, but not completely. 

3660  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 13, 2013, 10:49:16 AM
The 40 million is a number from surveys done of Mexicans who would like to come to the US.

Do we know how many from other countries would like to come here?   

I agree not to bash Rubio.  I don't agree with not bashing Rove who seems to have the power to run things HIS way or the highway.  He is the guy who doesn't listen. 

As for the Bushes they are misguided.  They don't get we are in a ideological battle for the future of this country.  They play they are so high minded and nice and compromising.  Yet the Dems don't paly that way and they are slowly winning the battle.   The Bush philosophy is a losing philosophy.  So is Rove's it seems to me.

As for asking employers to as for an ID card before hiring someone doesn't seem like too much to ask.  If an employer makes a reasonable effort to check ID that should be enough.  He/SHe can't be blamed for being presented a false ID.

Doug do you let anyone rent from you without their name, maybe previous address, or their employer?

The government cannot do it alone when we are talking millions and millions of people here illegally.  (Even if they wanted to;  which they don't).

As for those already here and entrenched - ok hey can stay - but no family members being allowed in after them.  They can never be citizens for breaking the law the second they walked in over the boarder.

As for the children there is really only one choice.  They stay and are citizens.  They were born here. 

Now we can put this bill on a single page or two and burn in effigy the present 1000 page boondoggle of a bill with all sorts or payoffs hidden in it somewhere.   And so confusing so only armies of lawyers can figure it out and the politicians don't even know what's in it.  Let alone us.
3661  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Coulter - YES! on: June 12, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
My second post on this thread today.   I am an Ann Coulter fan again.  This is the best piece I have read of hers.  I
couldn't agree more.

My thoughts first:

1)  Republican party is run by fools.  Rove has got to go.  The Bushes are done.  Great Americans I like them all but H gave us Clinton and W gave us even worse.

2)  The Latino vote after Reagan's pardon went DOWN!  So why will it work now.  It won't.   Most are low wage and like most low wage workers Anglo or not they will vote for the party of government checks.

3)  Polls show Latinos are more interested in jobs - not more competition.  The very same argument I make to Blacks.  Why the hell are Blacks voting for a party that wants to open the more borders for foreigners to compete with them and drive down wages?  

4)  I think Republicans should start making these points.  Do we really want to flood the job market with more workers particularly low wage?  Overflow our schools systems even more?

5)  Get rid of this guy Rove - make Caddell chief if he will convert to our party.  Where did this guy Rove come from anyway and why does he seem to have so much influence.  Fox dumped Morris after his wrong call on the election yet we see Rove being asked about his opinion every time I turn on the tube.  OK he got a guy who couldn't string two sentences together President twice.  Good job.  What have you done lately?

*****Ann Coulter - June 12, 2013 - IF THE GOP IS THIS STUPID, IT DESERVES TO DIE
Home My Life Book a Speech Links Forum Follow Me on Twitter Archives  

June 12, 2013
Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

 This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

 It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

 As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

 The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

 Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

 No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.
 Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.

 In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.

 As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

 In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

 John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.
 Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.

 The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")

 Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

 Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

 Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

 A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."

 But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

 Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

 It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

 But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.

 And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

 Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.

1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500*****

3662  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 40 million more from Mexico would come here on: June 12, 2013, 10:55:05 AM
And to put this in perspective this is only Mexicans.  Include people from Central and South America, Caribbean, Africa, Asia....

Aren't there reports of 50K illegal Irish in NY?

It really is simple.  Stop people from hiring them.  They will stop coming.  Is that in the 1000 page bill?
3663  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: June 12, 2013, 10:12:31 AM
Couple of thoughts.  I don't really know if this is true or not.  I've posted before there absolutely is no shortage of doctors in urban areas though the same is not true in many rural areas.  Also the source of these numbers stands to gain big from reporting this.   There bread and butter is more medical school slots.  They along with many other medical organizations have a profound self interest.   Frankly I don't trust them.   OF course they are going to say we need more.  It is like a Democrat politician saying we need more taxes.   It is never enough.   Don't forget that many physicians come here from other countries.  By the thousands every year.  Ultimately nurse practitioners will continue to take over primary care and will eventually supplant physician roles in this.  It is inevitable.

There are even some who say that certain procedures need no longer be done by doctors.  Like colonoscopies.  Why not just have techs trained to do these for a lot less money?
3664  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / from scientific american on: June 11, 2013, 10:15:53 PM

Former NSA Whistleblower Sheds Light on the Science of Surveillance [Q&A]
Scientific AmericanBy Dina Fine Maron | Scientific American – Mon, Jun 10, 2013..

A National Security Agency whistleblower named Thomas Drake was indicted several years ago for providing information to the press on waste, fraud and bureaucratic dysfunction in the agency’s counterterrorism programs. The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Drake, an NSA senior executive, under the Espionage Act of 1917 for retaining allegedly classified information. Eventually, the felony charges against Drake were dropped, and he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, exceeding authorized use of a computer. Still, the DOJ’s strategy in that case may provide some clues as to what’s in store for Edward Snowden, a government contractor who exposed himself last weekend as the source for a widespread domestic communications story first reported by The Guardian. Drake spoke with Scientific American to shed some light on whistleblower prosecutions and the science behind surveillance.  An edited transcript of the conversation follows:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said it's not realistic nor would he want to listen to everyone's communications, so what can be done with all these phone records that the NSA is collecting?

The distinction here is metadata versus content. It’s like when you get physical snail mail, it has a certain shape, weight and type of envelope, and an address and a return address and a stamp and usually a date and routing numbers. And it’s going to a particular mailbox at a particular address—that’s all metadata. The content is what it’s inside the envelope. In a digital space the metadata is always associated with content. The content would be the actual phone call—the conversation. The fact is the metadata is far more valuable to them because it gives them an index of everything. If they want to, the data is available and the capability exists to store it, then later they can access the content as well with a warrant. You can learn a tremendous amount about people by looking at the metadata…phone records include location information. At that level you can track them as well and know who they speak with, the time of day and all of that. By definition a phone number is always associated with somebody or some business—believe me, subscribers all have names. Think of the White Pages; the White Pages equal metadata. If I store that, that gives the government a phenomenal power in secret to track all kinds of information about a person without going to content.

With all that data, it would take tremendous resources to scour that information even before we get to content. So how do you know what to look for?

Patterns. Signatures. Profiling. That’s where it gets pernicious in secret; that’s when they may decide to look at content as well. But metadata even without content already tells you a lot of information. Metadata gives meaning to content. What does NSA need with a 100 million phone records? We are losing the foundation of innocence until proven guilt. The assumption of innocence no longer exists in a surveillance state…we are all foreigners now. To me that’s crossing over into a form of governance that is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. We are eroding a foundational part of this country. The important distinction is the law that exists right now allows the government with some [limitations—] at least on paper—to collect all meta-data without any particularized suspicion on someone without getting a warrant for someone. To get content you would need a warrant. The technology is such that the distinction between metadata and content is largely losing its distinction simply because all digital content by definition has metadata associated with it. You can strip off the metadata to do the analysis...but then when you want to, because you already have the data, even if you didn’t have probable cause to do it,you can get into the content.

Based on your experience, talk to me about Snowden’s decision to turn himself in. Would it have been possible for Snowden to hide out?

He exposed himself, which is one of the unique things here. Once you are flagged though, even if he hadn’t turned himself in…the system is so vast in terms of your digital footprint it wouldn’t have taken long to find him…Could he totally go off the grid and disappear? The system itself would have been alerted. He would have had less time to hide out if he had not gone overseas even if he had not exposed himself. He clearly made a preemptive decision…if he went overseas as a U.S. citizen they can’t grab you off the street the next day though he has indicated in interviews he is concerned about rendition. Leaving creating another barrier. It buys him time to make other arrangements in terms of seeking asylum.

Could cyber hackers have obtained the information that these programs existed through data-mining efforts?

Probably not. Those systems are extraordinarily well-protected. It’s very difficult to hack in, especially to the top secret ones. That’s why you have never seen a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court order in public. This is the first one to my knowledge. The classification system is so high it has special protections. It takes someone with access and knowledge to make that fateful decision that it’s in the best interests of the public to have access to that type of information and free it.

From your experience, how do you think the NSA will come after Snowden?

With everything they’ve got.

So do you think they will use the same playbook they used with you—charging Snowden under the Espionage Act?

Yes. It will probably be very similar, there’s no question. I was never actually charged with leaking or disclosing. I was actually charged for retention of unauthorized documents.

What could someone like Snowden do—for a career—after this kind of security breach?

He will have to have an attorney shield him and protect him as best as he can. The government always has a choice in the matter; they can open a case and never prosecute. I suspect they will throw everything they had after him. He will have a heck of a time as I did…I found part-time work but I made far less than before; you are blacklisted. Your clearance is no longer valid so you can’t work in government and people think you can’t be trusted. It will probably be a whole different line of work for him at least in the near or mid-term as it certainly was for me. For a long time I had no income. He knew that there would serious consequences when he made the fateful decision to turn this information over to the press.

If I may ask, what do you do now?

I work full-time at an Apple retail store.

In an environment where Wikileaks is currently in the headlines, and now this, do you think this will change the way Americans approach security questions?

Just since my criminal case ended with one year of probation and community service, this is the most media attention I’ve had by far. I can’t even get to all my emails right now; it’s extraordinarily overwhelming. That tells me that for now this story has legs and people are discussing what are civil liberties versus surveillance and questioning how far they can erode our liberties for the sake of surveillance. The question is do Americans care enough and it looks like we’re having that debate now and I hope that it sustains itself, that’s certainly my wish.

 Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs.
 Visit for the latest in science, health and technology news.

© 2013 All rights reserved.
3665  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 11, 2013, 09:07:58 PM
It's OK for Obama to have access to everyone's contacts, credit buys, downloads, links, etc. 

Yet he can have media over to the WH for "off the record" meetings whatever the f* that means, and no one has a right to know who these people are.

He can have endless visits to his house scheming and plotting his politics as he works for us yet no one has a right to know.  Yet we have no privacy rights.

As someone for years who has been under surveillance - I can tell you it is not pleasant.  Most people don't think they are targets so they are aloof about this.  Just they wait.

Boehner - This is the leader of the party I have voted for?
3666  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 11, 2013, 07:40:06 AM
I can understand Michele Obama's "I am not proud of my county" comment.   As a taxpaying citizen who tries to be honest and play by the rules I feel like my rights are unendingly trampled. 
3667  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Republican politburo now caves to the Democrat politburo on: June 11, 2013, 07:36:49 AM
Check mate.  We lose. 

Rove and the other establishment Republicans to spend 100K promoting the immigration bill from the 8.   More or less, if it is not approved Obama will simply grant amesty.
Rubio reported to speak to Latinos saying we need immigration "reform" first then we secure the border.  That's it folks.  All of here legally citizen or not have just been sold out.

Done deal:
3668  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Some thoughts along with some psychobabble on: June 10, 2013, 09:46:22 PM
"Suddenly, half the country is upset with Obama for the recent flurry of scandals"

Well not exactly right.  Half the country has been disgusted with this guy for 5 years now.  But finally there is enough bad news that even the adoring MSM and fellow Dems are getting nervous reading the polls.

"At some point soon, the Democrats will accept that the novelty of Obama in opposition to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments has worn off."

We'll see if the Republicans can figure it out.  Some have but most are still clueless.

In any case Obama was the front man.  He's got some backup on the stage (holder, Biden) while he is the lead singer.   The real brains are unclear to me.  Axelrod?   Soros?  Probably them and a whole slew of other liberals most likely from the Ivys funded by the entertainment complex and Wall street fascists.

Not only does he give a good tele-prompted speech reading his lines flawlessly with the novel yet annoying (to me anyway) up note at the end of every line he delivers, he has the personality suited for the job.

An effortless liar, narcissistic far beyond simply being confident or even cocky.  Supremely and ruthlessly political and an extraordinary believer in leveling the playing field.  Megalomaniac with only a  conscious to himself.   

Clinton was absolutely narcissistic.  He definitely has many narcissistic traits but I can't really say he rises to the level of being a narcissistic *personality disorder*.   While Clinton is a serial liar he still can garner sympathy as the son of the alcoholic just seeking love and approval.  Hence he was able to adapt to the polls and govern closer to the middle.  It was all about his approval ratings.  Of course polls ratings to count for power as he demonstrated his second term.

Obama on the other hand is far more angry.  Far more about getting even.   Is he white?   Is he black?  Is he Christian?  Is he Muslim?  Is he an American?  The answer to the first four no longer need matter.   He is human.   However with regards to the last one - is he American?   I hope to God most Americans still think that matters.  Many Ivy league libs who are the brains behind Obama, the front man, no longer that is important.  That portends poorly for us.   

3669  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: June 10, 2013, 08:36:34 AM
Few days after Rush Limbaugh's rant about there being no formal connection to Hitler and the final solution this pops up out of no where.   Was never available to historians but for the One - no problem.  OK so we'll see if a single witness came forward:


Exclusive: U.S. finds long-lost diary of top Nazi leader, Hitler aide
ReutersBy John Shiffman | Reuters – 1 hr 15 mins ago..



... .


Related Content.
.Alfred Rosenberg, the Chief Nazi Party Ideologist, is seen in a portrait taken between 1933 and 1945 and released to Reuters by the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington June 7, 2013. REUTERS/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of William Gallagher/HANDOUTView Photo.
Alfred Rosenberg, the Chief Nazi …

By John Shiffman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government has recovered 400 pages from the long-lost diary of Alfred Rosenberg, a confidant of Adolf Hitler who played a central role in the extermination of millions of Jews and others during World War Two.

A preliminary U.S. government assessment reviewed by Reuters asserts the diary could offer new insight into meetings Rosenberg had with Hitler and other top Nazi leaders, including Heinrich Himmler and Herman Goering. It also includes details about the German occupation of the Soviet Union, including plans for mass killings of Jews and other Eastern Europeans.

"The documentation is of considerable importance for the study of the Nazi era, including the history of the Holocaust," according to the assessment, prepared by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. "A cursory content analysis indicates that the material sheds new light on a number of important issues relating to the Third Reich's policy. The diary will be an important source of information to historians that compliments, and in part contradicts, already known documentation."

How the writings of Rosenberg, a Nazi Reich minister who was convicted at Nuremberg and hanged in 1946, might contradict what historians believe to be true is unclear. Further details about the diary's contents could not be learned, and a U.S. government official stressed that the museum's analysis remains preliminary.

But the diary does include details about tensions within the German high-command - in particular, the crisis caused by the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain in 1941, and the looting of art throughout Europe, according to the preliminary analysis.

The recovery is expected to be announced this week at a news conference in Delaware held jointly by officials from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Justice and Holocaust museum.

The diary offers a loose collection of Rosenberg's recollections from spring 1936 to winter 1944, according to the museum's analysis. Most entries are written in Rosenberg's looping cursive, some on paper torn from a ledger book and others on the back of official Nazi stationary, the analysis said.

Rosenberg was an early and powerful Nazi ideologue, particularly on racial issues. He directed the Nazi party's foreign affairs department and edited the Nazi newspaper. Several of his memos to Hitler were cited as evidence during the post-war Nuremberg trials.

Rosenberg also directed the systematic Nazi looting of Jewish art, cultural and religious property throughout Europe. The Nazi unit created to seize such artifacts was called Task Force Reichsleiter Rosenberg.

He was convicted of crimes against humanity and was one of a dozen senior Nazi officials executed in October 1946. His diary, once held by Nuremberg prosecutors as evidence, vanished after the trial.

A Nuremberg prosecutor, Robert Kempner, was long suspected by U.S. officials of smuggling the diary back to the United States.

Born in Germany, Kempner had fled to America in the 1930s to escape the Nazis, only to return for post-war trials. He is credited with helping reveal the existence of the Wannsee Protocol, the 1942 conference during which Nazi officials met to coordinate the genocide against the Jews, which they termed "The Final Solution."

Kempner cited a few Rosenberg diary excerpts in his memoir, and in 1956 a German historian published entries from 1939 and 1940. But the bulk of the diary never surfaced.

When Kempner died in 1993 at age 93, legal disputes about his papers raged for nearly a decade between his children, his former secretary, a local debris removal contractor and the Holocaust museum. The children agreed to give their father's papers to the Holocaust museum, but when officials arrived to retrieve them from his home in 1999, they discovered that many thousands of pages were missing.

After the 1999 incident, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into the missing documents. No charges were filed in the case.

But the Holocaust museum has gone on to recover more than 150,000 documents, including a trove held by Kempner's former secretary, who by then had moved into the New York state home of an academic named Herbert Richardson.

The Rosenberg diary, however, remained missing.

Early this year, the Holocaust museum and an agent from Homeland Security Investigation tried to locate the missing diary pages. They tracked the diary to Richardson, who was living near Buffalo.

Richardson declined to comment. A government official said more details will be announced at the news conference.

(Reporting by John Shiffmann in Washington and Kristina R. Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Blake Morrison and Leslie Gevirtz)
3670  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / more frustrated ranting. on: June 09, 2013, 10:35:16 AM
No witness that came forward to directly link Hitler to the final solution.  No documents.   No signatures.  No tapes.  No record of orders, meetings, conversations.  Nothing.  Can anyone not conclude this is remarkable.

The circumstantial and corroborative evidence is overwhelming.   Yet if one just looked at Hitler's personal official business history one could come away thinking he had nothing to do with the final solution.

Fast forward to today.  We have a President who is the front man for a major political soft tyranny in America.  No bodies as evidence.  No mass killings.  He denies any knowledge and responsibility.   There is nothing to directly link him to the scandals.    No witnesses, no tapes of meetings,  no minutes of White House meetings (that we know of in public), no signatures, no emails, etc.  Just vague and hazy and shadowy references to what are essentially hundreds of clandestine meetings with hundreds of liberals from within and without government.

Sound familiar.  Many of Obama's political mentors, advisors, and directors are Jewish and would certainly have known this about Hitler not directly being linked to the final solution.  The case against Obama is not quite as iron clad as against Hitler.  And of course there are not millions of bodies in graves.   Yet the overall information we know about Obama and his team, and all the recent revelations continues to support the soft tyranny theory.   No honest reasonable objective person could not possible make this conclusion. 

We still have Hitler apologists today.  We still have holocaust deniers today.   
3671  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyberwar and American Freedom on: June 09, 2013, 10:15:32 AM
What a perfect excuse to spy on Americans - it is all to keep us safe.   wink  The progressive machine took this ball and ran with it.   Don't let any opportunity go to waste.   For years I suspect the PC makers and the software people have embedded ways of hacking into one's machine.  The excuse is they are cooperating with law enforcement to be able to track data.  I don't trust these companies to not use it for their purposes any more than I trust Obama's organized crew is not using it for the political agenda.  OK Obama let's have a mature conversation about this.  First you and your crew need to go and we need all information on the table for people to see.

How can we have any legitimate conversation or public discussion of this with dishonest persons at the top not being transparent?  Like Levin says this guy can look you right in the eye keep a straight sincere face and without flinching or remorse or guilt tell you lies all day long.  So now Americans are supposed to discuss this in public?

And the media still covers as much as possible for him....

****NSA phone spying program FOILED plan to blow up New York City subway, claim under fire security officials

NSA domestic spying program foiled 2009 NYC subway bombing plot
•Government program credited by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., House Intelligence Committee head, with thwarting planned attack
•Alleged terrorist found out after emailing known Al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan for help making a bomb
•Attack stopped as a result of collaboration between US and British intelligence agencies

By Associated Press Reporter

PUBLISHED: 07:40 EST, 8 June 2013  | UPDATED: 21:54 EST, 8 June 2013 

The government's broad programs to collect U.S. phone records and Internet traffic helped disrupt a 2009 plot to bomb the New York City subways, a senior U.S. intelligence official said.
But the assertion raises as many questions as it answers because court testimony indicated the subway plot investigation began with an email.
Over the past days, The Guardian newspaper and The Washington Post have revealed classified documents showing how the National Security Agency sweeps up phone records and Internet data in its hunt for terrorists. Those programs have come under criticism from civil libertarians and some in Congress who say they were too broad and collected too much about innocent Americans.

In one of those programs, the NSA's collected daily records of millions of phone calls made and received by U.S. citizens not suspected of any wrongdoing.
On Thursday, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who leads the House Intelligence Committee, credited that effort with thwarting a terrorism plot. But he did not elaborate.
The senior U.S. intelligence official who asserted Friday that the phone records program together with other technical intercepts thwarted the subway plot would not provide other details. The official was not authorized to discuss the plot publicly and requested anonymity.
Afghan-American Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty in the 2009 plot, saying he had been recruited by al-Qaida in Pakistan.
The break in that case came, according to court documents and testimony, when Zazi emailed a Yahoo address seeking help with his bomb recipe.
At that time, British intelligence officials knew the Yahoo address was associated with an al-Qaida leader in Pakistan. That's because, according to British government documents released in 2010, officials had discovered it on the computer of a terror suspect there months earlier.
Because the NSA and British intelligence work so closely together and so little is known about how the NSA monitors email traffic, it's possible that both agencies were monitoring the Yahoo address at the time Zazi sent the critical email in 2009.
What's unclear, though, is how the phone program aided the investigation, which utilized court-authorized wiretaps of Zazi and his friends.
Based on what's known about the phone-records program, the NSA might have had an archive of all the phone calls Zazi had made, which might have helped authorities look for possible co-conspirators.
Because the phone program remains classified, however, it's impossible to say with certainty how the program benefited the investigation.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook****
3672  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Books on: June 08, 2013, 11:41:37 PM
***Perhaps Hitler only found out about it by reading about it in the papers.....***

Good reversal of the logic of Brock the Terrible.

Perhaps if Hitler had simply fired Himmler and moved Goering over to another branch of the military he would have proven to the world he had no clue.

3673  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: June 08, 2013, 11:34:15 PM
"Reducing a 26 volume tax code to a single page will mostly dis-empower the IRS, no matter what rates we choose"

Also will dis-empower some of the political corruption in DC.

Of course we would still have state taxes, county taxes, and so forth....
3674  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Are you confused? I am on: June 08, 2013, 10:13:45 AM
I tried to look up if non citizens can vote or not.  No succinct answer.  I get this endless diatribe.   So when Brock the Terrible gestures that illegals would have to get in the back of the line for citizenship (and learn English) that does not mean they wouldn't be able to vote for his party effective immediately.   Brock the scheister doesn't tell us that.
3675  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Explaining Hitler on: June 08, 2013, 09:59:12 AM
Is there and explanation?  Good back I read a while back exploring the subject.  I think this is where I first read that there is absolutely nothing in writing that directly links Hitler to Holocaust.

That fact could go into Ripley's believe it or not.  So too (so far) could be linking Obama to the take over of America.  You can fool some of the people all of the time.   Or just pay em off with taxpayer checks.
3676  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Crowdfunding. on: June 08, 2013, 09:45:58 AM
Anyone know if any business actually has been successful over the longer haul with type of investment support?
3677  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: June 08, 2013, 08:57:09 AM

Do you think Rove Bushes and the rest of the Rep elite party are hip to this?   It is a tall task in a country with half who don't pay taxes but this might have the momentum if played right.   But the "leaders" on the right are not as clever and directed as the politburo.   
3678  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rush lead rant on Drudge on: June 08, 2013, 08:54:10 AM

I don't usually post directly off Drudge.  I figure anyone here can simply see it themselves.  But this I feel compelled to post.  No one can say it like Rush.  This is prime example why he is who he is.   I love the comparison of Obama to all these scandals with Hitler and the holocaust.   I totally forgot the fact that there is NO SINGLE DOCUMENT that links Hitler to the holocaust in writing.   There isn't.  No tapes, no signatures.   Yes we have Mein Kampf with his rants about Jews.  But there is nothing about him putting his stamp of approval on the genocide in writing.  Just no proof. 

Rush draws the same parallel to Brock the "terrible".  He is obviously in a huge conspiracy to take over the country by increasing government power.  Yet nothing in writing can be found.  He pretends not to know, to downplay, to blame Bush, to deny.  Yet anyone with a brain can see he is part of this new world order agenda. 

Sad to say our Republican leaders in DC deny it. 

The only part I disagree with is that he does not seem to it if it is private enterprise that is doing this ("Colonel Sanders").  I do.  I don't want Google, Yahoo, Drug companies, pharmacies, or anyone else mining by data without my permission and with no consequences to my privacy.  But back to the Communist takeover of the US.....

******America in the Midst of a Coup d'Etat
June 07, 2013


RUSH: Late yesterday afternoon I was sitting in the library at home, and I was just swamped. It seemed like every 90 seconds somebody needed something, or somebody had a question or somebody had a comment, requiring my response. It was during the period of time that I generally devote to reading my tech blogs, you know, where I abandon all of this and get away from it and start spending time on, quote, unquote, my hobby.

But it was one of those days. I'm sure you have them. They may happen every day, but if I had been watching a TV show I would have hit the pause button every minute to deal with something. It would have taken me two hours yesterday to watch a 40 minute program. So in the midst of all of this, I hear about Prism. Not the NSA sweep of telephone records. In fact, let me start before I heard about Prism. Even before I heard about Prism, I am hearing from the intelligentsia in Washington that there's nothing to be really concerned about here with what we had learned, the NSA demanding and getting every phone record from Verizon. And, by the way, we now know T-Mobile and AT&T have been added to it.

But the intelligent people were saying, "Nothing to see here. The reaction is way overblown." Those of us who think there's something worrisome here are overreacting and we're too oriented in politics. And the mature thinkers that weighed in and sound reason and levelheadedness assured us that there was nothing to fear here because this was just metadata, and in fact this is something we should all be thankful that the government is able to do.

I have to tell you when I'm listening to all the smart people tell me this, my mind is about to explode, and I'm saying, "Do these people not realize what we just learned in the last three weeks?" We got the IRS starting in 2010 taking action to suppress the political involvement and ultimately votes of Tea Party people and conservative Republicans. This regime, this government, on the orders of the highest level. In fact, that investigation is ongoing. We have Fast and Furious. We have Obamacare. The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day and yet in the midst of this, "Well, don't go off half cocked on this, Rush. Be very levelheaded. Nothing really to see," as though there's no context here.

It made me once again understand, folks, what you and I are up against here. There are just way too many people -- and I'm talking about on our side -- who do not want to admit what we face, who do not want to engage or admit or whatever what we really face here. It matters. This kind of stuff matters because of who the people doing it happen to be. It's one thing if Colonel Sanders would be collecting all this data, but it's not Colonel Sanders. It's Barack Obama and everybody that works for him, and we know who they are and we know what their goals are. We know what their intentions are.

Folks, here's the thing, I guess, that gets me. I mentioned Herbert Meyer. We interviewed him for the Limbaugh Letter a few short months ago. Herbert Meyer was in the national security apparatus during the Reagan administration. He was a good friend of Ronald Reagan, and was instrumental in establishing Reagan administration policies that brought down the Soviet Union. The big news to him that's really noteworthy, we talked about it, is that he thinks that the world's coming out of poverty. And it is a big story, The Economist in London had a big story on it recently. We mentioned it to you, and it's a great testament to capitalism.

It's not socialism, it's not welfare, it's not compassion and it's not the redistribution of wealth. It's not high taxes that are bringing people out of poverty. It's capitalism, and none other than a leftist publication in London had to admit it. Well, Herb Meyer was the first to sound this notice some months ago. I also mentioned he wrote a piece that currently is in the American Thinker earlier this week, and it had the potential to be controversial because he used Adolf Hitler and Nazism in it, and it was his way of explaining, he made a point in the piece that nowhere, you know, people looking for a smoking gun to nail Obama on all these scandals, Herb says, "Ain't gonna be one."

He said whether you believe it or not, there is not one document linking Adolf Hitler to the holocaust. Adolf Hitler never put it on paper what he intended to do. There is no smoking gun. And yet what happened? We know that the Nazis engaged in the Holocaust. Herb Meyer's point was that the people Hitler hired didn't have to be told. They didn't have to be given instructions. All they had to do was listen to what Hitler was saying. All they had to do was listen to what his objectives were. And he said the same thing's happening here with this administration. He went to great pains to say: I'm not calling this administration a bunch of Nazis. I'm just using this as an illustration. I know people will get my point if I use something this notorious, the Nazi regime.

It's a point that I've made here about the IRS. They say, "Well, you can't link it in to Obama." You don't need to link Obama to it. He hired these people. Lois Lerner and everybody at the IRS who's doing this is doing everything they can to please Obama. There's not gonna be a smoking gun, but you don't need a smoking gun to know where this administration's doing what it's doing.

Obama puts people in positions that mirror him. Eric Holder, you name it, they're doing Obama's bidding. Everybody. Susan Rice and Samantha Power, they are Obama, and there's a context for what's happening. Herbert Meyer, if I may quote him again, asserted that essentially what's taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a million artistic coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it's being done by the Obama administration.

He referred to it as a coup. I don't know if he used the word "peaceful," but clearly there's a coup d'etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs -- and they're under assault. Chief among them under assault is the right to privacy, and that's what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d'etat... I happen to like that formulation.

In seeking ways to persuade, for example, the low-information voters of what's going on, this happens. These are the people continuing to prop Obama up with high approval numbers. The Limbaugh Theorem. How do we reach 'em? How do we tell them? How do we explain what's going on when they have, perhaps, almost an idolatrous relationship with the president? Well, maybe you tell 'em there's a coup going on.

There are people attempting to take over this country and to make it something that it wasn't founded as; turn it into something that it wasn't intended to be. That is happening. You know it and I know it. It's peaceful, nonviolent. The military isn't involved. But nevertheless it's a coup. So in the context of that and the realization that's happening, in the midst of learning that the National Security Agency is literally "Hoovering," vacuuming every telephone record they can, what do we hear?

"Nothing to see here, Rush. Calm down! Slow down, Rush. This is nothing to get concerned about. There's nothing illegal here. The Fourth Amendment's not being violated or breached. This is nothing whatsoever to get concerned about." How can I...? (sigh) I don't know how people can look at this in context and say that. The people doing this are what make it a big deal. Their motives and their intentions and their clear assault on the whole notion of privacy make it interesting.

I'm sorry for the long detour there, but in the midst of being told that I need to be more levelheaded -- and not just me, but all of us who are a little bit concerned here about this Verizon story. We are all being told, "Back off, back off. Nothing to see here. We're not really, really concerned." It was in the midst of that that I heard about Prism. That was a Washington Post story that posted on their website around five or six o'clock yesterday afternoon.

The basic tenet of this story is that somebody in the intelligence community -- NSA, somewhere -- is so concerned over what he's seeing take place that he went to the Washington Post and took with him a little PowerPoint slide presentation and gave it to the Post and their reporters, and they wrote a story up and put it on their website. The story is that practically every major tech group and company in this country is participating with the government in allowing the government access to their servers.

E-mails, texts, phone calls, photographs. Virtually any communication that's taking place via the Apple servers, the Microsoft servers, the Google servers, the NSA is able to look at in real time. This is the story now. The guy that went to the Washington Post said, "It was so scary. They can watch us as we type." The Washington Post published some of the PowerPoint slides. I'm reading this after being told that the Verizon thing is no big deal. "It's nothing to get concerned about.

"Nothing to see here. Don't get too worried about that. Don't go off half cocked!" Here comes the Prism story, and then shortly after the Prism story hits, all of these tech firms start denying it. Apple says, "I never heard of Prism. We don't know what this is about. We never let anybody have access to our servers without a warrant, without a court order. We never!" Google said the same thing. Microsoft said the same thing. Facebook said the same thing.

They're all out there denying it. So I thought, "Did the Washington Post get set up?" I'm asking myself, "Did they get set up by somebody walking in and telling them something that wasn't true?" But then I saw that Prism reported someplace else by this Glenn Greenwald guy at the UK Guardian. So there were two sources for the Prism story, but the tech firms involved continue to deny it. "Nope, it's not happening." Now we've got audio sound bites.

These guys from the tech firms like Greenwald and some of these others, are blaming Bush for all of this, still. Today! Still today, all of this is the fault of Bush. Bush is the guy that got this ball rolling. So there must be something to it if the left is circling the wagons around Obama and trying to make all of us think that all of this is the fault of George W. Bush. I just gotta tell you something, folks. Richard Nixon never even dreamed of this kind of stuff, and yet most people in this country think that Nixon did 10 times as bad as what's happening now.

The fact is, Nixon never dreamed of this.

Whatever he wanted to cook up, he never even came up with this. So there is clearly -- somewhere, somehow, in some form or another -- a coup taking place, and there is an assault on privacy, and there are assaults on people because of their politics and their ideology. It is taking place; it's undeniable. Yet many of the people we would hope would be pushing back against this and doing their best to join us and warning everybody say, "Nothing to see here! Don't get all crazy about this. We must be level headed."


RUSH: So Obama's in California. Why? Fundraising. He's also got a meeting with the Chinese communist premier, but it's fundraising. That's why they go to California. Anyway, he got out there to speak. There was no prompter, and he didn't have any notes, and he just stood there. He didn't know what to do. Honestly, folks. Forty-eight seconds or something. Nothing happened. He finally shouted, "People!" and somebody on his staff brought him his notes. He was clueless.

Now, a lot of people yesterday who were saying, "Rush, Rush, don't get all upset about this. There's nothing to see here in this NSA business and Verizon. Nothing's going on." Look, one of the accusations was that people are just getting upset because it was Obama and just trusting Obama, and it's not reasonable enough to get concerned about this. My point is, speaking about you and me, we're not all stupid out here.

We're not all stupid about this and this is not simply because we don't trust Obama. I don't want my government doing this. I do not want my government preoccupied with paying this close attention to what every citizen is doing every minute of the day. This government's already too big, it's too damn powerful, and it's too unforgiving -- and this doesn't have anything to do with competent intelligence gathering. Throwing wide nets like this is BS. It's assuming way too much to think that this is not a big deal. Left-wing overreaction, my backside.


RUSH: There was a time when the United States government earned the trust of its people. There was a time when most people believed that the United States government was protecting them. There was a time when most people believed that the United States government was spying on the bad guys, that the United States government was in fact earning the trust of the people. But this current data collection, scanning, whatever you want to call it, unfortunately has to be judged in context: the IRS leaks, the now unquestionable, undeniable, admitted-to-it IRS tactic of suppressing the vote of Tea Party conservatives, denying them their First Amendment rights.

The regime and its tricks with the Associated Press and Fox reporter James Rosen, the Benghazi cover-ups, the Fast and Furious operation, suing the state of Arizona for simply endorsing essentially federal immigration law. You can't just try to be the smartest guy in the room and say, "Well, we must be levelheaded about this and understand that this is just metadata." We cannot take the motives and intelligence guided by experience watching this administration over the last four-and-a-half, five years, and what their express purpose is.

I was reminded this morning, we had a sound bite of Maxine Waters back on February 3rd of this year. She was on a TV show, some network, TV One. It was a show hosted by Roland Martin, who used to be, may still be, a personality at CNN. He was interviewing Maxine Waters, and every time she speaks, you know, we have a good laugh about it because clearly she's insane. And we nevertheless will play the sound bites. Her natural existence is such that she gives away the game. She will give away what the administration's all about. She will give away the fact that they want to nationalize all these companies. And she did it again on this Washington Watch with Roland Martin show back on February 3rd of 2013. He said to her, "The reality is like anything else: You'd better get what you can while he's there, because, look, come 2016, that's it."

WATERS: Well, you know, I don't know, and I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before.

RUSH: See, she gives it up. Now, I remember playing that sound bite, and we made a big deal about it at the website, Rush 24/7, and we thought, "Well, it's just Maxine being Maxine." But in this case now going back, looking at it in hindsight, what in the world was she talking about? At the time we thought she was talking about all of his high-tech campaign advancements. But maybe she wasn't.

I'll tell you, the New York Times yesterday, this was kind of funny, too, the New York Times decided it was time to get really mad. They wrote an editorial really ripping into Obama over this. They called it: President Obama's Dragnet. The editors at the New York Times were hopping mad, or at least they're pretending to be. And they really got carried away. They had to change their original editorial. They reissued it. The original editorial said: "The administration has now lost all credibility." They changed that in their second issuance to: "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue." But the point is they were right the first time. I don't know, maybe they don't want shock their readers with so much truth. But they went so far as to say at the New York Times, "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Now, keep in mind this was written by people who are the loudest proponents of the expansion of government. These are people who don't believe the government can possibly get too big. It's not possible for it to get too big. It's not possible for the government to get too powerful. It's not possible. And yet they are worried at the New York Times about what is happening to it under the guidance of the presidency and Mr. Obama. What everybody knows and nobody wants to really come to grips with is that we are in the midst of a coup taking place.

Now, I know what's gonna happen. The people on the other side of the glass: "Will you dial that coup talk back?" That's all the headlines are gonna be. I don't care. In fact, it's almost on par with: "I hope he fails." How does that sound now, by the way: "I hope he fails"? I'm constantly looking for ways here to persuade people of what I passionately believe, and I'm not in it to lie to anybody. There's nothing to be gained by lying to you about what I really think. There's nothing to be gained here by lying about facts. There's nothing to be gained here by gaining ground under false pretense.

So if the Constitution exists as it is, the country was founded as it was, and an administration comes along and doesn't like that and is doing everything it can to overturn that Constitution without a convention, doing everything it can to change direction of this country, and what's the word, transform it, what's wrong with calling this a coup? "Mr. Limbaugh, a coup is when rebels join forces with the military and start launching military attacks and shooting people." No, no, no. Not always. And that's my point.

When I was a kid, my dad kept saying, "Son, if things don't change, the Soviets are gonna take over this country without firing a shot." What he was talking about was a coup. Anyway, folks, there's a lot here to be concerned about. And you know it as well as I do. I get a little perplexed when people that I think see the world as I do and are, in my opinion, on my side, want to come along for reasons I can't fathom to excuse things that need not be excused. Now, Obama went out there today, he's in Palm Springs, and he addressed this NSA story. He defended the spy programs as legitimate because Congress has been consistently informed about 'em. He didn't get mad, but he sort of complained about all the hype over the phone data gathering, because it's approved by the FISA court. It's approved by the Congress.

He said (paraphrasing), "Nobody's listening to your phone calls. They're looking at megadata," he meant metadata, "and tracking terrorists. Nobody's listening to content. Modest encroachments on privacy are worth doing. We're gonna have to make some choices as a society. You can't have 100% security and have 100% privacy." This is what he said today out in Palm Springs. This is the guy, don't forget, who got elected convincing people that this kind of stuff was never gonna happen anywhere. This is the guy who got elected mischaracterizing the kind of intelligence gathering that was ongoing with the Bush administration.

This is the guy who got elected president by telling us that what is happening now was never going to happen when he was president. This is a guy who got elected telling us in 2007, 2008 that what's going on now was going on then. Bush was doing this, identical stuff, that's what they're trying to tell us, even now. He got elected warning us that what's happening now was happening in 2007, 2008, and promising us, this was not gonna happen. And everything that was happening in 2007 has only grown. There's only more of it. It's more sweeping than it's ever been.


RUSH: Have we already forgotten what this regime has done to the donors to the Mitt Romney campaign, all of the IRS harassment and audits and attention paid them by the EPA, if necessary? This is clearly an administration that wants to identify its enemies and then take action against them somehow, to intimidate them or what have you. You can't take that context out. The Wall Street Journal has a story here about PRISM. You know, PRISM is a code name, too.

So when these companies like Microsoft and Google and Apple say, "Oh, well, we never heard of it." Well, they may not have heard of it. It may be called something else, and they say, "Well, we don't let anybody have access for our servers without court orders." Well, maybe there have been court orders. If there is a program like this going on, a part of it would have to be that the companies involved would have to be able to deny it. They could not talk about it.

Put it this way: They were sworn to secrecy. They could not broadcast their involvement in it because it's taking place under the guise of national security. Do you realize what a vacuum cleaner that is? I mean, they can Hoover up everything they want under the guise of national security. Anyway, the Wall Street Journal: "US Collects Vast Data Trove -- NSA monitoring includes three phone companies as well as online activity," and then there's this:

"The National Security Agency's monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency's activities." Now, would anybody who thought maybe the phone company sweep wasn't any big deal, maybe want to say that cataloging credit card transactions might be news?

I'm just asking.

3679  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential on: June 07, 2013, 11:41:19 PM
too early to ask? grin

Do the revelations about this WH hurt or help the liar in chief in waiting - aka Hillary?

We all know how the lib media and political crowd will go all out to surround her with moats, booby traps, mines, concrete bunkers and a division of lawyers armed with AK 15 assault rifles (it's politically correct to  use these weapons to protect a major liberal  cheesy).
3680  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 07, 2013, 11:05:46 PM
FWIW Levin theorizes that Brock the Great's apt of Rice is not much ado about in your face "Republican boy" as bribe to her to shut her up from turning on the "One"/
3681  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments on: June 07, 2013, 10:51:50 PM
***I realize that, for many, this order will seem either unsurprising, unalarming, or both. Such is the state of the world–and of the authorities under which the government operates on an increasingly routine basis. But contrast that mentality with the skepticism at the heart of Justice Alito’s opinion for the 5-4 Supreme Court majority in February’s Clapper v. Amnesty International decision, which, in rejecting standing to challenge (admittedly different) FISA-related authorities, dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations that their communications might be intercepted as purely “speculative.”

Justice Alito’s specific analysis aside, it’s the mindset that I just don’t get. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the normative desirability (and, I dare say, legality) of the degree of governmental surveillance that is now underway. But can reasonable people really continue to disagree that this is the world in which we’re living?***

Appearances can be deceiving.  One can speculate about a lot of things.  Perhaps the "mentality" of the Supremes to dismiss  *this* concern as merely speculative is telling at either their naivete or their wish to look at only hard evidence.  I don't know.

I am one of those who would find this unsurprising while many others don't care because they believe it doesn't adversely affect them.

WE now know various government agencies are collecting reams of data.   We still don't know how much or exactly what or what they are doing with it. 

We also know many upon many liberal advocates from all over are constantly visiting the WH.   We know nothing of what goes on there.  A naïve person (I was one) would have wondered how such a huge conspiracy (soft tyranny) take hold under the radar without people talking.

We have seen other examples of large conspiracies of silence.  Like  Serpico - essentially the entire NYC police force taking bribes or looking the other way.

Like performance enhancing drugs in professional and probably most big time college sports.  Lance Armstorng.  Alex Rodriguez.  Of course they are all doping.   Yet, we only get drips and drabs of the truth because those who are on the inside and know what is going on are keeping quiet.

Same in music industry.   I can way (without proof) that virtually all the lyrics and probably most of what we hear on radio, cable etc is all stolen.   Yet many many people are keeping this quiet or looking the other way.

Same in Wall street insider trading.   To think there *isn't* massive espionage going on would be crazy - not vice a versa.  Too much money involved. 

To think all these hundreds of liberal political activists who work for the government, the media, and private industries are visiting the WH and all this data is not being used against their political adversaries is naïve.  One may still call it speculative - but with much corroborative evidence can reasonable people agree something is rotten in Denmark (DC).

Like the author above I would not dismiss it.   Of course I am not a Supreme Court Justice - I am just another Joe.

3682  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / obesity drugs on: June 06, 2013, 10:17:17 AM
VVUS drug qsymia -  the launch has been a dismal failure for a drug that should be a semi-blockbuster.   It still has to be specially ordered.   It is not perfect.  But it is clearly the most effective weight loss drug (combination) approved by the FDA.   Belviq, Arena's drug - a safer version of desfenfluramine - is probably ok too though it is only one half as effective - maybe a five percent total weight loss.  Qsymia can be up to 10-12 % at maximum dosage.   I own neither stock.  I am contemplating VVUS.  I agree with the major shareholder who is trying to get the entire board of directors replaced.  Or they need to team up with a major pharma that has the skill, talent, sales and marketing prowess to get the drug prescribed more.  Their are two generic alternatives to the qsymia combination which will cut into sales.  The dosages are not equivalent though.
3683  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / For 12 yrs I have been posting how behind the curve government is on: June 06, 2013, 10:07:10 AM

These disclosures are not speculation.  We are already under some surveillance to at least some degree.   By government and private interests.   And in my case by criminals.   Sometimes the entities above overlap and are not separate.  The real world.   If any one thinks Google, MS etc are not keeping data and don't have access to much of what we do and who we are he/she is kidding themselves.

It won't be stopped.  Cannot be.  OTOH we don't want intrusion into our private worlds.  Yet it is happening all the time.  OTOH how in the world can law enforcement have ANY hope of combating this without access to the data.   The problem is what they do with it.    Agencies who are surveillancing for terrorist activity MUST out of any conceivable realm of logical probability come across criminal activity or communications that do not have anything to do with Jihad.  So should this be ignored?  It probably is.  The answer is not simple.

*****WND Exclusive: Now FBI wants back door to all software

Now FBI wants back door to all software

But leading security experts say strategy would help enemies
Published: 15 hours ago
author-imageBob Unruh   About   | Email  | Archive    

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

rss feed Subscribe to feed

Ads by Google

International Backgroundcriminal records,address verifiy, education and employment verify

Printer Friendly
Text smaller
Text bigger


The FBI is unhappy that there are communications technologies that it cannot intercept and wants to require that software makers and communications companies create a back door so they can listen in when they desire.

But a team of technology experts warns the move would hand over to the nation’s enemies abilities they are not capable of developing for themselves.


Ads by Google

Gold Price Falls to $750Why The Gold Price Will Fall to $750. Steps You Need to Take NOW.
Best 2013 Credit CardFind The Best Credit Cards Of 2013. Expert Reviews & Info. Apply Online

The Washington Post reported the issue is being raised by the FBI because “there is currently no way to wiretap some of these communications methods easily, and companies effectively.”

The solution, according to the FBI, is to fine companies when they fail to comply with wiretap orders, essentially requiring all companies to build a back door for wiretap capabilities into all their communications links.

“The importance to us is pretty clear,” FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman said in the report. “We don’t have the ability to go to court and say, ‘We need a court order to effectuate the intercept.’”

But a report by the Center for Democracy & Technology warns of unintended consequences.

“Wiretap functionality allows covert access to communications that can be exploited not only by law enforcement, but by criminals, terrorists, and foreign military and intelligence agencies,” the report said. “Wiretap endpoints will be vulnerable to exploitation and difficult to secure.”

It cited a report called “CALEA II: Risks of Wiretap Modifications to Endpoints.”

The report came just as the U.S. government was caught accessing telephone records for the Associated Press and describing a prominent Fox News journalist as a potential criminal.

It was compiled by high-profile leaders in the field such as Matt Blaze from the University of Pennsylvania, Edward Felten of Princeton, Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins and J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan.

The report said there are some drawbacks to expanding wiretap design laws to Internet services.

“Mandating wiretap capabilities in endpoints poses serious security risks,” the report said. “Requiring software vendors to build intercept functionality into their products is unwise and will be ineffective, with the result being serious consequences for the economic well-being and national security of the United States.”

Just what kind of “serious consequences”?

“The FBI’s desire to expand CALEA mandates amounts to developing for our adversaries capabilities that they may not have the competence, access, or resources to develop on their own,” the report said.

CALEA is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which already requires some electronic surveillance possibilities. It’s the plan the FBI wants to expand to all digital forms of communication, including Skype and VoIP services.

The London Daily Mail recently reported that those technologies are hard to track because they convert analogue audio signals into digital data packets, which would have to be retrieved and reassembled.

The team of experts said that besides allowing criminals and terrorists into the networks, the strategy would require software companies to have employees do the wiretapping or give away their company secrets to law enforcement agencies.

“Finally, the wiretap capability that the FBI seeks will be ineffective because it is easily disabled and because knock-off products that lack the wiretap functionality can be readily downloaded from websites abroad. Because many of the tools that people use to communicate are built on open standards and open source software, it will be trivial to remove or disable wiretap functionality,” the report said.

According to the Post report, the draft proposal would let a court levy escalating fines against a company – fines that could double daily.

“This proposal is a non-starter that would drive innovators overseas and cost American jobs,” Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the Post.

“They might as well call it the Cyber Insecurity and Anti-Employment Act.”*****

3684  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I believe Bernie Madoff; not had of a SEC division on: June 05, 2013, 02:11:26 PM
*****June 5, 2013, 1:13 p.m. EDT

Madoff, other felons say markets are unfair

By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Faced with a rash of insider trading in the markets, federal prosecutors and securities regulators in recent years have stepped up efforts to crack down on violations.

But insider trading and market fraud persist, perhaps at epidemic levels. Even though the Securities and Exchange Commission has brought more insider-trading actions in the past three years than in any three-year period in the agency’s history, and even though the U.S. attorney in New York City has convicted 73 people in insider-trading cases since 2009, the crime remains all too common.

 Bernie Madoff.
That’s what MarketWatch found in a series of interviews with people convicted of insider trading and fraud. These felons painted a picture of an unfair market driven by widespread cheating that favors those with privileged information and expensive technology. The cheating also hurts individual investors and retirement savers trying to follow the rules of the road and produces a deeply unfair market environment.

MarketWatch reporters conducted a series of in-depth interviews with ex–investment brokers and others who lost their trading licenses and are either in prison serving multiyear sentences or have done their time in the slammer and now advise others on what not to do.

The results were discouraging.

MarketWatch found that insider trading may be one of the most common crimes on Wall Street and one of the least prosecuted. And that was only the beginning. MarketWatch discovered that the problem for retail investors goes far beyond a failure of regulators to identify insider-trading violations.

The financial criminals we spoke with said that not only do many investors routinely skirt insider-trading laws, but the explosion of computerized high-speed trading in recent years has made the situation even more unfair for the retail investor.

Those retail investors should be careful when relying on audited financial statements because accounting fraud continues unabated, according to one interview. Accounting-fraud cases are complex, and regulators don’t have the resources to enforce the law effectively, according to one felon.

As one fraudster put it to MarketWatch, the Securities and Exchange Commission has roughly 4,000 employees to regulate the financial industry while there are 35,000 cops in New York fighting blue-collar crime.

Insider trading may be one of the most common crimes on Wall Street and one of the least prosecuted.

Bottom line: The markets aren’t fair for retail investors. Regulators at the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment. However, Daniel Hawke, chief of the SEC enforcement division’s market abuse unit, defended the agency’s actions, arguing that it is difficult to identify how much insider trading is going on that regulators aren’t catching.

He said felons behind bars are not going to be credible witnesses because, having been successfully prosecuted, these are people with an ax to grind against the government.

“There was blatant deception implicit in their crimes,” Hawke said. “I don’t think it is credible for someone convicted of insider trading or securities fraud to talk about the ineffectiveness of the government in investigating or prosecuting insider trading.”

Nevertheless, MarketWatch spoke with four ex-brokers, three of whom are in prison with years to go on their sentences and a fourth who is out of prison and advises others about to enter custody.

To get a perspective on the world of accounting fraud, MarketWatch also spoke with a former chief financial officer of a publicly traded company behind a well-known criminal enterprise.

Among them was the poster child for brokers-turned-felons: Bernie Madoff. The perpetrator of a $50 billion Ponzi scheme — the largest in history — explained that retail investors can avoid being scammed by fraudsters like him by putting money in an index fund. (If only he had offered that advice earlier.)

On a smaller scale, MarketWatch spoke with the so-called Bernie Madoff of New Jersey, an ex-broker who is now behind bars for running a Ponzi scheme. He said insider trading is impossible to stop and that retail investors will never be able to compete with the pros unless they splash out for sophisticated, and expensive, trading tools.

An ex–New York stockbroker and hedge-fund manager currently serving 16 years for defrauding investors said insider trading is a black hole that leaves regulators in the dark. A former Wall Street broker who spent 12 years as a broker at big New York investment banks before pleading guilty to wire fraud says no one on Wall Street can be successful without cheating.

For a different perspective MarketWatch turned to a felon and former chief financial officer of Crazy Eddie Inc., a criminal business passing itself off as a New York electronics retailer in the 1980s. This felon explains why he thinks “audit” is a fraudulent term.
Ronald D. Orol is a MarketWatch reporter based in Washington. Follow him on Twitter @rorol.*****

3685  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: should steroid users in Hall of Fame? on: June 05, 2013, 10:47:37 AM
I am surprised MLB is getting serious about this.  If only they did this years ago.
3686  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 05, 2013, 10:25:11 AM
Senator Cruz was on Levin basically stating the proposed sell out bill gives Napolitano discretion on enforcement which means essentially no enforcement and a sell out to Democrats.   Even Black groups are against it.  They realize it hurts their workers.
3687  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 05, 2013, 10:18:39 AM
WH alters Michelle transcript.   

No surprise.

One can only wonder how many secret emails, white house transcripts of IRS meetings, Benghazi communications are being deleted and hard drives switched or altered as we speak.

Last resort is going to Library of Congress to stuff papers down your underwear..... angry
3688  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: June 03, 2013, 09:17:07 PM
"Shulman himself is under suspicion for his numerous visits to the White House compared to other administration officials"

Aren't there records of any of these meetings?  Minutes?

If yes why can't they be had the same as Nixon tapes?

Too bad we can't water-board...

Issa called Carney a liar.  I am very glad to see the L word is suddenly not so politically incorrect.   Time to call a spade a spade.
3689  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: June 03, 2013, 07:39:37 AM
Time to move on off of Obama and onto Hillary.   wink

So it was the Dem leadership and the media that turned on Hillary in '08 - not her collapse among Black voters.

In any case he is right that those of us on that side "fear" her.   Women still adore her no matter what.   In their minds she is their Abraham Lincoln.
3690  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Austerity or not to austerity? on: June 03, 2013, 07:06:24 AM

moved to the Economics thread on SCH because it deals with econ theory,-- Marc
3691  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / austerity or not to austerity? on: June 02, 2013, 08:45:46 PM
Is Krugman right?   shocked  This is not my field.  I don't know enough to agree or disagree.  I wonder if anyone on the board or if Scott Grannis would care to comment.  An article from a recent Economist edition:

*****The austerity debate

Dismal pugilists

Mudslinging between economists is a distraction from the real issues
 Jun 1st 2013  |From the print edition

THE brawl featuring two economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, and a Keynesian militia led by Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner, refuses to die down. It makes entertaining academic theatre. Sadly, it also distracts from an emerging consensus on how countries should best cope with debt.

In 2010 Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff initiated an influential line of research with a paper that purported to show that growth slowed dramatically when public borrowing rose above 90% of GDP. The work quickly became beloved of austerity-minded politicians in Europe and America. Then in April three economists from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said that unorthodox statistical choices and a spreadsheet blunder had led Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff to exaggerate the drop-off in growth at high debt levels.

Keynesian academics pounced, declaring the intellectual foundation of austerity destroyed. The most damning salvos came from Mr Krugman in an essay saying the 2010 paper had “more immediate influence on public debate than any previous paper in the history of economics”, yet its conclusion and methodology should have been suspect from the start. Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff struck back on May 25th in an open letter to Mr Krugman, decrying his “uncivil behaviour” and his own misstatement (Mr Krugman accused the authors of failing to make public their data; they had. It was their spreadsheet calculations that were not publicly available).

The heat has risen, but the meat of the debate has changed little; if anything, differences may be narrowing. Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff now emphasise their less sexy results, that as debt rises growth merely slows, rather than collapses, a point on which many agree. In their letter to Mr Krugman they acknowledge that research is mixed on whether higher debt leads to slow growth or vice versa, long the key criticism of their work. They continue to argue for cautious, proactive debt-reduction. But they say they favour writing down bank debt, slightly higher inflation and “financial repression” (imposing lower real returns on creditors) over immediate austerity.

Those policies are much more to Mr Krugman’s liking. Yet their letter pointedly does not aim to mend fences (it is doubtful Mr Krugman would be interested). And the rhetorical battle obscures important areas of agreement. Austerity that undermines growth does not help; writing down private debt and boosting growth through monetary stimulus and supply-side reform do. That would be a useful message for politicians, but they may struggle to hear it above the din.****
3692  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: June 02, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
If only....... he put his tongue in a condom......... or he stayed away from those Hollywood harlots....

Seriously, it is thought HPV is rarely the cause of head and neck cancer but for him to blame that when he smoked like a heroin addict for decades is absurd.

The statistical odds it was HPV rather than cigarettes is probably on the order hundred thousand to one.   I suppose one could theorize that HPV may have made the toxic effects of the cigarettes even worse but even that is a stretch.

HPV is thought to cause penis cancer, anal cancer, and virtually all cervical cancer.

3693  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: May 31, 2013, 09:01:33 AM
I might add that the NEJM has become a political tool for the politburo health care policy makers at the IVys.  I believe that opposing views are more or less not printed. 

Jama has also succumbed to the political pressure.   In one article that was critical of the state of electronic health records and that so far they have not produced any productivity cost savings gains the author who is a IT doctor noted near the end of the article something to the effect that doctors should stop "whining" about EHR and just be glad they are a part of the "first phase" of the IT revolution in medicine.   This is akin to changing the phrase global warming to climate change.   All of a sudden this is the *first phase*.  Now that this guy's scheme is more or less failure.  Indeed this scumbag should stop whining about us, the people who are forced to put up with this and admit he has not done HIS job.

I was once asked to respond to a pre-published article about how doctors need to do more.  My response was that the author was misguided.  Doctors can be good caring doctors but I don't see why you are calling us to be masochistic saints.  I never got a response and his article to  my knowledge was never published.  In any case the medical community is more a less in a reign of quiet terror trying to comply.   

You think the IRS is tough?
3694  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 31, 2013, 02:44:19 AM
Obama’s ‘Chicago Way’  
The administration’s political tactics are straight out of the Daley playbook.  

By John Fund

The scandals swirling around the Obama administration have many journalists scratching their heads as to how “hope and change” seem to have been supplanted by “arrogance and fear.” Perhaps it’s time they revisit one of their original premises about Barack Obama: that he wasn’t influenced by the Chicago Daley machine. You know: the machine that boosted his career and whose protégés — including Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and his wife, Michelle — he brought to Washington with him.

The liberal take on the president was best summed up by Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg, who wrote last year that Obama “somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it.” It’s true that Obama initially kept some distance from the machine. But by the time he ran for the Senate in 2004, his main political Sherpas were Axelrod, who was then the chief consultant to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Jarrett, the mayor’s former deputy chief of staff. As Scott Simon of NPR noted: “While calling for historic change globally, [Obama] has never professed to be a reformer locally.” The Daley machine, which evolved over 60 years from a patronage-rich army of worker bees into a corporate state in which political pull and public-employee unions dominate, has left its imprint on Obama. The machine’s core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examiner primer on “the Chicago Way,” is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance. John Kass, the muckraking columnist for the Chicago Tribune who for years has warned that Obama was bringing “the Chicago way” to Washington, sums up his city like this: “Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut.”
“We have a sick political culture, and that’s the environment Barack Obama came from,” Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, warned ABC News when Obama ran in 2008. He noted that Obama had “been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state.”

Joel Kotkin, an urban expert who still considers himself a “Kennedy Democrat –– John F. Kennedy,” wrote at Forbes: “Most of us would put up with a bit of corruption and special dealing if the results were strong economic and employment growth. But the bare demographic and economic facts for both Chicago and Illinois reveal a stunning legacy of failure.” Since 2007, the Chicago region has lost more jobs than Detroit has, and more than twice as many as New York. The city’s murder rate is a national disgrace, and its teachers’ union is so powerful that a strike it called last year forced new mayor Rahm Emanuel to back down from his attempt to curb union power.

The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch tags Chicago as the fifth most heavily taxed city in the country: Its sky-high effective sales tax of 9.75 percent makes the tax burden on a family earning $25,000 a year the fourth highest in the country. From 1991, two years after Richard M. Daley first took office as mayor, to 2011, the year Emanuel took the reins, the average debt per Chicagoan grew from $600 to $2,600, an increase of 433 percent. As Dick Simpson, a former reform Chicago alderman who now teaches at the University of Illinois, put it: “There’s a significant downside to authoritarian rule. The city could do much better.”

Conservatives in Chicago, an embattled breed, say the Obama scandals now coming to light — the IRS, the intimidation of journalists, the green-energy boondoggles such as Solyndra — could have been anticipated. “The 2008 Obama campaign perpetrated a fraud that he was a reformer,” says Chris Robling, a former journalist who has served as a Republican election commissioner. “All of the complaints — from the lack of transparency to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s shaking down corporations to promote Obamacare — stem from the culture of the Daley Machine.” For decades, Robling says, Mayor Daley “encouraged” contributions to his favorite charities, with the implicit understanding that the “encourager” controlled the city’s inspectors and regulators. “That sounds an awful lot like what Sebelius was doing to prop up Obamacare,” Robling notes. “Obama’s ideology may come from Saul Alinsky’s acolytes, but his political tactics come straight from the Daley playbook.” Indeed, friends of Bill Daley, Mayor Daley’s brother, say that one reason Bill left his post as Obama’s White House chief of staff after only one year was that even he thought Team Obama was too much “all politics, all of the time” and not enough about governance.

Journalists used to know that presidents are in part a product of their past: where their careers were nurtured and where their politics were shaped. They understood this as a given when it came to Ronald Reagan and California; they basically grasped it about Bill Clinton’s Arkansas, and certainly nailed it on George W. Bush and Texas. But when it came to Barack Obama, all that went out the window. Speaking at the University of Southern California, at a post-2008 conference on the election, Mark Halperin, then of ABC News, said that the media’s treatment of Obama had been “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.” It was “extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage,” he concluded.

That media failure continued throughout Obama’s first term. Perhaps now, as Obama’s “Chicago Way” is coming into focus, the media will want to redeem itself. With Obama, it’s become all too clear: You can take the politician away from the machine, but you can’t take the machine out of the politician.

— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
3695  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / from the politburo's health care propaganda outlet the New England Journ. of Med on: May 31, 2013, 02:29:54 AM
Of course all edited by the liberal politburo members of taxachussets.

  Compare the hearty tugging headline with buried deep in the article is the fact that hospitals will have to eat the cost (thus try to recoup somewhere else) by billing everyone else more, or hit the states up for money.

****In 2011 alone, patients and families were spared nearly $150 million in hospital costs.

Hospital emergency room entranceBlend Images | ERproductions Ltd | Blend Images | Getty Images

(HealthDay News) -- An Affordable Care Act provision has shielded thousands of young U.S. adults and their families from millions of dollars in treatment costs for serious medical emergencies, a new study shows.

Starting in September 2010, federal health care reform has required private health plans to cover young adults up to age 25 under their parents' insurance.

More than 22,000 cases of emergency hospital treatment in 2011 involving young adults aged 19 to 25 received coverage under private plans due to the expansion, the study found. The coverage protected patients and parents from an estimated $147 million in hospital charges.

The study was published in the May 30 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Without this provision, they'd be facing hospital bills," said study author Andrew Mulcahy, a health policy researcher at RAND Health, a nonprofit research organization. "Their family might be on the hook for it. If they can't pay, as a last resort, the hospital might have to eat the cost and write it off. Ultimately, in some states, the taxpayers are on the hook because the state chips in and tries to compensate hospitals for care that is uncompensated."

The study also noted that the provision increased health insurance rates about 3 percent among the young adults who sought emergency treatment.

Recent reports have estimated that this particular provision of the Affordable Care Act has led to the coverage of an additional 3.1 million young adults nationally.

In the study, researchers examined details about emergency medical care provided to adults aged 19 to 31 at 392 hospitals from 2008 through 2011.

The study focused on injuries so severe that the young adults would have to receive emergency treatment regardless of insurance coverage, including broken bones and head injuries.

"We were very careful in looking at the most serious conditions -- conditions so serious you have to go to the ER for treatment," Mulcahy said. "This study is about real-world impact and a very direct test of whether the provision is improving financial protection."

Those sorts of injuries accounted for about 6 percent of emergency department visits by young adults, the researchers concluded.

The research team then compared the coverage of those aged 19 to 25 to patients aged 26 to 31, who were unaffected by the new health care law. That way, they could rule out other trends that might have affected the subjects' insurance coverage.

"We found that the provision resulted in increased financial protection for young adults and the hospitals who provided care for these patients," Mulcahy concluded. "We're careful to say it didn't result in additional visits. It's a shift. The provision didn't lead to more people going to the ER. They would have gone without this provision, but they would have been uninsured."

However, the RAND study's focus on nondiscretionary hospital treatment raises more questions than answers, said health economist Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank headquartered in Dallas.

"RAND is touting the financial protection provided by the Affordable Care Act, but then they say only 6 percent of these visits fall under the category of nondiscretionary," Herrick said. "The other 94 percent, to me, is the more interesting story. Are we wasting money on discretionary emergency room treatment? Are they going to the ER for trivial things that would better be left with them covering the cost rather than using their insurance?"

Herrick added that while the study notes in passing a 3 percent increase in insurance rates, it does not go into a more detailed cost-benefit analysis regarding the expanded coverage.

"What is it costing the employers' and parents' health plans, and the young adults?" he asked. "Could the same population have gotten very economical coverage on their own?"

More information

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more about the Affordable Care Act.

SOURCES: Andrew Mulcahy, health policy researcher, RAND Health; Devon Herrick, health economist and senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis; May 30, 2013, New England Journal of Medicine

Copyright @2013 HealthDay. All Rights Reserved.****


3696  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Republicans spending 40 yrs in the wilderness? on: May 30, 2013, 09:56:40 AM
Ann Romney -> "breech of trust between government and the people".

Let me say this again.   A message that simply points out government is too bid, is too corrupt  is NOT a winning message all unto itself.  It won't win.  This is why Romney did not win.   It can't work.  Not when we have half the nation getting pay checks in one form or the other from the government.   I am not optimistic the Republicans have any chance of figuring this out.    The Romneys would be better off giving donations - not speeches.  And Barbara Bush is correct.   We have had enough Bushes.  And I don't want a DA attorney bully like Cristie.  We need someone inspiring not a large mouth narcissistic bully.
3697  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: May 29, 2013, 10:01:53 PM
Have you tried the lightbulb yet?  I still use halogens.
3698  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cree light bulb at Home Depot on: May 29, 2013, 11:34:45 AM
3699  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, & "discrimination" on: May 29, 2013, 11:24:37 AM
"but the big applause line was that blacks have to work twice as hard"

Being from a socioeconomically lower home, community, poor performing public schools is certainly a disadvantage.  Yet it is for anyone from those situations no matter what race or group they want to categorize themselves as - such as quarter northwest pacific southern Asian, Congolese, Jamaican, mixed decent or whatever.

Didn't stop the SOloDaD@#$%^&*() O'Brien from going to Harvard like the rest of her family and achieving fame and fortune despite no good White people who just want to move on off of the subject of race did it?
3700  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "What would be so terrible about simply admitting Obama is an ideologue" on: May 27, 2013, 03:17:28 PM
A question from Jonah.  He doesn't answer it in this piece.  But there is an answer.  It is the same reason Clinton pretends she is a middle of the roader. 
Apparently the country is not truly ready for a communist.   So he plays the wolf in sheep's clothing.   That coupled with bribing just enough segmentations of the US population with tax money and the left get their agenda through.   I think there is only one way to combat this.  But so far the Roves et al still don't get it.   They simply copy what the Democrats have been doing.   Chasing them down the street like me chasing my dog when he gets off his leash.   

*****Obama, The Non-Ideologue

By  Jonah Goldberg

May 27, 2013 11:05 AM

I know the promotion phase for The Tyranny of Clichés has long since passed. But come on. The core point of my book is that liberals deny they are ideological. Indeed, ideological is a term they reserve for people who disagree with them. Liberalism is just pragmatic and reality-based. To the extent it is even idealistic at all it’s just that it wants to do good and, conveniently enough, whatever liberals want to do this week is the benchmark for what is good.

So here’s E. J. Dionne in what may be as pristine a distillation of liberal conventional wisdom as any I’ve read in a long while. After helpfully reminding the reader that the ranks of Obama’s opponents are teeming with crazy ideologues and racists and dismissing the IRS scandal(s) as wholly unrelated to the conservative brief against Obama, he writes of the president:

He’s an anti-ideological leader in an ideological age, a middle-of-the-road liberal skeptical of the demands placed on a movement leader, a politician often disdainful of the tasks that politics asks him to perform. He wants to invite the nation to reason together with him when nearly half the country thinks his premises and theirs are utterly at odds. Doing so is unlikely to get any easier. But being Barack Obama, he’ll keep trying.

What would be so terrible about simply admitting Obama is an ideologue (just like E. J.)? Making that concession doesn’t require saying Obama is wrong about anything. Dionne et al. could still say Obama is right. They could make the case that his policies are the best. They could still champion — or condemn – his compromises or his “pragmatism” (Ideologues can compromise, too).

But it’s not to be. For liberals, ideology is only something the other guys have. Liberalism is just doing the good and smart thing. If you think the good and smart thing is ideological, that’s just proof you’re a rightwing ideologue (or a racist!). The fact that doing good nearly always requires more government is just a coincidence.

© National Review Online 2013. All Rights Reserved.*****

Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 137
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!