Post #256 hee hee

'Round here, peeps are always looking for a sign from God. Is NOT that it!?! "Thou shall not interrupt funerals."

http://www.hapblog.com/2010/11/westboro-baptist-protesters-get-tires.html

Post #255 Olbermann's Down!

I've been asked to comment on the controversy surrounding the benching of Keith Olbeermann by MSNBC:

Um, there is no controversy. Olbermann broke a company rule and was suspended for it.

I agree with Jon Stewart: "It's a stupid rule, but at least it was enforced poorly."

The company policy that Olbermann broke was to make a political contribution without asking for permission first -- which was NOT in Olbermann's contract. Simply, MSNBC wants its employees to give up their right as a U.S. citizen.

I think MSNBC now understand how stupid the rule is -- hence, the whopping two-day suspension. MSNBC is Entertainment, and Olbermann is an Entertainer. I happen to like Olbermann's smug cynical style -- as opposed to the overblown pomposity on the other channels.

And what is your company's policy regarding political contributions? Do not know, do you?

Post #254 History, Pt. IV

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. This is Pt. IV. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

OBAMA - There is no time either for me to compose further about Barack Obama, or at this point to take up a review of what is a freshly-begun Administration. But in general Obama is a breath of fresh air and a cause for optimism after the dismal record set by Presidents since 1980. In all cases, Obama is a complete improvement over the miserable failure and criminal incompetence of the Bush Regime II.

[Well, I'll try. Let's see what Obama has accomplished during his first two years -- with little or no help from the 'loyal opposition:'
1. The stimulus. There has been a TV commercial playing in this state about the "failed stimulus" -- with "failed" in dripping red letters. Oh, really? Well, I looked out my window for evidence that the stimulus has failed to prevent the Great Depression Pt. II. There are no tent cities, no soup kitchens, no food riots, no sieges of town hall, no abandoned children wandering the streets looking for handouts. Nobody has declared martial law -- the National Guard is not on patrol. And there have been no layoffs at the public school where I work. In fact, it did not take me long to find concrete evidence of the stimulus at work: The little community down the road has a new main intersection complete with a stoplight and sidewalks and landscaping. Things must be pretty bad where the makers of that commercial live, but, around here, the stimulus has not "failed."
2 Health care reform. Anything that breaks the chain of paying for health care that is around the neck of business is good. The Republican plan -- or no plan -- is to continue to choke American business.
3. Financial reform. Even Wall Street seems happy.
4. Saved GM. The Republican plan -- and mine, too, by the way -- was to let a huge potion of this country's manufacturing base go belly-up. Even Pat Buchanan knew the importance of our manufacturing base and the real and political risks of letting it go -- see his "As GM Goes, So Does The GOP" column. Now, GM has already paid off its government-backed loans, and the Obama-as-car-salesman-in-chief joke falls flat.
5. Kept us safe. Obama has beaten George W. Bush's nine months, and the terror threat level has not risen after every bit of bad news. And Obama has not had a weenie roast at the White House for his terrorists pals to turn over the keys to this country -- oh, yeah, that will be after 2012, right?.
6 Ended the Iraq war. Well, in name only, but the symbolism is important. And Obama has not bombed Iran -- ya know, I thought that Iran was supposed to have 'the bomb' by now.
7. Looking to end the Afghanistan war. Obama has 'surged' -- progress or come come. Take the 'scalpel' approach -- which is Constitutional -- instead of the hammer' -- which is unConstitutional.
At the end of the day, Obama, as a black man in power, has treated the white man better than the white man in power treated the black man. There is no 'whites only' entrance thro the basement kitchen of the White House -- even Glen Beck can walk thro the front door! :p]

Post #253 Election Day!

It's Election Day, and I haven't had a chance to blog my Rand_Paul/Aqua_Budda jokes! :p

Post #252 History, Pt. III

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. This is Pt. III. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

CLINTON - Arguably the most intelligent and thoughtful President ever to hold office, Bill Clinton's poor judgement doomed his time in office from the outset. Initially optimistic and enthusiastic supporters had great expectations - the town hall meetings conducted between Election and Inaugural Days were invigorating. The performance, afterward, was a massive letdown.

Clinton promised a major energy policy initiative - and failed to follow through. he promised a major urban revitalization program, a major effort with education, health care and numerous other policies, and failed to deliver. Instead, Clinton wasted his initial political capital with the "Don't Ask, don't Tell" policy, activating opposition from all sides. he then took an overblown and impossible health care project on and used up what residual goodwill he owned before the 1994 elections.

After that, the ultra-right campaign under Newt Gingrich to cripple Clinton went into full swing, and the battle was never let up - it continues to this day, now aimed at Obama. Clinton's bad judgment and personal dishonesty only made matters worse during the Lewinsky affair. Ultimately, Clinton did achieve more than many today admit, but the taint of his failures follows him like a bad smell.

[;O -- A good summary. But I give Gingrich more credit for the balanced budgets than the writer probably does -- 50/50, but Clinton showed his political mastery by blaming Gingrich for the government shutdown. That should doom Gingrich's chances in 2012. Who wants a President who'll shut down the government?]

BUSH II - No President has ever done a worse job in office, damaged the nation's international standing more, or lied and manipulated the country more than George W. Bush. He led the country into the Iraq war on a platform of lies...

[Well, the "lies" were as a result of incompetence -- peeps in his own government were warning him about his overheated rhetoric concerning WMD in Iraq, but he was too lazy to reach out for contrary opinions -- instead of evil, but that is a distinction that doesn't need to be made. Ask the over 4000 who died for Bush's lies if that distinction is important. A lie is lie.]

... for reasons that were never disclosed to the nation.

[I doubt if Bush knows why.]

He abandoned the more important war in Afghanistan, which in its early successes had had a chance of being completed well and effectively before Bush's diversion allowed Al Quaeda and the Taliban to regroup and damaged irretrievably the faith of Afghanis in American commitment to the country.

[That is a good summary of our adventure in Afghanistan. Bush lost that war. Tho the war initially was justified, once we lost -- let Bin Laden escape, what is our justification for staying?]

Bush attempted to buy votes in 2001 with his ill-advised "rebates." His tax policies increased burdens on the middle class. His abandonment of environmental regulations wrought physical ruin and death across the nation. His absolute incompetence in office was evident long before the horrendous crisis after Hurrican Katrina.

[I had assumed that Bush was a decent guy but was being steamrolled by the darker influences in his Administration. But Hurricane Katrina showed that Bush just did not care. Nero fiddled while Rome burned -- where was Bush while New Orleans drowned? He was strumming his guitar on stage at a Republican fundraiser in San Diego.]

His insouciant urging of the nation to run up massive mounds of debt, coupled with utter lack of regulatory oversight of the financial industry (among others) culminated in global economic crisis. He manipulated national elections in 2000 and 2004 and is arguably the only President since Rutherford B. Hayes to hold office in spite of truly losing the election.

[The 2004 campaign was full of lies and smears and fear-mongering -- ya know, the usual stuff. I have no problem with 2004 -- we got what we deserved.]

[However, Bush was an illegitimate President during his first term. Not because he lost the popular vote nation-wide and not because Florida's electoral votes were in dispute but Bush was an illegitimate President during his first term because he was appointed by the Supreme Court instead of following the law -- ironically, the law was in Bush's favor.]

Post #251 History, Pt. II

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. This is Pt. II. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

REAGAN - Today almost beatified by Conservatives and other admirers, in office Ronald Reagan was extremely controversial, widely disliked, and inconsistent. He began in 1976 attempting to build a coalition to revitalize the Republic Party, which had been (incorrectly) declared at death's door as the Presidential returns were counted. Reagan made a number of alliances with very conservative faction leaders and fundamentalist Christian leaders - making promises on issues that he did not keep once in office.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Reagan violated the spirit, if not also the letter, of the law by making secret arrangements to deliver arms and other benefits to Iran if the American hostages were kept until after the election - assuming, of course, that Reagan won that election. As he completed his oath of office in January, 1981, the airplanes carrying the released hostages touched down in northwest Africa, payoff for a despicable act that opened an Administration marked by corruption and criminal convictions and many more international adventures in defiance of Amecan laws and customs.

[Did Reagan cheat to win? Well, he was certainly trading arms for hostages in violation of official policy and funding 'the Contras' in violation of the law -- only unlike Richard Nixon, he was not exposed until it was too late, late in his second term when it was considered too politically damaging to have an impeachment.]

[You know me, damn politics -- let's follow the law. I would have loved to have seen the Gipper on trial -- maybe he would not be so revered today if peeps had of seen him put on his 'out-of-the-loop' defense.]

Reagan did not end the Cold War, as some claim (Gorbachev did that). His investments in military technology and reorganization were indeed vital, and unmatched by the Soviet Union, but they were also corrupt contracts in many cases.

[I have no problem with giving Reagan his due in defeating 'the bear in the woods' -- as long as it is recognized that 'the bear' was wounded and bleeding from its misadventure in Afghanistan. Reagan lucked into the right time to try "Peace through Strength" -- but it worked out. All's well. :)]

Reagan's massive deficits were, by one account published in the 1990's, a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the country so that Libertarian conservatives could succeed in closing down much of the government and eliminating every social program from Medicare to welfare and the Public Health Service.

[Just because something bad happens -- or almost happens, does not mean there is a conspiracy behind it. Libertarian conservatives are not that stupid. Before you shut down government and eliminate social programs, you'd better shut down the 2nd Amendment. "When in the course of human events..."]

Reagan's adoption of Milton Friedman's concept of "free market" policies led to deregulation which resulted in 30 years' worth of economic disaster, business collapses, and the current global economic crisis. In 1988, the greastest single-day drop in stock prices almost precipitated another Depression, and did eventually lead to the Reagan-Bush recession that lasted for more than two years.

[For me, the economy is personal -- how much I add to my own private retirement account. I have been adding a small steady amount for the past 20 years -- the only time I've had enough disposable cash to significantly increase my contribution was during the balanced budgets of the Clinton years. There is a lesson there. What I've learned about "trickle-down" is that the benefits do not trickle down but the bills sure do.]

[No, I do not think much of Reagan. Unfortunately, Republicans think they've hit on a winning formula -- "anti-minorities" for those non-minority voters and "free money" for those wealthy voters in the form of tax cuts, deregulation and deficits. When it all goes belly-up -- as it always does, google 'ronald reagan black monday,' guess who pays?]

BUSH I - This President was entirely disconnected from American society. He revealed he never went grocery shopping when he was astonished at a supermarket checkout laser reader. His social policies were driven entirely by a desire to continue in the Reagan path, his failure to support environmental protection, workplace protection and many other initiatives opposed by business nearly devastated the EPA, OSHA and other agencies, and his persistent inability to pursue economic policies to help end the recession led to the ruin of millions of American families and small businesses. The cities of Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, St. Louis and others especially affected by this recession took nearly a decade to recover.

[I do not put much stock in his failure to go grocery shopping, but, boy, his following of Reagan's social policies sure hurt. But he broke with Reagan by signing 'the largest tax increase in history' -- well, then. Oh, sure, it offended many Reaganites, but I give him credit for recognizing that "voodoo economics does not work -- and he gets credit for coining the phrase "voodoo economics."]

Bush's mixed signals to Saddam Hussein in the period leading up to the first Gulf War resulted in Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in the belief the U.S. would not actually do anything about it.

[I criticize Bush for launching a unConstitutional war -- then and now. But I always thought Bush was the better half of Reagan/Bush.]

Post #250 Vote 4 Da Rich Whitey -- Ya Know Ya Wanna! :p

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/rich-whitey-misspelling-that-just.html

Well, most politicians ARE rich whiteys -- just wondering how close that hit to home! ;O

Post #249 Richard Burr, Part Of The Problem

There is a political advertisement airing in this state about the re-election of Senator Richard Burr, a smiling Republican -- yes, I mean "smiling" in a negative way. I think Burr has out-smarted himself, tho.

The ad starts out by appealing to the populist 'Tea Party' sentiment against big government -- two ol' geezers straight out of central casting are sitting on front porch in rocking chairs and railing against politicians and the political establishment of D.C. A woman steps forward to calmly and quietly campaign for Burr.

My Dad didn't hear her. He was too busy railing against "that Damn Richard Burr... who ain't done squat for North Carolina." If Burr had his way. North Carolina would have been without $8.9 billion in stimulus money. Maybe we could have had tent cities and soup kitchens. [rolleyes]

I'd thought Burr would share the North Carolina value of not voting for something without paying for it -- the only exception is during a time of Constitutionally-declared war. But Burr fell in with the other smiling Republicans and voted for, as a Representative, George W. Bush's inflated and unbalanced budgets and, as a Senator, Bush's infamous Plan D for Medicare -- the largest expansion of government into health care since the start of Medicare, an expansion that wasn't paid for. And Burr blames President Obama for his own irresponsibility.

That's why the ad for Burr's opponent, Elaine Marshall, makes sense: "It's time for a change!"

Post #248 Government Run Amok!

Personally, I would like to see John Edwards hounded to his unmarked grave. But the news that federal prosecutors have issued new subpoenas in their probe of former Senator Edwards' 2008 Presidential campaign finances gives me pause.

What was the crime? I bet the grand jury that has been investigating for over a year is wondering the same thing.

Yes, it disgusts me to think that Edwards paid 'hush money' out of his campaign funds to cover up his affair with that "freak," Rielle Hunter -- to use Edwards' own word. But guess what? Um, 'hush money' IS political and thusly an appropriate use of campaign funds.

I think what we have is an out-of-control prosecutor who will continue to abuse his governmental office until he gets something to stick.

Post #247 History

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

KENNEDY - JFK was a conservative hawk with a very strong anti-Communist theme to
his policies. His inauguration speech was almost a war warning to the Soviets. Although he did not plan nor get too deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, it was laid at his feet because he did not approve of pushing that invasion any further and withheld some anticipated air and sea support from the invasion. His very determined and careful management of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was probably the high point of his entire administration. His work on civil rights was reluctant but had begun movement forward in 1963. Perhaps his greatest legacy was the inspiration he gave to the country.

He had little opportunity in the 2 1/2 years in office (before assassination) to develop his domestic programs, and was more caught up in foreign affairs. It appears from an historical perspective that JFK was on the verge of reducing or ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam when he was killed - and several historians believe that was why he was killed.

[Do not blame your goofy ideas on "several historians." We all know it was 'the mob' who killed Kennedy. :p]

JOHNSON - There may not have ever been a President as complex as Lyndon Baines Johnson - at once crude, heavy-handed and overbearing, and also personally insecure, more sensitive to the problems of poverty and injustice than most admit today, and highly-motivated by a craving for approval. Johnson emerged from an earlier career in one of the country's most racist states to nearly single-handedly end 100 years of oppressive official racism and establish the concept of civil rights as a bedrock principle of American philosophy for ALL persons.

[ ~ Give him a standing ovation. ~ ]

Despite some cronyism and problems with the corruption of a few of his closest friends and advisors (remember the chinchilla coat?), Johnson led a reasonably honest and effective administration. His "Great Society" programs, even weakend by opponents terrified of empowering the poor, were actually successful in many ways - and today at least Head Start survives.

[Um, isn't Medicare a "Great Society" program? After all, Medicare is, as Senator Chuck Grassley famously said, part of the "social fabric."]

His greatest weakness was fear that a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam would tar his legacy as President - and Vietnam indeed did so, but for the opposite reason.

[ ~ Sit down. ~ Do not forget that Johnson lied to get us into that war -- "Gulf of Tonkin" anyone? -- and couldn't withdraw without admitting his lie. Sound familiar? A President who lies deserves a special place in....]

Johnson's astonishing mastery of the legislative process and ability to reach down to the Hill is unmatched in U.S. history. Thus his time in office was capped with the landmark Civil Rights Act, and the creation of Medicare.

NIXON - No President ever better understood the national political process better than Nixon, but no President was ever worse-suited to attempt its manipulation. Ultimately, Nixon had no god but himself, and that destroyed him. He had no compunction about lying to the nation or to himself, a hallmark of his first Administration that is almost entirely forgotten today. His personal weaknesses, at the core of which was a desperate and nearly paranoid insecurity, caused Nixon to become more isolated and more vicious in response to critics as time went by. His 1972 re-election campaign was a vile exercise in attack, retribution, manipulation and deviousness.

[And Nixon tried to cheat to win -- ironically, not necessary. That is what Watergate was all about. And he took 'ownership' of Vietnam.]

Nixon achieved an astonishing result with his rapprochement with China - undertaken for weltpolitik purposes to help split Russia and China. He also made what had begun as promising initiatives to deal with the Middle East, but ultimately failed thanks to his preoccupation with domestic problems. The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo was more than a disaster for Americans, it exposed the United States as vulnerable in ways that helped encourage the development of Middle East terrorism, which has bedeviled the country since long, long before 9/11/2001.

FORD - Gerald Ford, vilified by many for his pardon of Nixon, was a caring, gentle and humane person perfectly suited, although purely by accident, to fill the Presidency when Nixon resigned. His good humor, genuine interest in the nation, and respect for his office probably saved the Presidency after the ruin Nixon's "imperial" style had wrought upon the office.

[Ford was a good guy -- more proof that nice guys finish last... or at least second.]

Unfortunately, Ford as a mildly conservative Republican was unsuited to develop and pursue policies that were then pressing, ranging from new standards for auto safety and economy to environmental protection, from reorganizing and rebuilding the military after the debacle of Vietnam (which came to a sorrowful end during his Administration) to effectively directing America's response to the great flood of Southeast Asian immigrants after Saigon fell. Ford's worst moment in office was not the Mayaguez incident, but the "Whip Inflation Now" button that proved he had no idea what to do about an economy in ruins.

CARTER - Jimmy Carter is most unjustly pilloried by the right wing and considered generally a failure in office. Yet he was the first and nearly only President to achieve significant progress in the Middle East, rebuild American prestige and respect abroad, finally launch a comprehensive program of environmental protection, take initiatives to improve worker health and safety on the job, protect new mothers (and fathers) when time off was needed after birth, and pursue dozens of other important, human domestic policies.

Unfortunately, Carter was also a technocrat more interested in process than in political leadership. He was not much of an admirer of America's military, and thus did not attend to the corrosion in the ranks or the officer corps caused by the debacle of Vietnam. Further, he was unwilling during times of considerable economic stress to invest heavily in development of advanced weapons systems or other improvements in pay and circumstances of military personnel. The 1979 oil embargo was but one of several developments that doomed his reputation and his reelection.

[And it was the Iranian hostage crisis -- unfairly exploited by his opponent -- that doomed him. More on this later....]

Post #246 Comrades Unite!

There is a five-part essay at http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/08/30/ideological-war-spells-doom-for-americas-schoolkids/ worth reading.

Great satire -- a communist conspiracy to take over America! Woo-hee!! The only thing missing is the Black Helicopters. :p

I loved the way the author, Zombie, kept saying what liberals believe -- as tho he knows. All I can say, Thank Goodness I'm not a Liberal -- I'd been worried that my libertarian belief that government should stay out of the doctor's office and thusly abortion should be legal might get me called 'the L-word.'

It was clever to include criticism -- apt criticism, I add -- of the Texas School Board, criticism which of course lead the reader to think the author was going to be fair and balanced. ;)

And painting President Barack Obama as the head of the conspiracy was brilliant -- using a 30-year-old "quote" without attribution -- bravo! Our President is really a Muslim from Kenya, you know.

I criticize the author for not explicitly identifying his piece as satire. I shudder to think how many peeps took it seriously. You know, some peeps see a conspiracy everywhere.

The recommendations at the end in Part V were good -- tho I think Part V should have been a separate essay to avoid the silliness of I-IV.

I would like to point out that home-schooling or private schools are already an option, Indeed, I went to a private school 30 years ago as my parents did not want me to go to school with black kids -- a bogus reason, I know. But they scrimped, saved and sacrificed to pay the tuition but at least were honest about it -- that is why I say the push for neighborhood schools today is dishonest: Those parents want segregated schools but are unwilling to pay for it.

My private school had one valedictorian, and 'capitalism' and 'imperialism' were not bad words. Same today. No communism.

As for textbooks, I agree -- there is no need for textbooks in todays info age. My U.S. History book ran out with LBJ in '64, and the course itself ran out with WWII; my nephew's book ran out with Reagan in '82, and his course ran out with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The point being that there are other evils -- 'papers, TV, 'nets -- out there worse than textbooks.

As for 'union-busting,' my state has a 'right-to-work' law, non-union workers can be hired thusly 'breaking' unions -- everybody should be so enlightened.

Anywho, gotta go. It's time for our weekly meeting of us conspirators in the basement of the White House. I'll tell Zombie "Hello" for you.

P.S.: If you didn't "get it," Zombie was making fun of you.

Post #245 Robert Byrd, "We Stand Passively Mute"

Robert Byrd, November 20, 1917 - June 28, 2010, was a United States Representative and Senator from West Virginia. He served in the the House of Representatives from 1953 to 1959 and the Senate from 1959 to 2010. He is the longest-serving Senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.

A highlight of his career was the following speech:

"We Stand Passively Mute"
Wednesday 12 February 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Post #244 The Snot Fires Back!

Instead of just ignoring those e-mails that make me * sigh *, I've decided to fight back in my own small way by replying to -- um, well,....

"Do you enjoy looking like an idiot who hits 'Fwd' on every e-mail without doing any research to see if it's true?

" http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp

"Or are you convinced that you are being smart and helping the public debate by spreading 'news' the mainstream ignores?"

Post #243 9/11, revisited, Pt. IV

As I said in my Post #175 and Post #204, every time I think about forgiving George W. Bush for 9/11, I read my Post #104 -- which follows. It is a Damning indictment of the Weasel's ineptitude and doesn't even include some of the most obvious examples -- Condoleezza Rice's July '01 meeting with George Tenet or the August '01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nor did I mention Bush's opposition to the 9/11 Commission or his refusal to give a formal interview.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Senator Carl Levin said as the new Administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

And they gave us Iraq instead....

* * *

Bill Clinton knew. In Australia on 9/11, the former President immediately knew who the culprit was. But yet in the White House on 9/12, there was an obsession with Saddam
Hussein as there was an obsession with Saddam on 9/10 -- 9/11 just gave an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if there had to be lies about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama? There was a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11.

Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states. Bush said, "When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

And so the decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....

Subject #242 * sigh *

I got another "Fwd" e-mail the other day:

-----

----- Start Original Message -----

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, in three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.

[IMAGE -- sorry, I do not know how to add a picture here, but it was of then-candidate Barak Obama carrying a book]

The name of the book Obama is reading is called: "The Post-American World," and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world after America! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America!

----- End Forwarded Message -----

-----

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/postamerican.asp

The author is NOT Muslim; the book is NOT about America defeated....

* sigh *

The author has brown skin and a strange name -- therefore, he's a Muslim. I guess that sums up the intellectual firepower of the 'loyal opposition,' eh?

Why must peeps get their news from e-mail? Stick to blogs. :p

Or 'real' news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38786992/

The quiet resurgence of George W. Bush? Well, the article does not advocate --note the "?." So, l rest easy, right? But, if ya read the comments, it seems that a lot of folks get their news from e-mail.

I got one 'nutty' e-mail not long ago that included a link to info about the e-mail at " snopes.com " and claimed that the info was true because it was at " snopes.com ." Being the curious type, I clicked the link... and found the e-mail was %100 false. How many of the 1000s who got that e-mail bothered to click that link? Um, I do not really want to know.

* sigh *

Post #241 The Mosque: A Sensitive Opinion

President Barack Obama should not express an opinion on the 'Ground Zero' mosque. Neither should anybody else who holds an elected office nor anybody who wants to be President or hold any other elected office.

The Constitution of the United States clearly states in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- government should stay out of religion. Article 6, Section 3, states: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" -- religion should stay out of government. What could be clearer than that!?!

This issue is about sensitivity: Let's be sensitive to the Constitution, shall we? Do not let the mob rule. In a free society, the only legitimate role of government is to protect liberty.

If you believe that we are at war with Islam, then opposition to the mosque makes sense. If you believe that we are at war with a bunch of thugs who (mis)use Islam to justify their terrorist acts, then the whole debate is a waste of time. Indeed, the protests are a recruiting tool for terrorists and their 'holy war.' The protesters are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy.

I believe we must kill them before they kill us. I also believe that we must correctly identify 'them.' If we do not, if we act as tho a religion is our enemy, we risk becoming terrorists ourselves.

It does me no injury if Obama prays to Jesus or Allah or an oak tree. But there seems to a religious test going on. I'm not sure how Jesus got into the public discourse. Oh, fudge, I know exactly: The specter of Jesus stirs up fears and resentments... and votes -- 'they' is getting ahead 'us.'

Post #240: :D

I've been cleaning out my e-box, and I just got to blog this....

That "almost a woman" line -- ;O

Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews) - Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers "duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters," according to police
officials. "Something just went wrong," said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. "Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong."

The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, "growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats," decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event "in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats." "In fact," said the organizer, "motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it... ergo, they should stop."

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960's era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with alloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting "you're murderers" to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

"They peed on me!!!" charged one activist. "They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me 'La Trene', and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!"

"I... I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he... he didn't even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, 'You can't prove that.' Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman."

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers "farted on their heads."

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed "surprise" at the allegations.

"That's preposterous," said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. "We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them
to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome."

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and 'farting on their heads,' the organizer declined to comment in detail. "That's just our secret handshake," assured the organizer.

Post #239 Modest Proposals For Arizona

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Arizona lately -- which is probably not a good thing. :p

My first proposal for Arizona immigration reform is based on the idea that carrying your 'papers' is not a big inconvenience -- an opinion I've heard expressed a lot. OK, based on the fact that most illegal immigrants jump the fence, so to speak, at night, I propose a dusk to dawn curfew. After all, decent people are home at night anyway.

Maybe something can be worked out for when the Suns play at home -- armed escorts for fans?

Oh, of course, I'm not serious. I just wanted to point out that one man's minor inconvenience is another man's big hassle.

I am disappointed that libertarian/conservatives who rail against big government support Arizona 1070 with its expansion of police powers. In the name of Barry Goldwater, where is the voice that will cry "Don't shred my Constitution for your security" -- who will that be?

A serious proposal -- which I've had this idea for quite a while, by the way -- involves amending the Constitution to change the requirements for citizenship. I'm not sure why this idea has created such a stir lately.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers provided a way for the Constitution to be amended. If you could bring 'em back in a time machine, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be proud tnat we're still using their Constitution and appalled that we haven't amended it more since we are no longer a 17th century rural society.

Look, the 'born here' part was put in the Constitution to protect former slaves -- well, their children. It should have been changed in 1920 when we began to have an immigration policy and any former slaves were beyond child-bearing years -- "Any child born in the United States with at least one parent being a citizen of the United States shall be a citizen of the United States, too." And that should take care of the 'anchor babies' problem.

In contrast, I also propose -- and I haven't decided yet whether I'm serious or not -- opening the doors to everybody, a pre-1920 immigration policy. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- a nice ring, huh?

Post #238 Revolution

;O Read this piece -- it's funny:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/if-life-hands-you-lemons-dont-make-lemonade-without-a-permit/

Sadly, some of the commentators seemed too have taken this a little too seriously.

To all politicians and political supporters: Either have the balls to kill a program -- stand up and take responsibility, or fully fund the program. To cut off funds -- 'to starve the beast,' as one commentator eloquently put it -- is the coward's way.

I'm not sure where all the anti-government paranoia comes from. At least, the girl was not taken by the Black Helicopters. And neither will you be.

Post #238 All Is Quiet On The Arizona Front

My TV was on the news the other night -- I was not really paying attention, but some flashing police lights caught my eye. There were two police cars with their lights flashing pulled around a -- I presumed -- dead body, and there were several cops standing around. And a voice of doom said, "War rages in Arizona. Details next."

Well, during the commercials, I thought about the 'invasion' -- 1000s of armored vehicles pouring over the border, house-to-house combat, search-and-destroy missions, right? Well, Ft. Sumter has not been fired upon; Pearl Harbor has not been bombed; there has been no Bunker Hill.

But the 'invasion?' "This is a media-created event," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Oh, pardon me, surely, there is a crime wave that's got 'talking heads' talking. I did a quick 'google' -- Arizona crime rate -- and found that the hype is overblown. Indeed, the crime rates in Arizona are at their lowest point in decades. The violent crime rate in Arizona is lower than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona is lower than any year since 1968. Simply, there is no war raging in Arizona... or even a crime wave.

Why listen to the 'talking heads' in Washington and New York with their overheated rhetoric? Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: "Proponents of [1070] have repeatedly said that the new law provides a tool for local law enforcement. But I don't really believe that that's true or accurate. We have the tools that we need to enforce laws in this state to reduce property crime and to reduce violent crime, to go after criminals that are responsible for human smuggling, to go after criminals that are responsible for those home invasions, kidnappings, robberies, murders. We have those tools."

The 'invasion' is a scam -- it stirs up fears and resentments... and votes. Ask Arizona Governor Jan Brewer where her poll numbers are now.

Oh, by the way, that scene on my TV had nothing to do with immigration. I guess they just liked the dramatic lights.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #237 George W. Bush is a Towel-Head *

Well, well, well, it makes sense now Connect the dots, peeps.

Who was the President who issued a Christmas stamp for Muslims on 9/01 in 2001?

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the WorldTradeCenter in 1993..

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the American embassies in Africa.

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the USS Cole.

And who forgot the Muslim bombing of 9/11 and renewed the stamp in 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2008?

Who was the President who let Osama bin Laden go and turned his attention to the secular Saddam Hussein?

I think, when George W. Bush gave up alcohol and began 'paling around' with Daddy's Saudi friends, that he converted. I hope he enjoys his 72 virgins when he gets to heaven.

* This is satire aimed at those who get their news from e-mail. If you'd like to know more about the e-mail I'm making fun of:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/stamps/eidstamp.asp

Post #236 Human Decency

"conformity with the commonly accepted standards of what is right and respectable"

In life, there are certain things you just do not do. You do not mock somebody's religion. You do not make fun of someone's handicap. You do not take pot shots at race. Some things are off limits because of basic human decency.

Mark Williams is indecent. A Tea Party Express spokesman, he wrote an online post of a fictional letter from what he called "Colored People" to President Abraham Lincoln. He called it satire.

I'm sure that many will breathlessly jump to defend Williams' Constitutional right to write satire Nobody is arguing against Williams' Constitutional right to be indecent -- just as surely nobody is arguing that Williams should be accepted and his views endorsed.

Now, I like satire and enjoy all sorts of humor. Of course, Williams can joke. Nobody has to laugh.

That's why the National Tea Party Federation expelling a member group after it failed to rebuke and remove Williams was the right thing to do. "They have no intention of taking the action we required for their group to continue as a member of the National Tea Party Federation," the federation stated. "Therefore, effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership."

Federation spokesman David Webb, interviewed Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," called the blog post "clearly offensive."

Yes, it was. The racial hatred shown by some at Tea Party events dooms the overall movement. Many moderates would much rather vote for a Democrat than a Tea Party candidate -- probably some Republicans, too.

Good call, David -- keep it up!

Post #235 The Haircut

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied,'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop came in for a haircut, and when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were adozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut....

Post #234 God Bless Texas -- Texans Need It

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1782

Hmph! That attitude makes it harder for people who believe correctly to impose their beliefs on those heathens who do not.

One female school board member in Texas, who home-schools own her children, by the way, and therefore doesn't have a dog in this fight, said, "There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

I got news for ya, lady: Ya wouldn't recognize the God of most of the Founding Fathers.

For example, Jefferson, that guy ya want to downplay in history, said, "... the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Ooo, dang, there is that confounded idea again. No wonder Jefferson is to be downplayed in the history taught to Texas children -- they might get the idea that religion is nobody's business.

I remember the assignment I had in 4th grade U.S. History class: Who are the four Presidents on Mt. Rushmore, and why were they chosen? Maybe Mt. Rushmore can be downplayed, too.

Post #233 Newt says "maybe;" America yawns

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday he's seriously considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination and will announce his decision early next year.

Why? What will Gingrich bring to the table as a candidate? And why make this announcement now?

Gingrich, 67, said that he would focus on helping Republican candidates through the midterm elections in November, then decide in February or March whether to seek the GOP nomination.

"I've never been this serious," Gingrich said. "It's fair to say that by February the groundwork will have been laid to consider seriously whether or not to run."

Gingrich predicted President Barack Obama would be a one-term president. Obama's poll numbers have dropped below 50 percent, and Gingrich predicted they would continue to fall, making him vulnerable in 2012.

But why, Newt, why? You smell opportunity and...

Gingrich had a long congressional career and was House speaker from 1995 to 1999. He was given much of the credit for the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. But he abruptly resigned from Congress in 1998 after his party faired poorly in midterm elections. He also was reprimanded by the House ethics panel for using tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.

The former speaker, who championed a family values agenda, spearheaded efforts to impeach President Bill Clinton for perjury over his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Ah, yes, that is why the Republicans faired poorly in midterm elections. So much for Gingrich's political nose. :p

I, personally, was proud to see Lindsey Graham on the House floor reading the impeachment charges -- the rule of law, ya know. I also was proud that the Senate voted NOT to remove Clinton -- a political smear is what it was, ya know. Is Gingrich proud of his role?

Gingrich later admitted having an extramarital affair of his own in 1998 with a former congressional aide. He married her after divorcing his second wife whom, I believe, had also been a former congressional aide. His second wife was dying anyway.

Is that Gingrich's calling card, a hypocritical political opportunist?

Post #232 Merry 4th!

The signers of the Declaration of Independence showed courage -- by putting their names on a document that repudiated their own government, they had every reason to believe at the time that they might well be hanged for having done so. We should honor that.

I got a stirring "Fwd" e-mail that told of the hardships some of the signers endured. Unfortunately, the e-mail was full of 'embellishments,' politely speaking.

Have you ever wondered what really happened to the 56 men who signed The Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British.

Four were captured during battle and served time as a prisoner of war. George Walton was captured after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge -- three of the four signers from South Carolina -- were taken prisoner at the Siege of Charleston in May 1780. All four men were eventually released.

Only one signer -- Richard Stockton of New Jersey -- was taken prisoner specifically because he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was able to get a pardon and his release from imprisonment by disavowing his signature on the Declaration and signing an oath of allegiance to King George III.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned -- as did thousands of other colonists who lived in the war zone.

One lost his son serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. John Witherspoon of New Jersey had his eldest son, James, killed in the Battle of Germantown in October 1777. Abraham Clark of New Jersey had two of his sons captured.

Nine died during course of the Revolutionary War. Eight died of natural causes, and Button Gwinnett of Georgia died of wounds received in duel in May 1777.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

But no one was hanged, tortured or died in poverty -- as all the signers were able to recover at least some of their fortune. To 'embellish' the hardships of the signers diminishes the courage and sacrifices to support the revolutionary cause by people whose names are not immortalized on a piece of parchment.

Let's honor them all.

If you'd like to know more about the e-mail I got:

http://snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp

Post #231 ... more from FOX News

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* today, and she was spewing some garbage about President Obama playing golf while that oil well is still spewing in the Gulf of Mexico. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, President Obama was playing golf.

Megyn Kelly -- who is not just another pretty face -- smartly asked if the President wasn't deserving of a break, we don't need a President who is cooped up in the Oval Office, 24/7. right? Of course, said Coulter, but he shouldn't take a break during a "crisis."

Uh, what was a bigger "crisis" than 9/11? And where was your criticism of the President who took breaks while Osama was on the lose?

Consistency, please.

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?

Post #230 Stop the Ignorance!

I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I got another "Fwd" e-mail the other day.

Jt was about immigration -- more specifically, the idea that 'they' are taking over 'our' country. It lists 10 facts that were published in the "Los Angeles Times" -- it said, as tho that made facts true. Well, only one fact was from the "L.A. Times" and all of them were in dispute.

http://snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

But I was in luck: I got two 'nutty' e-mails in one.

The second half was about Nancy Pelosi and her proposed windfall profits tax on retirement income... which is %100 false -- the quotes attributed to Pelosi are %100 made-up.

http://snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

The e-mail ironically asks, "WHERE DO WE GET THESE MORONS?"

Post #229 Secure Communities?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100610/cm_csm/307078

And how does using fingerprints in a database constitute racial profiling? Obviously, there are flaws here -- NO way to fight detention, %5 of the 'hits' are wrong.

But I think the author just wants to criticize President Obama. He says that Janet Napolitano should appear before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to answer questions about this program. Yes -- and the obvious implication is that Obama is hiding her.

The real problem is that NOBODY has asked -- Congress should be criticized for not asking.

My Dad has said that people often get into trouble at their jobs because they do not know what their duties are and that it is the responsibility of the boss to explain those duties. Well, guess what? We the people are the boss.

Post #228 OBAMAMAN! *

Our tall lanky hero work as President during the day,...

On the White House backporch watching the sunset, his ears tune in: "Help us, Mr. President. Help us." Barack Obama steps back into the living quarters and ducks into the closet, He emerges in green tights, white trunks and with a gold shield covering his chest and abdomen labeled with a big red "O" -- OBAMAMAN! He emerges, puts one foot on the porch railing and... takes off.

On a beach in Louisiana, a small boy points and says, "Look. Up in the air. It's a bird." A girl chimes in, "It's a plane." A black man steps forward, "It's OBAMAMAN!"

OBAMAMAN plunges to the depths of the chilly Gulf of Mexico, wraps his lips around that spewing oil pipe and blows -- creating enough pressure to stop the flow. He then pinches the pipe and covers it with sand. OBAMAMAN flies back to the White House.

As he enters the living quarters, there is a knock at the door: "Daddy, can you help with my spelling list?" Into the closet goes OBAMAMAN; out comes Barak Obama: "Sure, sweetie."

Obama puts his daughter on his knee and picks up the list. "The first word is 'superior.'" "What does that mean, Daddy?" Obama looks at the audience and winks.

* patent pending

Post #227 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. III

Re: immigration

I've got no dog in this fight -- regarding immigration -- unless the price of food goes up! No experience here with legal or illegal immigration. A good thing, tho, to realize is that every law effects real people.

Prior to 1921, anybody could show up in the United States and be a legal immigrant. If we had the same rules for citizenship for everybody that are in place for immigrants today, we could eliminate some idiots from sucking up social programs that are available only to citizens.

We apply much tighter rules for immigration today on our neighbors from Mexico than our own ancestors faced. Indeed, the irony is that we acquired much of the southwest, including Arizona, by illegal immigration. In the 1820s, after Mexico gained independence from Spain, immigrants from the United States poured in. Those 'settlers' declared independence and eventually were able to 'secede' from Mexico with half of Mexico's original territory and 'unite' with the United States.

Which, of course, doesn't make the Arizona immigration law bad. But you now have something to think about when somebody shouts "ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!"

But the Arizona law stinks -- smells like politics. I think 'Bumper Sticker' politics came into play.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer remained silent on the measure while weighing the consequences. During the bill's development, her staff had gone over its language line by line with the bill's author, State Senator Russell Pearce -- tho tellingly not with her attorney general. But she has claimed that she also had concerns about several of its provisions.

A poll showed wide support for the bill among likely voters in the state -- 70 percent in favor and 23 percent opposed. Governor Brewer faced an upcoming Republican Party primary in the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election from other conservative opponents supporting the bill.

United States Senator from Arizona John McCain faced a primary battle against the more conservative J. D. Hayworth -- who had made measures against illegal immigration a central point of his candidacy. McCain said, "It's the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe." Uh, it sounds like McCain is criticizing the Arizona Highway Patrol for not doing its job.

McCain has been saying that the state had been forced to take action given the federal government's inability to control the border. He is correct. But who has been a part of that federal government, Senator McCain?

Look, I don't know what to do about immigration -- only that it should be comprehensive covering all issues, from 'anchor babies' to the greedy capitalists who hire illegals. But I do know the Arizona law stinks -- it allows each individual cop to decide how much his own prejudice goes into law enforcement. If the Arizona lawmakers could not define "reasonable suspicion," they just should have stayed home that day.

Post #226 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. II

Re: Arizona immigration law

UnConstitutional? I don't think so. I understand the arguments about the federal government taking the lead in immigration and violations of civil rights. But let's face it: This Supreme Court will not throw out a law that is popular with the Republican base.

The Arizona immigration law makes it a crime to be caught in Arizona without your 'papers.' Police must make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official," to determine a person's immigration status.

It is not well-thought-out. It is vague and may have unintended negative consequences. The problem with this law is it gives too much power to the cop on the street -- prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner. It calls for racial profiling -- despite language against that -- under the guise of "reasonable suspicion."

Let's be honest: There is NOTHING a person can do that will create a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant -- except for having brown skin. Even a "I'm an illegal immigrant" T-shirt should be reasonably seen as a political statement -- especially when worn by Megan McCain. :p The legal definition of "reasonable suspicion" will be tied up in court for years.

I criticize the Arizona lawmakers for coming up with a week law that will drain the resources of Arizona's courts.

And other resources. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, saying that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. Simply, solving crimes against Arizona citizens gets harder as you scare a portion of the population into not cooperating.

However, there is still no reason to applaud the Mexican President's criticism before Congress.

P.S.: There are two things I learned while researching this topic:
1. No illegal immigrant is living 'the American Dream.'
2. It's harder to become legal than I thought.

Post #225 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* the other day, and she was spewing some garbage about Dems cheering when the Mexican President criticized the Arizona immigration law before a joint session of Congress. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, the Democratic side of the joint session of Congress cheered -- a standing ovation, for goodness sake -- the Mexican President's criticism.

That was an unpatriotic act -- no matter how you feel about the Arizona immigration law. And politically stupid, too, for Republicans will play that video over and over for the November 2010 eletions -- as well they should.

There are two places where it is appropriate to applaud during a speeh by a foreign dignitary before a joint session of Congress: the beginning and the end. Is that too hard to understand?

If I was President Obama, I'd fire every Cabinet member who participated in the spectacle and fire my vice-president. If he does not, well, that says a lot.

* I have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?

Post #224 'Where I be from?'

I never thought it was important, but, recently, I was doing some research and....

I've tried to be fair in this blog. I've tried to always treat everybody with respect -- even when George Weasel Bush didn't deserve it! :p

My guiding quote in this blog... and life: "Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him." And, of course, the opposite: "I am every man's superior in that he may learn from me."

Anyway, I am from North Carolina. We were the last state to secede from the Union in 1861 and join the Confederacy. We knew it was a bad idea -- not swayed by the overheated rhetoric of our cousins in South Carolina.

Indeed, North Carolina's aversion to overheated rhetoric continues today... and, hopefully, reflected in this blog.

Which brings up the Tea Party.

In Charlotte, North Carolina's largest city, recently, the Tea Party organized a 'human chain' to surround the Bank of America headquarters to protest that the Bank of America has repaid its 'bailout.' The event drew seven protesters to form the chain.

[rolleyes]

North Carolina only joined the Confederacy after we were surrounded by Confederate states and the War had actually started -- we realized it was not in our best interests to be a Union outpost. Once we joined, North Carolina lost more troops supporting 'the cause' -- despite ranking #7 in slaves.

The moral: Listening to overheated rhetoric will burn.

Post #223 If The Tea Party Was Black, Pt. II

I usually don't talk about race because the concept of 'white privilege' is so difficult to explain -- especially to somebody who has been called a "honkie." But not talking about race is probably the biggest example there is of 'white privilege.'

http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #222 If The Tea Party Was Black...

Too bad people can't be forced to 'walk a mile in my shoes' -- they might learn something....

http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

Post #221 I, too, am tired

I got an "Fwd" e-mail -- "I'm 63 and I'm Tired" -- in which a tough-talking straight-shooter with 'problems' that most people would trade for proceeds to blame his 'problems' on nearly every aspect of modern society.

I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. I am tired of hearing them blame mysterious forces such as "the economy' or Government actions they don't understand or the media and celebrities -- ! -- for their problems. So, no, I was not impressed by that rant.

First, the guy lists his credentials of being a hard worker. Then, he says, "Givn the economy, there's no retirement in sight." Huh? Has this guy never heard of Social Security Insurance?

The question is, what has this guy been doing for 40 years to plan for his retirement? There is no law against having a 'private' retirement account -- or a 'Vegas vacation' account, for that matter. Surely, he has not been relying on the Government to take of his needs, huh?

Well, no -- he has a "paid-off $250,000 condo" as a nest egg -- that's $10,000 a year for 25 years, almost twice as much as my Grandma draws from Social Security. Plus, his nest egg is probably bigger now than my nest egg from my own 'private' retirement account will be when I am 65.

Why is he whining?

He goes on: "I'm tired of being told that I have to 'spread the wealth' to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it." Wow. Who told him that? Glen Beck?

Which brings us to the housing bubble. He blames the Community Reinvestment Act and suggests that "the left-wing Congress-critters" who passed that Act pay.

Uh, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. It survived amending and tweaking during 12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Clinton just fine. It wasn't until the Republican Congress and the Republican President after 2001 had their way that we had a mess.

And don't forget the Fed chairman -- appointed by a Republican President, by the way -- who 'pumped up' the money supply by lowering interest rates to a 45 year low. How many Republicans will seek office in November 2010 calling for higher interest rates?

Well, everybody's favorite kicking toy -- the media -- gets a few kicks. He blames the media for his vote for George W. Bush in 2004. The media, he says, "picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his."

I'm sorry that our e-mail writer missed the 'swift boat' ads during the summer of 2004 which prompted the media to go over and over and over John Kerry's daily activities in Vietnam. All I learned about Bush was that he worked on a political campaign instead of protecting our southern flank against the hostile Mexican Air Force.

And, by the way, what kind of military records does an individual soldier have that the Pentagon doesn't? It sounds like a made up controversy to justify his notions -- much like the 'birthers.'

Oh, well, the whole e-mail hits all the 'hot buttons,'but a little bit of thinking calns.

A little bit of thinking, please. Is that too much to ask?

Post #220 Weapons of Mass Destruction Found

German authorities shut down Berlin's main international airport this past Wednesday after construction workers discovered a quarter-ton Weapon of Mass Destruction. They claimed it was a World War II bomb.

But we know better.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein faked his own execution, fled to Germany and has gone back into the WMD business to arm his world-wide network of terrorists who do his bidding.

Obviously, too, we must invade Germany, capture Hussein, destroy WMD, nurture democracy and watch peace bloom.

Can I get an "Amen," Dick Cheney?

Post #219 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!," Pt. II

Conservatives have one last legitimate hope to derail health care reform: The activist, right-wing Supreme Court. As we've seen in "Bush vs. Gore," the Supreme Court has no problem sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. As we've seen with D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court has no problem seeing a policy it doesn't like and declaring that policy unConstitutional -- no matter how dubious the Constitutional reasoning.

If I was a gambling man, I'd give it 3-to-1 odds that the Supreme Court will ride to the rescue.

Questions arise if the Supreme Court rules against health care reform: Will I still be legally required to buy car insurance? Will my Grandma get a refund from Plan D of Medicare? After all, Plan D was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

Of course, the BIG question: How is adding 32 million Americans to health insurance rolls a bad thing?

Oh, the theory is that adding 32 million poor Americans to health insurance rolls will make everybody's quality of health care go down. If that is so, why not eliminate the poorest 32 million Americans who are now on health insurance rolls to improve the quality of health care. Everything is honkey-dorey -- unless you're one of the 64 million of the poorest Americans.

I criticize President Obama for a too-complex bill and too-long debate -- not pretty watching sausage being made. I would have just opened Medicare to everybody. But I'm happy it's here.

The good news is that the issue of health care is here to stay. And the Republican plan is...?

Post #218 FOX News Bleach Blonde Bobble-Heads!

Where can I buy 'em? :p

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

President Barack Obama signed a health care bill just this past Tuesday that will for the first time cement insurance coverage as the right of every U.S. citizen and begin to reshape the way virtually all Americans receive and pay for treatment. Obama said, "After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land."

Thank You.

It as literally a lifesaver for countless Americans. The extension of health care coverage to 32 million who now lack it is to be achieved through a complex cocktail of new mandates for individuals and employers, subsidies for people who can't afford to buy coverage on their own, consumer-friendly rules clamped on insurers, tax breaks, and marketplaces to shop for health plans.

Many thought you couldn't do it -- me, too. And when you said not to bet against you, I thought you were blowing smoke.

Take your victory lap, Mr. President!

And where are our friends, the loyal opposition? David Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush:

"Conservatives and Republicans suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

"It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today with a big win in the November 2010 elections.

"No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there; would President Obama sign such a repeal?

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

"So the defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours."

Post #216 ... revised, 2010

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (to corporations), that they are endowed by their Creator (or certified public accountant), with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (or corporations), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (or corporations of some of the governed), That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People (or corporations), to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....

-- John Roberts, chief justice, SCOTUS

Post #215 Charles Krauthammer Jumps The Shark

"Jumps The Shark" is a phrase used to describe a TV series which has run out of fresh ideas. The phrase stems from the episode of "Happy Days" in which the gang visits California and 'the Fonz' jumps a shark with his motorcycle.

In his "War? What War?" column of January 01, 2010, Charles Krauthammer jumps the shark -- he repeats the same ol' tired and discredited neo-con world view.

Krauthammer says, "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension." Um, nobody is uneasy. Of course, Republicans are uneasy about being out-of-power, but nobody leaves their house scanning the skies for falling planes.

Krauthammer also says, "From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face." Um, no. In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." The threat comes from al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than a tactic, "terrorism."

"And just to make sure even the dimmest understand," Krauthammer adds, "Obama banishes the term 'war on terror.'"

Well, "jihadists." Krauthammer's favorite term, means 'holy warrior.' What could give more aid and comfort to the enemy than having our President say we are fighting 'holy warriors?'

Krauthammer gives more aid and comfort to the enemy with his, uh, smirkiness. :p He sneers: "Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management." Every major military commander on the ground understands the need to close Guantanamo as it acts as a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. Surely, we shouldn't ignore our military commanders on the ground. Surely, too, we shouldn't ignore the rule of law. Surely, three, we should have confidence in our judicial system.

Why does Krauthammer seem to devalue so much about what is right with America? Simple. He and only he and his neo-con allies know how to fight terrorism. But, of course, reality says otherwise. If Krauthammer and his pals know so much, why did 9/11 happen? And why hasn't al Qaeda been eliminated?

However, let me agree with Krauthammer on one point: "[The underwear bomber is] an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians." But the title of his "War? What War?" column hints at the problem.

Nobody has declared war -- well, nobody with the Constitutional authority to. It is my opinion that we were attacked with an act of war; it is Dick Cheney's opinion that we are at war; George W. Bush told us to go shopping.

Until we get that -- War? What war? -- cleared up, we will continue to flounder. God help us all.

Post #214 Happy 2010!

Well, well, well, don't Republicans feel embarrassed and ashamed? Health care reform has passed both the House and the Senate, and the party of "NO" is left to hoping that the bill falls apart in conference committee. But yet there have been no earthquakes or volcanoes or any other end-of-time scenarios.

Washington, D.C., is like a giant pre-school. Lil' Barack Obama showed up and spread his toys on the table, and Lil' Republican kicked the table over and then cried that Obama wasn't sharing. Like a five year old who wants to sulk, Lil' Republican ignored the numbers which said that health care reform was inevitable -- now, Republicans are on the outside looking in and crying that they wanted health care reform all along.

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

It's like Sarah Palin's bailout support -- ya know, George W. Bush's bank bailout that she supported during the '08 campaign but bad-mouthed in her book. Now that banks are paying back the money -- it looks like the bailout is working, expect Palin to say any day; "I was for it before I was against it."

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

'Ah,' ya ask, 'do you believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President?' Yes, of course, she is -- Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. There is no test -- just present a valid birth certificate. :p After all, we just had the governor of a large state who was not intellectually curious, politely speaking, as President -- wait, that did not turn so well.

Anywho, consider inconsistent former Vice President Dick Cheney who said "[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." Indeed, Cheney and his pals have been passing around a recording of a statement by Obama that shows he is weak on terror:

On Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio, Obama said, "I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that's something that this administration has failed to understand."

Um, that is correct. How does that make us less safe?

In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In other words, we are at war with that which is tangible -- Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, "terrorism," or a religion, Gawd-forbid.

How does that make us less safe?

The inconsistent Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, chimed in: "I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system."

How does that make us less safe? And how does the underwear bomber differ from the shoe bomber -- who, of course, was placed in the criminal-justice system by Bush/Cheney?

Consistency, please.

[rolleyes]