The great mother-in-law of all off-topic dumps

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Dr. Conspiracy

The original dump filled up, so here’s the new location for off-topic comments.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.

View all posts by Dr. Conspiracy →

This entry was posted in Off topic. Bookmark the permalink.

394 Responses to The great mother-in-law of all off-topic dumps

misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 6:59 am

charo: I have been reading all of the give and take, and I thought you should know this:

I actively supported Obama, and will vote for him again. If the GOP wins in ’12, there will be a war with Iran. I will not vote for someone who does not believe in evolution. I will not vote for someone who wants to tear down the wall between church and state.

The only reason Palin, Romney and the rest of their crowd support Israel, is so their lord will return. Palin, Hagee and the rest love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture.

I got a real taste of it when I tried living in Anchorage.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 7:18 am

misha: charo: I have been reading all of the give and take, and I thought you should know this:I actively supported Obama, and will vote for him again. If the GOP wins in ’12, there will be a war with Iran. I will not vote for someone who does not believe in evolution. I will not vote for someone who wants to tear down the wall between church and state.The only reason Palin, Romney and the rest of their crowd support Israel, is so their lord will return. Palin, Hagee and the rest love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture.I got a real taste of it when I tried living in Anchorage.

I respect your right to vote. What specific action did Palin take as governor that really ticked you off?
brygenon says:

July 14, 2010 at 7:45 am

charo asked:: I respect your right to vote. What specific action did Palin take as governor that really ticked you off?

We simply never heard of Palin’s actions as governor, until the Republican party nominated here for Vice President. As is obvious now in retrospect, when the voters vetted her she hurt the Republican ticket.

Since the 2008 campaign, her most important “specific action” as governor was to quit. It freed up her time for book-signing dates, and she seems to be successful at that.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 7:55 am

Oh, and didn’t Obama quit to run for President? Some say that is what Palin has done. I don’t see it for 2012. She has done campaigning for the party since she resigned. Seems to have helped a couple candidates.

It’s obvious where you stand with Palin. So, no need to go further.
kimba says:

July 14, 2010 at 8:42 am

“charo 14. Jul, 2010 at 7:55 am charo(Quote) #
Oh, and didn’t Obama quit to run for President?”

No, he didn’t. Pres Obama announced his candidacy in Feb 2007 and continued to attend and vote in the Senate until after the election in Nov 2008. HIs last vote was Oct 1, 2008. He resigned from the Senate on Sunday Nov 16, 2008, a week and a half after he won election to the Presidency.

Palin, however, quit with 2 weeks’ notice and almost 2 years left in her term saying since she wasn’t going to run for re-election, that made her a lame duck and she didn’t want to be a lame duck. Huh? The real reason Palin quit was she had been warned/advised that the investigator examining her Alaska Fund was going to find it illegal and she was going to have to cough up ~$400,000 to have to re-pay donors. She couldn’t make that kind of money governing, so she quit. She also had a book deal in the works and had been advised that the amount of time she was planning to be away from Alaska promoting the book would violate State law.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 8:53 am

charo: I respect your right to vote. What specific action did Palin take as governor that really ticked you off?

Me personally? I’d say the personal vendetta she had against her brother in law and trying to strongarm the police to get him fired
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 8:56 am

charo: Oh, and didn’t Obama quit to run for President? Some say that is what Palin has done. I don’t see it for 2012. She has done campaigning for the party since she resigned. Seems to have helped a couple candidates. It’s obvious where you stand with Palin. So, no need to go further.

Palin quit to run for president? Obama was a senator up until he ran for president. Palin was a candidate for VP and quit after she lost. It’s still too early to tell how much she has helped others. We have to wait for the general election in those states
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 8:59 am

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Me personally?I’d say the personal vendetta she had against her brother in law and trying to strongarm the police to get him fired

Even Rachel Maddow took her side on that one.

kimba: “charo 14. Jul, 2010 at 7:55 amcharo(Quote) #
Oh, and didn’t Obama quit to run for President?”No, he didn’t.Pres Obama announced his candidacy in Feb 2007 and continued to attend and vote in the Senate until after the election in Nov 2008.HIs last vote was Oct 1, 2008.He resigned from the Senate on Sunday Nov 16, 2008, a week and a half after he won election to the Presidency.Palin, however, quit with 2 weeks’ notice and almost 2 years left in her term saying since she wasn’t going to run for re-election, that made her a lame duck and she didn’t want to be a lame duck.Huh?The real reason Palin quit was she had been warned/advised that the investigator examining her Alaska Fund was going to find it illegal and she was going to have tocough up~$400,000 to have to re-pay donors. She couldn’t make that kind of money governing, so she quit.She also had a book deal in the works and had been advised that the amount of time she was planning to be away from Alaska promoting the book would violate State law.

So don’t vote for her if she runs for president.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:08 am

Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke. I tried to find a youtube video (I watched it live where she seemed sympathetic) but it has been removed.

Don’t support Palin is what you’re saying. That’s what this boils down to. And it is OT.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:12 am

charo: Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke. I tried to find a youtube video (I watched it live where she seemed sympathetic) but it has been removed.Don’t support Palin is what you’re saying. That’s what this boils down to. And it is OT.

Which had nothing to do with Palin’s strong arm tactics. So in other words you have nothing to prove that Rachel Maddow took her side.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:14 am

charo: Oh, and didn’t Obama quit to run for President?Some say that is what Palin has done.I don’t see it for 2012.She has done campaigning for the party since she resigned.Seems to have helped a couple candidates.It’s obvious where you stand with Palin.So, no need to go further.

Historical revisionism is cowardly and despicable.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:15 am

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): charo: Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke. I tried to find a youtube video (I watched it live where she seemed sympathetic) but it has been removed.Don’t support Palin is what you’re saying. That’s what this boils down to. And it is OT.Which had nothing to do with Palin’s strong arm tactics.So in other words you have nothing to prove that Rachel Maddow took her side.

I watched a segment of the program when this first broke that showed she was sympathetic to protecting the boy. I don’t care if you believe me or not. It is OT.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:50 am

charo: I watched a segment of the program when this first broke that showed she was sympathetic to protecting the boy. I don’t care if you believe me or not. It is OT.

Once again the tasering issue had nothing to do with Palin’s strong arm tactics. The police checked into it at the time and wooten was reprimanded. This does not show Rachel Maddow being on Palin’s side over her abuse of her power to use her office to get Wooten fired.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:51 am

charo: Because the show started September 8, what I saw was probably when she was a guest on the show that was in the line-up prior to her show starting. It would have been in the same time frame of troopergate. But, it’s time to move on.

So once again you have nothing to prove your claim that Rachel Maddow was on Palin’s side during troopergate. More historical revisionism. That’s twice in one day Charo
richCares says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:52 am

Is Charo a Palin fan? You know Palin, the one that honored Ronald Reagan’s college in Eureka, California, she made a special point of that California connection.. Very good speech, but Reagan attended college in Eureka college in Eureka, Illinois. By the way you can catch Palin’s new movie with Steve Carell, Date Night., lots of laughs.
Rickey says:

July 14, 2010 at 10:27 am

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that Palin has any intention of running for President.

Recall that she was mocked after she said this during an interview in July, 2008:

“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? ”

Critics assumed that she was admitting that she didn’t know anything about the job of VP. However, I’m now convinced that what she really meant was that she wanted to know how much work the job would entail. In other words, she wouldn’t be interested in the job if it was going to require hard work and long hours. When I visited Alaska in June of 2009, a month before her resignation, I ran into many locals who mockingly said that being governor of Alaska is a part-time job. The legislature is in session for only a few months each year, and the rest of year the governor’s duties are mostly ceremonial. Her handlers in the McCain campaign complained that she didn’t want to spend the time to bone up on policy and prepare for the debate with Biden. Now she is making a fortune giving speeches and going to book signings. Why would she want to give that up for a job which involves 14-hour days, seven days a week?

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that she will be a candidate in 2012.
Sef says:

July 14, 2010 at 10:38 am

Rickey: For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that Palin has any intention of running for President.Recall that she was mocked after she said this during an interview in July, 2008:“As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? ”Critics assumed that she was admitting that she didn’t know anything about the job of VP. However, I’m now convinced that what she really meant was that she wanted to know how much work the job would entail. In other words, she wouldn’t be interested in the job if it was going to require hard work and long hours. When I visited Alaska in June of 2009, a month before her resignation, I ran into many locals who mockingly said that being governor of Alaska is a part-time job. The legislature is in session for only a few months each year, and the rest of year the governor’s duties are mostly ceremonial. Her handlers in the McCain campaign complained that she didn’t want to spend the time to bone up on policy and prepare for the debate with Biden. Now she is making a fortune giving speeches and going to book signings. Why would she want to give that up for a job which involves 14-hour days, seven days a week?
I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that she will be a candidate in 2012.

Remember when she was Mayor of Wasilla they had to hire a city manager to actually do the work. Just how hard is it being a mayor of a town of 6000.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:06 am

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Once again the tasering issue had nothing to do with Palin’s strong arm tactics.

And this has nothing to do with the start of this “conversation.” Misha brought up Palin, Hagee and Israel so I asked what actions of Palin’s ticked him off the most with regard to THAT. So, what is the connection between Palin’s stance on Israel and troopergate?
Dave says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:17 am

charo:
And this has nothing to do with the start of this “conversation.”Misha brought up Palin, Hagee and Israel so I asked what actions of Palin’s ticked him off the most with regard to THAT.So, what is the connection between Palin’s stance on Israel and troopergate?

I thought this conversation started with you trying to explain why Clinton didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s eligibility back during the primary campaign.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:17 am

charo: And this has nothing to do with the start of this “conversation.” Misha brought up Palin, Hagee and Israel so I asked what actions of Palin’s ticked him off the most with regard to THAT. So, what is the connection between Palin’s stance on Israel and troopergate?

You asked Misha what Palin did as governor to tick Misha off. I said personally what I thought ticked me off about Palin as governor. You then claimed Maddow took Palin’s side but that was a lie.
BlackLion says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:45 am

charo: Oh, and didn’t Obama quit to run for President? Some say that is what Palin has done. I don’t see it for 2012. She has done campaigning for the party since she resigned. Seems to have helped a couple candidates. It’s obvious where you stand with Palin. So, no need to go further.

Technically Obama resigned when he was ELECTED President, not when he was running. Palin quit after she lost the election. The state of Alaska was investigating her for ethics violations and misuse of her position. She was a half term governor that quit on her state when things became difficult. Besides she realized that she could make more money conning her base than actually doing her job…..Not even close to being similar events to Obama resigning to become the chief executive of the US….
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 12:09 pm

BlackLion:
Technically Obama resigned when he was ELECTED President, not when he was running.Palin quit after she lost the election.The state of Alaska was investigating her for ethics violations and misuse fo her position.She was a half term governor that quit on her state when things became difficult.Besides she realized that she could make more money conning her base than actually doing her job…..Not even close to being similar events to Obama resigning to become the chief executive of the US….

“I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out.” –Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn’t be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009

And Sarah hypocritically supporting government enforced socialism over private enterprise:

“And Alaska — we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.” –Sarah Palin, explaining the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans “share in the wealth” generated by oil companies, New Yorker interview, Sept. 2008
sfjeff says:

July 14, 2010 at 12:28 pm

And Charo,

I am opposed to Palin for her philosophy and what appears to me to be a real lack of knowledge of the world. I am not a Alaska voter, but if I were, the main reason i would oppose her in the future was for quiting her Governorship.

And just to show my consistancy- i voted for the current mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, twice now. However he is running for Lt. Governor of California, and I am not only not going to vote for him, I am encouraging others not to because he is leaving the Mayorship of San Francisco for a ‘do-nothing’ job of Lt. Governor. If a politician is going to run for higher office while in office, he better at least make a credible argument that the higher office will provide him more opportunity to accomplish more for the voters. Obama did that. Newsom didn’t. And Palin just quit.

Why would we want a quiter as President?
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
You asked Misha what Palin did as governor to tick Misha off.I said personally what I thought ticked me off about Palin as governor.You then claimed Maddow took Palin’s side but that was a lie.

Actually, it was Keith Olbermann’s statement during a Maddow interview. This is what I was remembering:

8:15 p.m.

OLBERMANN: And the investigation that`s going on of the governor in Alaska. This is really a non-starter for her critics, as juicy as it might seem on the surface, right? I mean, she may have fired the guy who didn’t fire the trooper who had been married to her sister, but the guy was beating up the sister and tasering their 11-year-old kid. I mean, no woman would see that and would not give her a round of applause, and the same goes for a lot of men, too. That’s a non-starter politically, right?

RACHEL MADDOW: Well, I mean, if what she says about the trooper is true, I want to go up there and taser the guy myself, absolutely. But it, I mean, it should be noted that it was the state legislative council that decided to proceed with this investigation against her. And that’s a bipartisan group. It’s both Democrats and Republicans, state senators and state reps. They not only decided that this warranted investigation — her behavior in this — but that they would spend $100,000 of state funds to appoint an independent investigator to look into it. They’re now looking to hurry up her deposition in this case. And so, well from the outset, what we know about the details of this seem like this probably isn’t something that’s going to be easily politicized. At least within Alaska, in a bipartisan way, they thought her conduct was serious enough, her alleged conduct was serious enough here that they wanted to spend some good money going after her on this.

…

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/09/01/msnbc-fire-breather-palin-makes-obama-look-john-adams#ixzz0tg2uvYBr

I wasn’t lying, but in the future, I will look up the exact quote (which I usually do) for accuracy. You are blowing something I said way out of proportion to claim I lied. So, I went back and found what I thought I remembered.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 1:44 pm

charo: Bob Ross,Obama quits Senate after 46 months–21 of them seeking another jobNovember 13, 2008 | 9:47 pmhttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-senate.htmlYou are 0/2 in your smear campaign, but that’s okay. It’s helping me to become desensitized to anonymous people who hate me.

Obama was still a senator during that time he still voted, still did his job. Palin was running for president about a quarter of the time she was governor. Obama is going to be president longer than Palin was governor. I don’t hate you charo. That’s the problem when you’re emotionally unstable you think everyone is out to get you. Unlike birthers I don’t think of people I disagree with to be my enemy. I’m 2/2 in honesty. You’ve twice revised history saying once that Obama quit his job before becoming president and that Rachel Maddow took Palin’s side in troopergate
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm

charo: Bob Ross,This is what I said after clarifying and the above supports my memory.:” Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke. I tried to find a youtube video (I watched it live where she seemed sympathetic) ”

The tasering had nothing to do with Palin herself. Once again that has nothing to do with troopergate. My original statement was that Palin abused her role in office to try to get Wooten fired. You then said Maddow took Palin’s side. My whole statement was about ethics. So again you’re now revising history for a 3rd time.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Obama was still a senator during that time he still voted, still did his job.Palin was running for president about a quarter of the time she was governor.Obama is going to be president longer than Palin was governor.I don’t hate you charo.That’s the problem when you’re emotionally unstable you think everyone is out to get you.Unlike birthers I don’t think of people I disagree with to be my enemy.I’m 2/2 in honesty.You’ve twice revised history saying once that Obama quit his job before becoming president and that Rachel Maddow took Palin’s side in troopergate

Just because someone is paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t actually out to get them! 🙂
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm

charo: Actually, it was Keith Olbermann’s statement during a Maddow interview. This is what I was remembering:8:15 p.m.OLBERMANN: And the investigation that`s going on of the governor in Alaska. This is really a non-starter for her critics, as juicy as it might seem on the surface, right? I mean, she may have fired the guy who didn’t fire the trooper who had been married to her sister, but the guy was beating up the sister and tasering their 11-year-old kid. I mean, no woman would see that and would not give her a round of applause, and the same goes for a lot of men, too. That’s a non-starter politically, right?RACHEL MADDOW: Well, I mean, if what she says about the trooper is true, I want to go up there and taser the guy myself, absolutely. But it, I mean, it should be noted that it was the state legislative council that decided to proceed with this investigation against her. And that’s a bipartisan group. It’s both Democrats and Republicans, state senators and state reps. They not only decided that this warranted investigation — her behavior in this — but that they would spend $100,000 of state funds to appoint an independent investigator to look into it. They’re now looking to hurry up her deposition in this case. And so, well from the outset, what we know about the details of this seem like this probably isn’t something that’s going to be easily politicized. At least within Alaska, in a bipartisan way, they thought her conduct was serious enough, her alleged conduct was serious enough here that they wanted to spend some good money going after her on this.…Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/09/01/msnbc-fire-breather-palin-makes-obama-look-john-adams#ixzz0tg2uvYBrI wasn’t lying, but in the future, I will look up the exact quote (which I usually do) for accuracy. You are blowing something I said way out of proportion to claim I lied. So, I went back and found what I thought I remembered.

Okay you weren’t lying you were just flat out wrong. The statement above doesn’t support that Maddow took Palin’s side. Also newsbusters is a partisan site why not take the transcripts for the show from MSNBC?
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Okay you weren’t lying you were just flat out wrong. The statement above doesn’t support that Maddow took Palin’s side. Also newsbusters is a partisan site why not take the transcripts for the show from MSNBC?

No, I wasn’t flat out wrong. Read again:

[Maddow] Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke.

Because I fabricated the exchange? Or because it was the first place I found the exchange? If you like, I can try to track it down on the msnbc site.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 2:05 pm

charo: No, I wasn’t flat out wrong. Read again:[Maddow] Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke. Because I fabricated the exchange? Or because it was the first place I found the exchange? If you like, I can try to track it down on the msnbc site.

Again your statement was a revision. I started with: Me personally?I’d say the personal vendetta she had against her brother in law and trying to strongarm the police to get him fired

You replied: Even Rachel Maddow took her side on that one.

Then you went off not even talking about the same subject. You also seem to have missed all the shows Maddow did on troopergate and Palin’s abuse of power.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Again your statement was a revision.I started with: Me personally?I’d say the personal vendetta she had against her brother in law and trying to strongarm the police to get him firedYou replied: Even Rachel Maddow took her side on that one.Then you went off not even talking about the same subject.You also seem to have missed all the shows Maddow did on troopergate and Palin’s abuse of power.

Step one: Read

[Maddow] Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke.

Step 2:
Read the quote above from Countdown.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Which had nothing to do with Palin’s strong arm tactics. So in other words you have nothing to prove that Rachel Maddow took her side.

Part 1- strong arm tactics. I am sure that will be a major campaign issue for some.

Part 2- see above
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 2:29 pm

charo: Step one: Read [Maddow] Didn’t take her side in ethics, but seemed sympathetic to protecting the boy being tasered wehn this first broke. Step 2:Read the quote above from Countdown.

Step one you learn to read. I wasn’t talking about the tasering. It had nothing to do with troopergate. It was some after claim Palin made when she was investigated. The incident was investigated at the time it happened. I was talking about Palin strongarming the police trying to fire Wooten. Being sympathetic to protecting the boy has little to do with being sympathetic to palin herself. Which is what you implied in your first claim when you said Maddow took her side when I was talking about troopergate.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Being sympathetic to protecting the boy has little to do with being sympathetic to palin herself. Which is what you implied in your first claim when you said Maddow took her side when I was talking about troopergate.

Sympathetic to her through extension. The kid was tasered. Palin has been judged already for her actions after wards. If she campaigns, it will be an issue for those who want it to be.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 2:43 pm

Palin running in 2012 will be a gift for the incumbent. She’ll probably quit before the election anyway.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 3:17 pm

charo: Sympathetic to her through extension. The kid was tasered. Palin has been judged already for her actions after wards. If she campaigns, it will be an issue for those who want it to be.

Sympathetic to her through extension? Revise, parse, continue changing your statement. The kid had nothing to do with Palin so your statement that Maddow was sympathetic to Palin in regards to my statement that Palin abused her power and strongarmed the police was false on your part.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Sympathetic to her through extension?Revise, parse, continue changing your statement.The kid had nothing to do with Palin so your statement that Maddow was sympathetic to Palin in regards to my statement that Palin abused her power and strongarmed the police was false on your part.

It was her nephew. This is really tying up the thread. Your goal was to discredit me. People can read the exchanges and draw their own conclusions. Considering opposing viewpoints here are quite limited, the results are predictable.
Ellid says:

July 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
Rachel Maddow took her side?Prove it

Agreed. Maddow is not a Palin supporter by any stretch of the imagination.
Ellid says:

July 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Majority Will: Palin running in 2012 will be a gift for the incumbent. She’ll probably quit before the election anyway.

Wasn’t her latest approval rating something like 21%? She’d be crazy to run.
Lawyerwitharealdegree says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Ellid:
Wasn’t her latest approval rating something like 21%?She’d be crazy to run.

So, this certainly means she’ll run! Yay! Run, Sarah, run!
Ellid says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:02 pm

As for why I personally dislike Sarah Palin? Let’s see –

– Theocrat with strong ties to a group that would turn America into a “Christian” nation run along Old Testament lines.

– Supports abstinence-only sex education despite its lack of efficacy (as shown by her own daughter).

– Quit halfway through her term to become a pundit.

– Lied about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere.

– Tried to deny rape kits to Alaskan women.

– Incompetent both as mayor and governor.

– Inarticulate, ill-informed, and boorish.

– Constantly lies.

– Badly educated.

– Misogynist.

– Uses her children like props.

– Unqualified to be more than a small town mayor, and was bad at that.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Ellid:
Wasn’t her latest approval rating something like 21%?She’d be crazy to run.

I don’t think crazy would deter her or her pink elephants.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:07 pm

charo: It was her nephew. This is really tying up the thread. Your goal was to discredit me. People can read the exchanges and draw their own conclusions. Considering opposing viewpoints here are quite limited, the results are predictable.

And the nephew had nothing to do with Troopergate which I mentioned at the beginning to which you claimed maddow took Palin’s side. Just admit you were wrong so we can move on. Opposing viewpoints here are limited? Really? You and your birther ilk have been given free range to lie, make stuff up, and revise history and are continued to be allowed to post your lies. Go over to any birther site and post something that doesn’t fit the majority of information on the blog and see if you’ll still be allowed to post.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Ellid: As for why I personally dislike Sarah Palin?Let’s see –
– Theocrat with strong ties to a group that would turn America into a “Christian” nation run along Old Testament lines.- Supports abstinence-only sex education despite its lack of efficacy (as shown by her own daughter).- Quit halfway through her term to become a pundit.- Lied about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere.- Tried to deny rape kits to Alaskan women.- Incompetent both as mayor and governor.- Inarticulate, ill-informed, and boorish.- Constantly lies.- Badly educated.- Misogynist.- Uses her children like props.- Unqualified to be more than a small town mayor, and was bad at that.

Well yeah, but third place in the Miss Alaska contest and a heckuva flutist!
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Ellid: – Tried to deny rape kits to Alaskan women.

…The policy sought to have rape victims’ health insurance companies reimburse the city for the $500 to $1,200 cost of a forensic exam that is conducted after a sexual assault. Presumably, some of the cost might have been passed along to the victim through requirements for deductibles or co-payments, although victim advocates say they don’t know of anyone in the small town who had to pay such a fee.
…

Wasilla clearly had the policy. Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims.

We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con. But as mayor, she indirectly endorsed it by approving city budgets that relied on the revenue. So we find the bloggers’ charge to be Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:14 pm

Majority Will:
Well yeah, but third place in the Miss Alaska contest and a heckuva flutist!

Actually, second place…
AnotherBird says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Ellid: As for why I personally dislike Sarah Palin?Let’s see –
– Theocrat with strong ties to a group that would turn America into a “Christian” nation run along Old Testament lines.
– Supports abstinence-only sex education despite its lack of efficacy (as shown by her own daughter).
– Quit halfway through her term to become a pundit.
– Lied about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere.
– Tried to deny rape kits to Alaskan women.
– Incompetent both as mayor and governor.
– Inarticulate, ill-informed, and boorish.
– Constantly lies.
– Badly educated.
– Misogynist.
– Uses her children like props.
– Unqualified to be more than a small town mayor, and was bad at that.

– She doesn’t take her political responsibilities seriously.

The two things that stick out of my mind is that wink during the debate, and still wondering what was going through her mind. I would expect that from one who just realizes that they are on national television and is seeking attention. I don’t expect that from someone seeking public office and makes me think of a person pandering to the voters.

Second. The inability to answer a simple question. She might think “cutesy” answers would make her seem more appealing, but it just makes people look silly. Instead of taking about the foreign dignities or dealing with Canada, she uses you “can see Russian.”

Too many people want a politician who they can have beer with, instead of wanting to have a beer (drink) with a politician.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:26 pm

Ellid: Wasn’t her latest approval rating something like 21%? She’d be crazy to run.

Her numbers are hugely positive within her base, though (see numbers from March). Her latest rating according to Pollster.com is 35.4% and falling.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:29 pm

charo: Actually, second place…

Actually . . . Second runner up is third place. Sarah Heath was second runner up according to the best witness I can imagine.

Runner-up is a term used to denote a participant which finishes in second place in any of a variety of competitive endeavors, most notably sporting events and beauty pageants; in the latter instance, the term is applied to more than one of the highest-ranked non-winning contestants, the second-place finisher being designated “first runner-up”, the third-place finisher “second runner-up”, and so on.

Miss Alaska ’84 Recalls Rival’s Winning Ways

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Monday, September 8, 2008
Washington Post

Oh, yes, indeed, Maryline Blackburn remembers Sarah Palin. From the time she first met her fellow contenders for the title of Miss Alaska 1984, the flute player from Wasilla was one who stood out from the crowd.

“You can feel who your competition is going to be, and she was in my top five,” Blackburn told us. “She had that look in her eye that we saw the other night when she gave her speech — that I’m in it because I really want to win.’ “

Back in 1984, it was Blackburn who won the crown and advanced to Atlantic City as Alaska’s first African American delegate to the Miss America pageant. Palin — then Sarah Heath– was second runner-up. Today, of course, Palin is John McCain s running mate. Blackburn, not quite as famous, is an Atlanta gospel and R&B singer with three CDs to her name who sees their shared past on the tiara circuit as genesis for the different dreams they’re each chasing today.

“It’s been a wonderful whirlwind affair for me, and I owe this to my participation in the Miss America organization,” she said. “I’m sure if people sat down with Governor Palin, she would say the same thing.”

Blackburn grew up in Fairbanks, one of seven kids in an Army family. Like Palin, she was drawn to pageants for the scholarship money but got hooked on the spotlight. “I was like, ‘Hey, I really like this. I get to stand in front of people and speak and share my opinions.’ “

Care to argue some more?
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:36 pm

Majority Will:
Well yeah, but third place in the Miss Alaska contest and a heckuva flutist!

Actually, second place…

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Opposing viewpoints here are limited? Really?

As in number of posters, not the lack of permission to comment.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:40 pm

charo: Actually, second place…As in number of posters, not the lack of permission to comment.

Actually 3rd place. Sarah Heath was second runner up which is 3rd place. Actually birthers seem to outweigh the regulars here. So no there isn’t a limit in any way shape or form
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Majority Will:
Actually . . . Second runner up is third place. Sarah Heath was second runner up according to the best witness I can imagine.Runner-up is a term used to denote a participant which finishes in second place in any of a variety of competitive endeavors, most notably sporting events and beauty pageants; in the latter instance, the term is applied to more than one of the highest-ranked non-winning contestants, the second-place finisher being designated “first runner-up”, the third-place finisher “second runner-up”, and so on.Miss Alaska ’84 Recalls Rival’s Winning WaysBy Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Monday, September 8, 2008
Washington PostOh, yes, indeed, Maryline Blackburn remembers Sarah Palin. From the time she first met her fellow contenders for the title of Miss Alaska 1984, the flute player from Wasilla was one who stood out from the crowd.“You can feel who your competition is going to be, and she was in my top five,” Blackburn told us. “She had that look in her eye that we saw the other night when she gave her speech — that I’m in it because I really want to win.’ “Back in 1984, it was Blackburn who won the crown and advanced to Atlantic City as Alaska’s first African American delegate to the Miss America pageant. Palin — then Sarah Heath– was second runner-up. Today, of course, Palin is John McCain s running mate. Blackburn, not quite as famous, is an Atlanta gospel and R&B singer with three CDs to her name who sees their shared past on the tiara circuit as genesis for the different dreams they’re each chasing today.“It’s been a wonderful whirlwind affair for me, and I owe this to my participation in the Miss America organization,” she said. “I’m sure if people sat down with Governor Palin, she would say the same thing.”Blackburn grew up in Fairbanks, one of seven kids in an Army family. Like Palin, she was drawn to pageants for the scholarship money but got hooked on the spotlight. “I was like, ‘Hey, I really like this. I get to stand in front of people and speak and share my opinions.’ “Care to argue some more?

There was a reasonably credible source that said second place. You didn’t link anything the first time. Had you did, I would have found your source (the actual winner) more credible than mine. It was a tongue in cheek comment to make the distinction in the first place.
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:44 pm

charo:
There was a reasonably credible source that said second place.You didn’t link anything the first time.Had you did, I would have found your source (the actual winner) more credible than mine.It was a tongue in cheek comment to make the distinction in the first place.

Was it WND, the Post and Email or Newsbusters?
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:46 pm

For completion:

After Atlantic City, Blackburn went home for a while, but her career dreams led her away from Alaska. She had no idea that a former competitor had gone on to become governor — different names, remember — until her brother called last week and spelled out the connection.

“I was like, Get out!’ ” she said. “And then I was like, ‘Wow, you go, girl.’ “

Blackburn told us that, contrary to some reports, Palin was second runner-up, not the second-place finisher, and that Palin competed again in ’85 but didn’t place. Everyone of course now wants to hear the nasty, catty, behind-the-scenes stories; Blackburn says there aren’t any. Palin signed Blackburn’s pageant program like this: “Maryline, I do love you. You are more admired than you ever know. Please keep God Number One, he’s got great things for you, baby.”

How will she vote? “I’m on the Obama train,” Blackburn said. She was impressed by her former competitor’s speech (“the sarcastic lines, that’s Sarah”) but wonders if it’s enough.

“Most girls that are in pageants, we know how to turn it on,” she said. “There’s a lot more to it than that.”
Majority Will says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:47 pm

charo:
There was a reasonably credible source that said second place.You didn’t link anything the first time.Had you did, I would have found your source (the actual winner) more credible than mine.It was a tongue in cheek comment to make the distinction in the first place.

You have a funny way of admitting you made a mistake. I really like the part where you’re blaming me for not providing you with a link especially considering my post was a reply to Ellid in the first place.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 4:50 pm

charo: There was a reasonably credible source that said second place. You didn’t link anything the first time. Had you did, I would have found your source (the actual winner) more credible than mine. It was a tongue in cheek comment to make the distinction in the first place.

What was the source? Did you read it carefully? Every source I’ve seen said second runner up.
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:01 pm

charo: I respect your right to vote. What specific action did Palin take as governor that really ticked you off?

Here’s a start: http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-much

Take the time to read all of the comments, especially mine.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:09 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
What was the source?Did you read it carefully?Every source I’ve seen said second runner up.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/29/palinfrom-beauty-pageant-to-popular-governor/
“In 1984, Palin was chosen Miss Wasilla and went on to become the first runner-up in the Miss Alaska Pageant,..”

Time to move on with life.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:12 pm

misha:
Here’s a start: http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-muchTake the time to read all of the comments, especially mine.

I will do it as soon as practicable. I did see that there is a Jews for Sara site the other day. I don’t have the link at the moment, but I was going to save it for you. The website does have WND on it, and it doesn’t look like a big draw.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:14 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
That’s not laughable.Name the regulars then go back through threads.Many of the threads are spent responding to birthers.Just this last week we’ve had at least 20 different birthers come in and tie down the threads.

Bob,

I tried to move on numerous times from the Rachel Maddow issue. You wouldn’t let it die. I never brought up Palin. Once a topic is broached, then I defend what I said if challenged. But there has to be a stopping point.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:15 pm

I never brought up Palin (as the initiator)
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm

charo: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/29/palinfrom-beauty-pageant-to-popular-governor/“In 1984, Palin was chosen Miss Wasilla and went on to become the first runner-up in the Miss Alaska Pageant,..”Time to move on with life.

That’s why I always check with 2 to 3 sources. Even though its the WSJ its still a blog source.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm

charo: I never brought up Palin (as the initiator)

You asked what palin did as governor to tick someone off. I responded with what I thought ticked me off about her. You then said Maddow took her side. So yeah you brought up palin then revised your statement.
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:25 pm

charo: I did see that there is a Jews for Sara site the other day.

So they’re nuts.

Palin is a Christofascist.

I saw her on the news saying “I think the settlements should be expanded.” Know why?
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): So yeah you brought up palin then revised your statement.

When I thought about what I said, I revised it and quoted the source. I corrected myself immediately. You didn’t stop and still won’t. This whole issue deserves to be in the Great Mother of All Off-Topic Comment Dumps.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:28 pm

misha:
So they’re nuts.Palin is a Christofascist.I saw her on the news saying “I think the settlements should be expanded.” Know why?

I really don’t follow Palin all that closely, but go ahead.
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 5:52 pm

charo: I really don’t follow Palin all that closely, but go ahead.

OK – Palin, Huck, Hagee and the rest of their crowd support Israel so their lord will return. All the land of biblical Israel has to be populated by Jews, which means the settlements expand, which means Arabs get shoved off, which means more turmoil, which will cause Armageddon.

Once Armageddon starts, all of the Muslims will die, 2/3 of the Jews will die, and the remaining 1/3 will accept baptism. Then their lord will return, and rule over the earth.

I’ve lived there. What do Jews think of evangelicals? They are regarded as useful idiots.

Think the GOP will get the Jewish vote in ’12? Think again. The most the GOP ever got was 40%, when Reagan ran. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote. My prediction for ’12 is Romney/Jindal. And Jews hate the Mormon church.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 6:12 pm

misha:
OK – Palin, Huck, Hagee and the rest of their crowd support Israel so their lord will return. All the land of biblical Israel has to be populated by Jews, which means the settlements expand, which means Arabs get shoved off, which means more turmoil, which will cause Armageddon.Once Armageddon starts, all of the Muslims will die, 2/3 of the Jews will die, and the remaining 1/3 will accept baptism. Then their lord will return, and rule over the earth.I’ve lived there. What do Jews think of evangelicals? They are regarded as useful idiots.Think the GOP will get the Jewish vote in ’12? Think again. The most the GOP ever got was 40%, when Reagan ran. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote. My prediction for ’12 is Romney/Jindal. And Jews hate the Mormon church.

I am Catholic, as I have mentioned in the past, but I don’t like to discuss my faith on this type of forum. There are significant differences in what I believe versus what evangelicals believe. There are people who adamantly believe what they are taught. I don’t know enough about how faithful Palin is to her church to know whether she would dictate policy directed toward the end of causing Armageddon. What the pastor said to you was reprehensible. You can’t win converts to anything by confrontation or intimidation. Charity in all things. It is a struggle to attain to that ideal.
charo says:

July 14, 2010 at 6:15 pm

charo: Think the GOP will get the Jewish vote in ’12? Think again. The most the GOP ever got was 40%, when Reagan ran. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote. My prediction for ’12 is Romney/Jindal. And Jews hate the Mormon church.

It’s all a numbers game for the elections and targeting of groups. So the GOP focuses on retaining the 40% Jewish Reagan vote and so on.
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm

charo: I am Catholic, as I have mentioned in the past, but I don’t like to discuss my faith on this type of forum. There are significant differences in what I believe versus what evangelicals believe. There are people who adamantly believe what they are taught. I don’t know enough about how faithful Palin is to her church to know whether she would dictate policy directed toward the end of causing Armageddon. What the pastor said to you was reprehensible. You can’t win converts to anything by confrontation or intimidation. Charity in all things. It is a struggle to attain to that ideal.

I don’t know if I told you, but my degree is from a Jesuit college. To me, I was exposed to the Catholic peace movement, the Berigan brothers, and SVdeP. And that is what I expect.

The current pope was Herr Ratzinger, an ardent Nazi. People like Ratzinger made it possible for Hitler to carry out what he did.
kimba says:

July 14, 2010 at 6:31 pm

“charo 14. Jul, 2010 at 6:12 pm charo(Quote) #

I am Catholic, as I have mentioned in the past, but I don’t like to discuss my faith on this type of forum. There are significant differences in what I believe versus what evangelicals believe.”

The Catholic Church teaches there will be a Judgement Day, but doesn’t necessarily enthusiastically hope for its arrival like the evangelicals. Readings from Revelations appear often during the liturgical year. Next up will be on the feast of the Assumption on Aug 15.
JoZeppy says:

July 14, 2010 at 6:45 pm

misha: I don’t know if I told you, but my degree is from a Jesuit college. To me, I was exposed to the Catholic peace movement, the Berigan brothers, and SVdeP. And that is what I expect.The current pope was Herr Ratzinger, an ardent Nazi. People like Ratzinger made it possible for Hitler to carry out what he did.

I have two degrees from a Jesuit institution (double Hoya…MA and JD). And I am a Catholic, and not a big fan of Pope Benedict (I’m a JP II kinda person). But I think you’re being rather unfair with Benedict, and even untruthful. There is little evidence he was an ardent Nazi, and in fact was conscripted to the military, and deserted. And if he could be close friends with JP II, who was a fellow Pole, who suffered under the Nazi occupation, I think that says quite a bit.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 14, 2010 at 8:26 pm

charo: It was her nephew.This is really tying up the thread.Your goal was to discredit me.People can read the exchanges and draw their own conclusions.Considering opposing viewpoints here are quite limited, the results are predictable.

Which again had nothing to do with troopergate. So nowhere did Maddow side with Palin as you stated
Ellid says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:08 pm

charo:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/29/palinfrom-beauty-pageant-to-popular-governor/
“In 1984, Palin was chosen Miss Wasilla and went on to become the first runner-up in the Miss Alaska Pageant,..”Time to move on with life.

Wrong again: She came in third.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24palin.html?_r=1

Of course, none of this changes the fact that she’s an inarticulate theocrat who quit her government job to be a rich, famous pundit…..
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 9:33 pm

Ellid: Of course, none of this changes the fact that she’s an inarticulate theocrat who quit her government job to be a rich, famous pundit…..

Palin is a latter day Know Nothing; Beck is a latter day Father Coughlin.

I don’t know if you saw this: http://gawker.com/5441576/why-do-the-jews-hate-sarah-palin-so-much

She is proudly ignorant, and proud of her lack of intellectual curiosity. She is an uncouth hick. She believes what that minister said to me, but smart enough not to let it slip out in public. She and her church are on record supporting Jews For Jesus, who are nothing more than concentration camp capos.

There may be a difference between Armageddon and Auschwitz, but the distinction escapes me.

True story: I was sitting outside of a restaurant here. Someone walked up to me, and asked if I was Jewish; I said yes. Turns out he was from Jews For Jesus. I actually threw my coffee in his face, and dared him to press charges. He walked away. I’m sorry I wasted that premium brew on vermin.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 14, 2010 at 10:35 pm

charo: This whole issue deserves to be in the Great Mother of All Off-Topic Comment Dumps.

I was thinking the same thing, but the dump’s got too many in it now, and moving a lot of stuff is tedious work.

[Sigh]
James says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm

Interesting! Lucas Smith is Finally interviewed:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/christiannewsreview/2010/07/13/christian-news-review
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:49 pm

James: Interesting! Lucas Smith is Finally interviewed:

Yeah, by a panel of psychiatrists writing a textbook.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:53 pm

Don’t know if you knew this yet or not, but Taitz now has a docket number – 10A56
misha says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:55 pm

FUTTHESHUCKUP: Don’t know if you knew this yet or not, but Taitz now has a docket number – 10A56

Thank you. Keep us posted. Popcorn.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

July 14, 2010 at 11:56 pm

I’ll be checking for sure, misha.
Majority Will says:

July 15, 2010 at 12:10 am

FUTTHESHUCKUP: Don’t know if you knew this yet or not, but Taitz now has a docket number – 10A56

Justice Thomas will snicker, refuse it and the petulant birthers will cry foul. No surprises.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if, at some point, Oily blows a gasket and does something more incredibly stupid than usual to get the attention she craves.
FUTTHESHUCKUP says:

July 15, 2010 at 12:14 am

I agree 110%, Will. The FOXbots are all acting like she’s won the appeal just because she’s got a docket number. lol. I love smacking them down and can’t wait ’til it’s tossed out. Either Taitz is going to blow a gasket or refuse to pay the fine….or both
misha says:

July 15, 2010 at 12:16 am

Majority Will: However, I wouldn’t be surprised if, at some point, Oily blows a gasket and does something more incredibly stupid than usual to get the attention she craves.

That is exactly how I feel. I still say she will end up fleeing. She’ll end up living in a West Bank settlement, with her evangelical BFFs.

They can have her.
Bovril says:

July 15, 2010 at 3:50 am

Off topic but within the Obama and “Da Ebil Democrats” arena, specifically healthcare.

As we all remember that woman who shall remain nameless from Alaska helped drive the BS meme of THE DEATH PANELS in the recent helath care bill with many Birfers in the band wagon of “SOCIALIST!” but also “LEAVE MY COMMIE SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE……”

The UK model in particular was castigated viciously with selected one off cases inflated to presume a wholly failed system.

As a further rebuttal of this cack I attach a link to a report from The Economist Intelligence Unit, a far from left leaning entity, the report and analysis arm of The Economist.

http://www.eiuresources.com/mediadir/default.asp?PR=2010071401 (synopsis)

http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=qualityofdeath_lienfoundation&page=noads (full report)

The nub is that the unit has devised what they rather ghoulishly call the “Quality of Death” Index to rank countries according to their provision of end-of-life care. The Index, commissioned by the Lien Foundation and published today, measures the current environment for end-of-life care services across 40 countries.

This measures a range of services provided including how you get ther, how yuu are treated, extension of end of life, pain and other palliative care measures, governmental assistance etc etc.

Guess what…..that nasty, failing wicked Socialist UK comes in first, US…..equal 9th.

Interesting points include, those countries you would expect to be in the top lists, based on spend, culture, familial support etc aren’t

France 12th
Norway 13th
Sweden 16th
Japan 23rd
Italy 24th

So, wicked evil death panels…….seems they are filled with folks who care about, spend about and help those at the end of life
Dick Whitman says:

July 15, 2010 at 4:21 am

I’m watching “Vegas Confessions” on HDNet and am patiently waiting for “HDNet Fights” to begin.

Some people shouldn’t drink and confess.
HORUS says:

July 15, 2010 at 11:29 am

Since we’re already OT.

Here is a link to Salon’s “Handy-Dandy Guide to Refuting the Birthers”.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/
Majority Will says:

July 15, 2010 at 11:41 am

HORUS: Since we’re already OT.Here is a link to Salon’s “Handy-Dandy Guide to Refuting the Birthers”.http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/

Sisyphus will be sitting on his rock at the top of the hill before any hardcore birther admits to being wrong about the eligibility and legitimacy of our current President.
HORUS says:

July 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm

James, you’re still flogging that dead horse Lucas Smith?
Majority Will says:

July 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm

HORUS: James, you’re still flogging that dead horse Lucas Smith?

Sadly, it’s obviously his meal ticket.
Majority Will says:

July 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm

HORUS: Since we’re already OT.Here is a link to Salon’s “Handy-Dandy Guide to Refuting the Birthers”.http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/

Here is Apuzzo’s latest bit of un-American, xenophobic lunacy and beg for money:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34220508/Kenya-My-Country-Tussker-My-Beer-The-Elephant-in-the-Oval-Office-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20100712-pg-5
Majority Will says:

July 15, 2010 at 9:24 pm

HORUS: James, you’re still flogging that dead horse Lucas Smith?

It’s probably some sort of circular group flogging.
misha says:

July 15, 2010 at 10:43 pm

Here’s Glenn Beck on the Jews killed Jesus. Actually, being known as a Christ killer gives me street cred:

http://gawker.com/5588178/glenn-beck-reminds-us-that-jews-killed-jesus

As I’ve been saying all along: he’s a closet anti-semite.
obsolete says:

July 16, 2010 at 4:11 am

A Bombshell!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG11111!!!!!!
(hat tip James)

Actually, an older story that needs to be brought up from time to time to try to inject some common-sense into birthers who may be reached:

McCain Campaign Investigated, Dismissed Obama Citizenship Rumors
http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

Quoting Trevor Potter, a Washington attorney who served as general counsel to the 2008 and 2000 McCain presidential campaigns:
While they ruled out any chance of the “birther” lawsuits holding up in court, lawyers for the McCain campaign did check into the rumors about Obama’s birth and the assertions made by Berg and others. “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

How long has McCain’s attorneys been in on the “Grand Conspiracy”????
Lupin says:

July 16, 2010 at 4:51 am

Quote:

“Tom Kerr: As the leader of the North Carolina Civilian Militia, I, Thomas P. Kerr, am issuing a KILL ORDER for Barack Obama, Van Jones, Bill Ayers, Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. Long live the United States of America!”

http://www.facebook.com/teapartypatriots?v=wall&story_fbid=411710265778#!/teapartypatriots?v=wall&story_fbid=411710265778

Liars, scoundrels and hypocrites — all of them.

I hope your secret service will be on this guy like glue.
Northland10 says:

July 16, 2010 at 6:48 am

And the winner of the next FBI/Secret Service visit is….

I hope he remembers to put out some cookies for them.
Northland10 says:

July 16, 2010 at 7:11 am

Actually, in looking at this, it appears to be some early 20s kid playing around. He may think or believe it but it would be highly unlikely he would be a leader in a militia group that has been around since the 1990s as the North Carolina Citizen Militia has been. Most militia groups in the US, despite their paranoia, tend to look unfavorably toward taking offensive actions. Remember, the Georgia militia group was quick to disown Darren Huff and the Michigan Militia groups quickly stated certain associates were not either part of them or were kicked out (Tim McVeigh, Norm Olson, the Hutaree).

Still, a little scare from the FBI might be a wise idea.
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

Northland10: Actually, in looking at this, it appears to be some early 20s kid playing around.He may think or believe it but it would be highly unlikely he would be a leader in a militia group that has been around since the 1990s as the North Carolina Citizen Militia has been.Most militia groups in the US, despite their paranoia, tend to look unfavorably toward taking offensive actions.Remember, the Georgia militia group was quick to disown Darren Huff and the Michigan Militia groups quickly stated certain associates were not either part of them or were kicked out (Tim McVeigh, Norm Olson, the Hutaree).Still, a little scare from the FBI might be a wise idea.

Maybe the organization itself will disown the crazies, but your examples prove that there are crazies in these groups who will try to do very crazy things.
Majority Will says:

July 16, 2010 at 9:30 am

Northland10: “it appears to be some early 20s kid playing around”

If true, he/she is an adult, may have committed a crime and should be held responsible. And claiming ignorance of the law is not a valid reason for claiming innocence.
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:23 am

Interesting journal article.

Popular Delusions &(and) the Law in the Age of the Internet – A Review of Damian Thompson’s Counterknowledge [article]

Hill, Kevin D. 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 801 (2009)

“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just
happen to coincide with their self-interest.”
Judge Frank Easterbrook.’

Christine Maggiore believed with all her heart that the HIV virus did not cause AIDS. She wrote articles, gave lectures across the country and used the Internet to reach millions with a message that threatened the health of anyone diagnosed with AIDS. She eventually died of pneumonia which was probably related to her AIDS. Irwin Schiff, a colorful and prominent tax protest leader, believed that the Federal Income tax was unlawful and unconstitutional. Schiff has written numerous books promoting his income tax ideas to naive people eager to believe that there is a simple way to get out of paying taxes. Though he has twice spent time in prison on tax-related charges, his ideas have spread across the country helping to create a subculture of tax protesters.

The law has not been immune to such misinformation. Tax protestors make ludicrous arguments in federal court with a sad earnestness, not being able to separate reality from myth. The debate on tort reform is permeated with urban legends posing as real cases making it difficult to understand the complexity of courtroom reality.

The breadth of knowledge available in the contemporary world provides both great delight and great mischief. Surfing over the Internet, a minimally diligent researcher can find sites devoted to preposterous propositions such as: the U.S. government blew up the twin towers; that the AIDS virus was engineered by scientists to kill African-Americans; that Barrack Obama is not an American; and that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon. If you believe any of those propositions, you are, well, to be charitable, misinformed. You have been swept along in a tide that Damian Thompson, Editor-in-Chief of the Catholic Herald and lead writer for Britain’s Daily Telegraph, calls “counterknowledge.”‘ Moreover, you are part of a vast legion. Millions of unwary souls from every quadrant of Earth are swallowing a daily diet of quackery, conspiracy theory, bogus history, bad science and even bad law. The stories are entertaining yet demonstrably wrong. They purport to be knowledge without actually being knowledge. They are misinformation packaged as fact. They are urban legends, products of addled-brained conspiracy theorists and serve as opiates for the ill-educated and poorly informed.

He writes about the increasing speed at which these counterknowledge theories spread with the help of the internet. While birtherism is relatively benign, AIDS denialism tragically cost the lives of Christine Maggiore and her three year-old daughter. It also ends up with tax-protesters in prison for failing to pay their taxes based on bizarre theories of the law that start to sound like birtherism:

The magical thinking aspect of tax protester mythology takes its most extreme form in the myth of the gold-fringed flag. According to some tax protesters, placement in a courtroom of a gold-fringed American flag denotes admiralty jurisdiction, suspension of constitutional governmental functions or martial law. These litigants call the gold-fringed American flag the ‘maritime flag of war,”‘ and claim its display signifies .'[d]eprivation of rights under color of law.”‘ They maintain that a court that flies a gold-fringed flag lacks jurisdiction over those coming before it and deprives the litigant of Due Process rights. Not surprisingly, courts uniformly reject such claims. Judge Whipple, in the Western District of Missouri, probably expressed the court’s view of the argument best when he wrote: “[J]urisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a child’s game wherein one’s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman.”

At least one of the birthers caused some head-scratching at PJ when he referred to admiralty jurisdiction, but substitute standing for jurisdiction in the above and you find Mario and Orly arguing that they should have their day in court (or yguy arguing that the right to petition for redress of grievances makes all standing jurisprudence moot). Scratch a little deeper and you find tax protesters filing briefs arguing that they cannot be taxed because they are natural born citizens as opposed to mere 14th Amendment citizens.
Majority Will says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:24 am

JoZeppy: So let’s sum up ConLaw by yguy.Who decides what is Constitutional?Congress, the President, the people…pretty much everyone except the Supreme Court?So what does the Supreme Court do?Well, necessary for enforcement…what exactly that role is, apparently only yguy knows, or will make it up on the spot to suit his needs.The President apprently is a kind of Constitutional ubermensch who can violate specific provisions in the Constitution (except for the ban on slavery…not sure why that one is sacrosanct, and the others aren’t…that is until yguy decides another provision meets his approval) if he can justify it under the broad language of the preamble.And finally, a liberty is everything that I feel I should be able to do, and a license is everything I feel you should not be able to do.And when you point out the flaws and absurdity of my arguments, and the fact that they lack any basis in the law or reality, I will merely claim it is because you lack common sense.Did I get everything?

A poster’s absurd level of arrogance can speak volumes about his/her equally high level of insecurity, cognitive dissonance and self-doubt.
Majority Will says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:38 am

Greg: Interesting journal article.

Yes, interesting indeed. Thanks.

And a birther will now claim he is on the conspiracy for misspelling “Barack” and that barrack is a secret military reference.

“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just
happen to coincide with their self-interest.”
– Judge Frank Easterbrook

Excellent quote.
HORUS says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

“You really need to understand “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” before you post another word. You might even try just reading the Constitution. Is that too much to ask of you if you are going to discuss the Constitution.”

Keith, are you trying to make his head explode?
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

yguy: All you need do to confirm this for yourself is to consider what the proper response of the President would be if Congress passed a law requiring that homosexuals be interned as the Japanese were in WW2, and SCOTUS declared it constitutional.

Let’s run it through your Rubric:

And who determines if they are constitutional?

Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.

So, Congress, enacting the will of the People who elected them, orders the imprisonment of homosexuals. The Supreme Court, perhaps acting on your belief that homosexuality is a “sexual perversion,” that it is “evil,” that the practice of it is license, not liberty and that “the cultivation of which inevitably leads to the innocent being murdered or enslaved by the guilty,” finds that the law is constitutional.

The President disobeys the order to imprison homosexuals.

What then?

And who determines if they are constitutional?

Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.

Either the President is impeached or he is not and “the People” vote out the legislators or they do not. Four distinct options:

President/Congress
1. Impeached/voted out – Disobeying SC constitutional
2. Impeached/not voted out – Disobeying SC unconstitutional
3. Not impeached/voted out – Imprisoning homosexuals unconstitutional
4. Not impeached/not voted out – ?

So, at its base, whether imprisoning homosexuals is constitutional and whether following SC order is required by the Constitution comes down to who can convince 51% of the voters.

And who said the Constitution isn’t a living document?
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:47 am

yguy: No, it means the People evolve – or devolve, depending on one’s perspective.

Are you operating under the assumption that when people talk about an evolving Constitution or a living Constitution that they mean that the actual words change in the Constitution as opposed to the meaning placed on those words by society?

Again, this is a limitation of your method of non-argument, where you never actually state what you believe.

yguy: The President isn’t a representative of the People?

The Supreme Court isn’t appointed by the President (a representative of the People) and confirmed by the Senate (representatives of the People)?
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:01 am

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The japanese internment wasn’t something through congress but rather an executive order that was deemed unconstitutional.

Actually, it wasn’t. The Supreme Court, in four separate cases, upheld the constitutionality of the internments. While Congress apologized for the internments and gave monetary payments totalling $1.6 billion to those interned or their heirs, the internments were never declared unconstitutional.
HORUS says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:34 am

I always forward all threats to the FBI and Secret Service.
With these wackos it hard to tell when one is telling a joke or is as serious as a heart attack.
Mostly because these people have a very strange sense of humor, they seem to get giddy whenever someone suffers.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:40 am

Dr. Conspiracy:
A smiley face is not a substantive answer.

Since whatever substance there might be in your question eludes me, I guess we’re even.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:43 am

yguy: These are general and as yet unsubstantiated charges, so they are not “besides” anything – unless you consider what they are “besides” similarly unsubstantiated.I’ve never seen a compelling case made for this accusation. Even factcheck declared that the famous “sixteen words” had a basis in fact, and several prominent Dems went on record with statements which gave credence to W’s contentions regarding Iraq before he took office.Quote it or link to it, then – in its entirety, please.Nothing unconstitutional about that. On its face it doesn’t even violate a constitutional provision, as Lincoln’s suspension of the WOHC is said to done, and his justification was essentially the same as W’s.

Except for the fact that the Torture violated established US Law. How about that cruel and unusual punishment part? The torture also violated our existing treaty obligations and international law.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

Greg:
The President disobeys the order to imprison homosexuals.
What then?

Either he’s impeached or he isn’t. If he is, and the people don’t remove those responsible ASAP, they declare the Constitution worthless.
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm

yguy: Quote it or link to it, then – in its entirety, please.

An interesting request from someone whose answers more often than not are no more substantive than, “With all due respect, I’m so far ahead of you on this it’s not funny.”

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the ‘‘USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,’’ and then S. 2271, the ‘‘USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.’’ The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism
effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining
too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing
information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and
119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise
the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or
the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for
an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress
such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

George W. Bush
The White House,
March 9, 2006.

Nothing unconstitutional about that. On its face it doesn’t even violate a constitutional provision, as Lincoln’s suspension of the WOHC is said to done, and his justification was essentially the same as W’s.

Well, on its face, it appears to violate the separation of powers that says that Congress writes the laws, and the President vetoes them, or enforces them.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Nothing in there about how the President can, by signing statement, declare that the law doesn’t apply to him. The President specifically asked Congress to put in a mechanism by which he could waive the restrictions if he found that National Security required it, and Congress rejected that proposal.

John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham blasted Bush for this signing statement:

”We believe the president understands Congress’s intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees,” the senators said. ”The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration’s implementation of the new law.”

Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ”and would go a little bit further.”

”I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified,” Graham said. ”If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations’ leaders from doing the same.”

The Supreme Court told Bill Clinton that the President cannot pick and choose which parts of a bill to follow, he cannot veto particular lines in a bill, he signs it, or he vetoes it. Bush attempted a sub rosa line-item veto, no, a line-item rewriting of bills, most egregiously in the torture law. Congress said, “no presidential waivers” and Bush said, “Yes, there are presidential waivers.”

Congress is given the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” and “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” Bush’s signing statement says, essentially, that those powers are always trumped by the President.

On its face, then, it violates the Constitution. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was in response to a specific threat, whereas Bush’s signing statement is of a general nature, stating that he can violate a specific Congressional enactment whenever he feels it conflicts with national security.
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

yguy: If he is, and the people don’t remove those responsible ASAP, they declare the Constitution worthless.

Worthless, or changed?

You seem to want it every way from Sunday. Again, this is the problem with not actually stating what you believe. Do you know what you believe? Are you capable of stating it in a clear, declarative sentence?

You seem to believe that the Constitution doesn’t change, but abortion wasn’t banned by the Constitution because scientific knowledge wasn’t sufficient in 1787 to tell the Founders that fetuses were people and when science “found” that fetuses were people, the Constitution changed to protect them. The Constitution doesn’t change, but the People and their will are the ultimate arbitors of Constitutionality. The Constitution doesn’t change, but the People, the ultimate judge of Constitutionality, supported the internment of the Japanese during World War II, supported the criminalization of heterosexual sodomy at the founding, but now see the internment as a civil rights violation, despite no Supreme Court case invalidating it, and support the decriminalization of sodomy, both heterosexual and homosexual.

Let’s go back to your internment example. The President ordered it, Congress acquiesed in it, the People supported it, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Why is it now unconstitutional, except through a changed understanding of the Constitution?
sfjeff says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Why is it now unconstitutional, except through a changed understanding of the Constitution?

Thank you Greg
sfjeff says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm

“The President isn’t a representative of the People? ”

No not really. First of all you said “Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.”, no representative, and secondly the Constitution is very clear- it even spells out who our Representatives are. It doesn’t say anything about the President being a representative of the People.
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:45 pm

yguy: Since whatever substance there might be in your question eludes me, I guess we’re even.

It doesn’t seem difficult to elude you. You are like a third-grader chasing a zebra when it comes to intellectual arguments.

Do you think, maybe, Dr. C. was recasting promiscuity as a freedom of association issue?

Here’s a clue:

Our decisions have referred to constitutionally protected `freedom of association’ in two distinct senses. In one line of decisions, the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. In this respect, freedom of association receives protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty.

Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
Rickey says:

July 16, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Greg:
Do you know what you believe? Are you capable of stating it in a clear, declarative sentence?

yguy reminds me of Gary Hayes, a friend I had in high school. Gary was prone to speak in florid, convoluted sentences. We called his remarks “Hayesisms.” One of my other friends defined a Hayesism:

“Something which, when uttered, means absolutely nothing.”

yguy earlier quoted Hamilton to make a point. Well, I’m not entirely sure what his point was, but he seemed to be saying that SCOTUS really has no power under the Constitution. Of course, he failed to quote this from Hamilton, also in Federalist No. 78:

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.” [emphasis added]

The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has the final responsibility and authority to interpret the Constitution – to “ascertain its meaning.”

If the Congress and/or the President disagree with a SCOTUS ruling. the remedy is to re-write the law in question to bring it into compliance with the Constitution, or amend the Constitution.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Greg:
Worthless, or changed?

Under that scenario, I’d say worthless pretty well covers it; but certainly whenever an unconstitutional ruling remains in force, the Constitution is worth less than it was.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Rickey:
The Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court alone, has the final responsibility and authority to interpret the Constitution – to “ascertain its meaning.”
If the Congress and/or the President disagree with a SCOTUS ruling. the remedy is to re-write the law in question to bring it into compliance with the Constitution, or amend the Constitution.

Then in my scenario where SCOTUS orders the internment of homosexuals, it’s your position that the President would be obligated to carry out that order. Right?
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:26 pm

yguy:
Then in my scenario where SCOTUS orders the internment of homosexuals, it’s your position that the President would be obligated to carry out that order. Right?

Well, duh!! This doesn’t preclude fast-tracking a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the order.
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Sef:
Well, duh!!This doesn’t preclude fast-tracking a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the order.

It also doesn’t preclude Congress impeaching the justices.
Rickey says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:32 pm

yguy:
Then in my scenario where SCOTUS orders the internment of homosexuals, it’s your position that the President would be obligated to carry out that order. Right?

First of all, SCOTUS wouldn’t be “ordering” anything. SCOTUS would be ruling on the constitutionality of a legislative order.

But to answer your question, yes – the President is obligated to enforce a law which has been ruled by SCOTUS to be constitutional. The President’s recourse would be to attempt to have the law repealed or to work for the passage of an amendment to the Constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the President the authority to disregard a SCOTUS ruling, regardless of how wrong-headed that decision might be.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Sef:
Well, duh!!This doesn’t preclude fast-tracking a Constitutional Amendment to reverse the order.

Congratulations. You have just affirmed the power of SCOTUS to amend the Constitution on its own authority.
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:35 pm

I remember something about Alice B. Toklas brownies.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:45 pm

Rickey:
But to answer your question, yes – the President is obligated to enforce a law which has been ruled by SCOTUS to be constitutional. The President’s recourse would be to attempt to have the law repealed or to work for the passage of an amendment to the Constitution.

So it makes sense to you that the power of 5 unelected people is reasonably balanced by that of a supermajority of states.

Right.

I have to admit, I’m rather impressed that two people have had the stones to come out and affirm such a patent imbecility.

There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the President the authority to disregard a SCOTUS ruling, regardless of how [unconstitutional] that decision might be.

Yes, there is: his oath of office. That’s why there was no grounds for impeaching Lincoln.
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:46 pm

yguy: Under that scenario, I’d say worthless pretty well covers it; but certainly whenever an unconstitutional ruling remains in force, the Constitution is worth less than it was.

Then do you wish to take back your assertion that the people “determine” what is constitutional?

yguy: They can be enforced as long as they’re constitutional.

Northland: And who determines if they are constitutional? Who’s power extends to all cases in law an equity arising under the Constitution?

yguy: Ultimately, the People, through their representatives.

Take Korematsu again. The President ordered the internment of the Japanese. Congress didn’t object. The People approved. The Supreme Court said it was Constitutional. No case has overturned Korematsu.

Was the internment unconstitutional? Was it unconstitutional before Korematsu? Is it unconstitutional now? If it is unconstitutional now, isn’t that through a changed interpretation of the Constitution?

Or, is there some Platonic, ideal, interpretation of the Constitution that exists outside the President, Congress, the People and the Supreme Court? Did Korematsu simply fail to find this Platonic interpretation of the Constitution?

Functionally, how is the undiscovered Platonic ideal different from a changed interpretation of the Constitution. If the President, Congress, the Supreme Court and the People all agree that the Constitution allows the internment of Japanese-Americans, and now they all agree that it does not, the functional meaning of the Constitution has changed – from allowing to disallowing internment.

And, since you’ve asserted that improved scientific knowledge is what brought the unborn fetus within Constitutional protection, this Platonic ideal exists independently of what the Founders intended, as well.

In short, the Platonic ideal, the interpretation ne plus ultra is that interpretation that most closely resembles yguy’s, right?

That would explain your inability to give non-circular definitions of things like license and evil. It is license and not liberty when it fails to accord with yguy’s worldview. It is evil when it conflicts with yguy’s morality.
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:51 pm

yguy is a latter-day black knight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
kimba says:

July 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

“yguy 15. Jul, 2010 at 8:59 pm yguy(Quote) #
kimba: Let’s simplify the one sentence of the preamble for diagramming.Its subject is “We”, its Predicate is “do ordain and establish this Constitution”.All the rest is modifiers and prepositional phrases.“We do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

For no particular reason, huh?”

The reason for simplifying the sentence into its subject and predicate was to demonstrate the preamble of the Constitution is a sentence introducing the body of the Constitution nothing more. And the reason was also to demonstrate that for you to insist the preamble imparts authority or powers to any branch of government shows you can’t read and understand a complex sentence in standard English. I noticed, though, after I pointed out the meaning of the sentence, you dropped that particular line of nonsense, so I believe you realized you’d been called out.
sfjeff says:

July 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm

I think fundamentally it comes down to this:

Yguy is against the Roe vs Wade decision, and thinks its unconstitutional.
Yguy’s opinion on what is constitutional conflicts with the Supreme Court.
Yguy’s commonsense tells him he is correct and the Supreme Court is incorrect
Yguy therefore states that the Executive should ignore Supreme Court decisions that commonsense says are Unconstitutional
Yguy says that the voters will change the government if commonsense says the government is not opposed to an unconstitutional law or unconsitutional supreme court decision.
Yguy says that if voters don’t do that they declare the Constitution worthless

Which brings us to today- The Executive has followed Roe V Wade through subsequent adminstrations- and the people don’t vote to change this, so therefore, according to Yguy, the people have declared the Constitution worthless.
sfjeff says:

July 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm

“You have just affirmed the power of SCOTUS to amend the Constitution on its own authority.”

No, thats your conclusion. A person with commonsense would say that the Supreme Court interprets the law, including the Constitution, and determines whether the law is Constitutional or not.

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule for instance that the First Amendment is repealed. The Supreme Court does have the authority to determine how to interpret the First Amendment.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Greg:
Then do you wish to take back your assertion that the people “determine” what is constitutional?

No need. That the People can misuse that authority hardly means they don’t have it.

Was the internment unconstitutional?

I haven’t studied Korematsu, but it fails as a comparison with my scenario because there is no whatsoever reason to think homosexuals as a group have any affinity for Islamic terrorists, which cannot be said for the Japanese in relation to imperial Japan.
sfjeff says:

July 16, 2010 at 2:42 pm

“because there is no whatsoever reason to think homosexuals as a group have any affinity for Islamic terrorists, which cannot be said for the Japanese in relation to imperial Japan.”

Funny you should mention that. For years homosexuals were branded as security risks, for a variety of faux reasons, so apparently you do believe there could be a constitutional reason to intern American citizens without due process as long as any rational can be put forth by the Executive branch.

The Japanese internment is a stain on the judgement of the Supreme Court, just as Dred Scott was. The Supreme Court clearly is not infallible. However, that doesn’t mean that the Executive, or the any individual is entitled to ignore the Supreme Court, without consequences, when they feel it is wrong. That is the road to despotism.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm

kimba: The reason for simplifying the sentence into its subject and predicate was to demonstrate the preamble of the Constitution is a sentence introducing the body of the Constitution nothing more.

No, your reason for “simplifying” it was to eviscerate it of any of the meaning it was clearly meant to have by its authors.

And the reason was also to demonstrate that for you to insist the preamble imparts authority or powers to any branch of government shows you can’t read and understand a complex sentence in standard English.

I have insisted no such thing. I have noted that it is a statement of purpose, and that said purpose is reasonably held to be controlling when exigencies cast doubt upon the propriety of other constitutional provisions.

Lincoln, even if he never cited the Preamble, obviously understood this on an intuitive level. Why don’t you?

I noticed, though, after I pointed out the meaning of the sentence, you [changed your position],

Speaking of people who have problems with reading comprehension…

so I believe you realized you’d been called out.

I have certainly been called out here by shallow-minded clods who can’t face their own self-contradiction to save their lives. I’m used to that.
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 2:46 pm

yguy, I wonder your thoughts on Marbury v. Madison
kimba says:

July 16, 2010 at 3:18 pm

“yguy 16. Jul, 2010 at 2:45 pm yguy(Quote) #

No, your reason for “simplifying” it was to eviscerate it of any of the meaning it was clearly meant to have by its authors.”

It means what it says. It introduces the body of the Constitution and states why it was written. You are the one reading it incorrectly.

“that said purpose is reasonably held to be controlling when exigencies cast doubt upon the propriety of other constitutional provisions.”

Utter babbling nonsense. The preamble of the Constitution is an introductory sentence and doesn’t control anything. The powers of the government are enumerated within the Articles of the Constitution, not in the preamble. How comical you think you know what Lincoln “intuited” about anything let alone the Constitution. Do you commune with the dead?

You are doing what right wingers have done for years when they see big words in old writings: imparting meaning that serves your conservative, authoritarian, backward agenda in the hopes of fooling enough of the people enough of the time to take this country back to the 1850s. Then you get all pissy when people point out you’re wrong. You’re not fooling anyone here.
Greg says:

July 16, 2010 at 3:23 pm

yguy: I have insisted no such thing. I have noted that it is a statement of purpose, and that said purpose is reasonably held to be controlling when exigencies cast doubt upon the propriety of other constitutional provisions.

If it is reasonably held to be controlling, then you can point to a Supreme Court case in which the preamble was held to be controlling.

And if the preamble is reasonably held to be controlling, how do you square that with the express rejection of the Preamble as giving any substantive power to the Federal Government?

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story’s Const. § 462.

Jacobson v. Mass., 197 US 11 (1905).

I guess this is one more area where we have to simply trust the intellect of yguy over the settled law put forth by the Supreme Court. Don’t believe the Supreme Court when they say that no substantive power derives from the preamble, believe yguy when he says that the preamble trumps all other parts of the Constitution!

yguy: I have certainly been called out here by shallow-minded clods who can’t face their own self-contradiction to save their lives

You’ve called yourself out? I missed that. And, I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call you a clod. That seems a bit harsh. I admire the self-deprecation, however.

yguy: I haven’t studied Korematsu, but it fails as a comparison with my scenario because there is no whatsoever reason to think homosexuals as a group have any affinity for Islamic terrorists, which cannot be said for the Japanese in relation to imperial Japan.

I note that you dodged the question again.

If Congress, the President, the Courts and the People were unanimous in believing that Korematsu was right at the time and are unanimous in believing that it is wrong now, was it right then, or wrong now? And if the unanimity of each part of society does not make it right then and wrong now, then the people don’t determine the Constitutionality, do they? Constitutionality exists separately from the determination of anyone, except you, apparently.

No need. That the People can misuse that authority hardly means they don’t have it.

So, the courts don’t have the final say in what’s constitutional because the President can disobey a ruling he believes to be unconstitutional. The President doesn’t have the final say in what’s constitutional because Congress can impeach him. Congress doesn’t have the final say in what’s constitutional, because the People can remove them. And the people don’t have the final say in what’s constitutional, because they can be wrong, according to you.

It really does all come down to your interpretation of the Constitution, doesn’t it? If all of the above accords with your views, then it is right. If not, it is wrong.

Is there any rational basis that those of us who are not yguy can use to determine whether something is constitutional?

We’ve already determined that it’s not the founders intent, since they didn’t outlaw abortion. It’s not common sense, since your sense is not common. It’s not Christian ethics, since no Christian faith has an outright ban on heterosexual oral sex like you think is “commonsensical.”

I haven’t studied Korematsu

Have you read any of the sources you’ve cited? Roe has a single paragraph talking about the 14th Amendment, and you still haven’t answered how their analysis is wrong or attempted to explain whether unborn fetuses are born or naturalized persons. You haven’t attempted to explain how Wickard was wrong. When I asked you to defend the proposition implied by your dissent to Lawrence v. Texas that heterosexual sodomy could be right and homosexual sodomy wrong, the factual pattern presented by the law in Texas, you objected that you shouldn’t have to defend things you hadn’t asserted. Indeed, even your quotation of the Federalist Papers was selective. And you couldn’t figure out what Constitutional provision might be violated by a President rewriting a statute. You also put the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution. So, I wonder, is there anything you have quoted that you have read in its entirety?

And a related question, other than your common sense, what are you basing your views on?
Majority Will says:

July 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Greg:

I guess this is one more area where we have to simply trust the intellect of yguy over the settled law put forth by the Supreme Court. Don’t believe the Supreme Court when they say that no substantive power derives from the preamble, believe yguy when he says that the preamble trumps all other parts of the Constitution!

Comedy gold.
Rickey says:

July 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

yguy:
So it makes sense to you that the power of 5 unelected people is reasonably balanced by that of a supermajority of states.

That essentially is what Hamilton says.

“Nor does this conclusion [that the judiciary has the power to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution] by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both…If then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.”

Thus Hamilton not only agrees that the people (not the President, not the Congress) have the power to overrule SCOTUS, he also agrees that it is proper and desirable for the justices to be appointed for life.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Sef: yguy, I wonder your thoughts on Marbury v. Madison

On the general question of judicial review, I don’t see a problem. The same could be said of Marshall’s determination on the question of original versus appellate jurisdiction were it not for the fact that rather than quote A3S2C2 verbatim, he paraphrased it, conveniently omitting, of all things, the exceptions clause. How in hell he got away with that I don’t know; but supposedly he was trying to avoid a direct confrontation with Jefferson, so apparently he contrived a rationale for denying Marbury’s petition so as to avoid the loss of face that SCOTUS would suffer should Jefferson flip them off.

So if all that is true, the idea of a President ignoring a SC ruling on whatever pretext predated both Lincoln and Jackson.
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Rickey: Thus Hamilton not only agrees that the people (not the President, not the Congress) have the power to overrule SCOTUS

How do you propose that the “people” exercise that “power”? The only constitutional way that I see is for Congress (representatives of the people) to propose a Constitutional Amendment which could then be approved by the people through their representatives to state legislatures. Any other way is anarchy.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 5:49 pm

Greg:
And if the preamble is reasonably held to be controlling, how do you square that with the express rejection of the Preamble as giving any substantive power to the Federal Government?

Since there is no contradiction, there is nothing that needs squaring.
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 5:56 pm

yguy:
Since there is no contradiction, there is nothing that needs squaring.

Doctor! Doctor! Doctor! Brain hurts!
We’ll have to take it out, Mr. Gumby.
kimba says:

July 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm

“yguy 16. Jul, 2010 at 5:12 pm yguy(Quote) #

Dream on, little dreamer”

You’re the dreamer, dreamin’ you can sell your silly authoritarian nonsense here.
yguy says:

July 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Rickey:

So it makes sense to you that the power of 5 unelected people is reasonably balanced by that of a supermajority of states.

That essentially is what Hamilton says.

It’s nothing like what he says.

“Nor does this conclusion …”

Here’s what you left out:

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature.

If this is the case, how can a federal office holder obey a ruling that is clearly so motivated and remain faithful to the oath of office?

Thus Hamilton not only agrees that the people (not the President, not the Congress) have the power to overrule SCOTUS,

The ultimate expression of the will of the People is the Constitution, which is why federal officers swear an oath to it rather than to SC rulings; and nowhere in that document is the interpretive authority vested exclusively in SCOTUS.

he also agrees that it is proper and desirable for the justices to be appointed for life.

Sure, their relative immunity to political vicissitudes is a compensation for the fact they can’t actually do anything.
Next to the Last Samurai says:

July 16, 2010 at 7:23 pm

Pamela Barnett of the lawsuit Captain Pamela Barnett et al v. Obama filed an amended complaint alleging new fraud crimes committed by state agencies in Barnett v. Dunn.

Barnett is a non-attorney pro se plaintiff that hopes to make California state agencies enforce voter and election law and and prohibit defendants from holding public office for life. Barnett feels that her civil rights have been violated and part of her prayer for relief includes having the court require that the Sec. of State Bowen do the vetting of Barack Obama’s Constitutional qualifications that she was required to do, but never did.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34378696/Barnett-v-Dunn-Brown-Bowen-Kelley-EAC
Sef says:

July 16, 2010 at 7:31 pm

Next to the Last Samurai: Pamela Barnett of the lawsuit Captain Pamela Barnett et al v. Obama filed an amended complaint alleging new fraud crimes committed by state agencies in Barnett v. Dunn.Barnett is a non-attorney pro se plaintiff that hopes to make California state agencies enforce voter and election law and and prohibit defendants from holding public office for life. Barnett feels that her civil rights have been violated and part of her prayer for relief includes having the court require that the Sec. of State Bowen do the vetting of Barack Obama’s Constitutional qualifications that she was required to do, but never did.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34378696/Barnett-v-Dunn-Brown-Bowen-Kelley-EAC

Pamela’s signature speaks volumes.
Majority Will says:

July 16, 2010 at 7:42 pm

Sef:
Pamela’s signature speaks volumes.

You aren’t kidding. Whoa.
sfjeff says:

July 16, 2010 at 7:57 pm

“Sure, their relative immunity to political vicissitudes is a compensation for the fact they can’t actually do anything.”

Well, sure if you mean they can’t make amendments to the Constitution or write their own laws- that is what we have been arguing with you about.

But what they can do is interpret the Constitution, and that is something indeed the Supreme Court has, does and should do. See Brown Vs Board of Education, Miranda, Griswold.

Heck see Citizen’s United. Clearly the President disagrees with the Supreme Courts decision- a precedant setting ruling. By your interpretation, if President Obama thinks that the Supreme Court was improper, he could ignore that ruling and instruct the FEC and other government agencies to prosecute Corporations that proceed and rely upon the Supreme Courts ruling. I think Citizen’s United is a bad ruling- but I still argue that it is the current legal interpretation of the Constitution- even though to me, commonsense tells me that Corporations should not have the same rights as citizens.
Arthur says:

July 16, 2010 at 8:29 pm

Greg,

I enjoyed reading your post on counterknowledge and popular delusions. However, whenever I read something on this subject I can’t help but feel that religion is the greatest example of delusional thinking there is.
Rickey says:

July 16, 2010 at 8:29 pm

Sef:
How do you propose that the “people” exercise that “power”?The only constitutional way that I see is for Congress (representatives of the people) to propose a Constitutional Amendment which could then be approved by the people through their representatives to state legislatures.Any other way is anarchy.

I agree, except that there are two ways to amend the Constitution. The other way, which has never been used, is to bypass Congress by having 2/3 of the state legislatures call a Constitutional Convention.

And of course the “people” can exercise their power by electing Presidents who share their views, who then can appoint Supreme Court justices who appear to be amenable to those views. Of course, Supreme Court justices have been known to surprise.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 16, 2010 at 8:42 pm

Next to the Last Samurai: Pamela Barnett of the lawsuit Captain Pamela Barnett et al v. Obama filed an amended complaint alleging new fraud crimes committed by state agencies in Barnett v. Dunn.

Thanks Sven. I don’t find it sufficiently about Obama to add to the docket but it’s interesting, including the attachment of the infamous affidavit of the famous forensic document expert, XXXXXXXXXXXX.
Rickey says:

July 16, 2010 at 8:50 pm

yguy:
If this is the case, how can a federal office holder obey a ruling that is clearly so motivated and remain faithful to the oath of office?

And you somehow have the ability to divine the motivations of SCOTUS? By what objective standard do you arrive at the conclusion that a SCOTUS ruling constitutes substituting the court’s “own pleasure” for a reasoned interpretation of the Constitution? You are fond of taking Hamilton out of context, but let’s see what he says about who is qualified to interpret the Constitution:

“To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.”

So, based upon Hamilton, who is better qualified to interpret the Constitution – the Supreme Court or the President? Clearly, it is the Supreme Court.

The ultimate expression of the will of the People is the Constitution, which is why federal officers swear an oath to it rather than to SC rulings; and nowhere in that document is the interpretive authority vested exclusively in SCOTUS.

We have 207 years of precedent which contradict you.
Next to the Last Samurai says:

July 16, 2010 at 10:58 pm

LTC Lakin appeals his OER report.

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/lakin-appeals-fitness-report.html
Majority Will says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:30 pm

Is safe guardourconstitution.com a source of reliable information or actually just an obvious money making scheme?
Ellid says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:50 pm

yguy: Ellid

You have not.
Lupin says:

July 17, 2010 at 2:09 am

Greg has already responded — @ 16. Jul, 2010 at 12:06 pm — to Dalek yguy’s inane string of self-contradicting statements (@ 16. Jul, 2010 at 11:21 am) so I’m not going to do it, but will only note that yguy has not responded to my challenge asking him to prove that he had exhibited any interest whatsoever in “defending” the constitution when the proverbial boot was on the other foot.

His silence constitutes ample proof that yguy is a hypocrite and only cares about such matters when a black man is in the White House.

For the record I’m not asserting here that the Bush/Cheyney administration is guilty of ignoring (at best) or violating (at worst) the US Constitution. Some of the reasons yguy gave might have been deemed a proper defense, or not. It’s not up to me, or yguy to decide. The verdict would have been up to Congress.

The point is, a prima facie case could be made — and should have been made.

People who are attacking Obama today because of socialism and what-not claim to be equally motivated by their love for the Constitution. Fine. So I ask: where were you then?

Dalek yguy was nowhere because he is a hypocrite who only cares about his tribe, not the principles at stake in our democracy.
ellid says:

July 17, 2010 at 9:31 am

yguy:
Under that scenario, I’d say worthless pretty well covers it; but certainly whenever an unconstitutional ruling remains in force, the Constitution is worth less than it was.

By definition, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling, since the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on interpreting the Constitution.

What a moran.
ellid says:

July 17, 2010 at 9:34 am

yguy:
Congratulations. You have just affirmed the power of SCOTUSto amend the Constitution on its own authority.

Not even close. As Rickey pointed out, the Court would be ruling on a Presidential order to intern homosexuals, not suddenly decreeing that the President had to do so. And the order, regardless of its origin, would not suddenly become part of the *text* of the Constitution, as it wouldn’t be an amendment.

Go take a middle school civics course. Your ignorance would be laughable if you weren’t so serious about it.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 17, 2010 at 10:25 am

ellid: Your [yguy’s] ignorance would be laughable if you weren’t so serious about it.

I do not think it has been established that yguy is serious. I think that yguy’s propensity to evade difficult questions suggests a lack of seriousness.
yguy says:

July 17, 2010 at 10:49 am

Rickey:
And you somehow have the ability to divine the motivations of SCOTUS? By what objective standard do you arrive at the conclusion that a[n unconstitutional] SCOTUS ruling constitutes substituting the court’s “own pleasure” for a reasoned interpretation of the Constitution?

As you can see, properly framed, the question answers itself.

Of course from the perspective of a federal officer who is challenged to obey such a ruling, the court’s motivation is irrelevant. While it is hard to justify characterizing Marshall’s misquote of A3S2C2 anything but a flat out lie, the bottom line for that officer, were that aspect of the decision the basis of an order from the Court, is that it has, to state the abrasively obvious, no constitutional basis whatsoever.

You are fond of taking Hamilton out of context, but let’s see what he says about who is qualified to interpret the Constitution:“To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, “

But of course this is, in anything remotely resembling a practical sense, nothing like what you propose, since whatever rules the judiciary may be bound by have, by your reckoning, no force unless and until 75% of the states object.

So, based upon Hamilton, who is better qualified to interpret the Constitution – the Supreme Court or the President?

Beside the point, unless one takes the position that superior education somehow makes a jurist incapable rendering a decision which flies in the face of the Constitution, which anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the history of American jurisprudence knows is utterly preposterous.

We have 207 years of precedent which contradict you.

And you need every hour of it and then some, because you sure as Hell don’t have the Constitution.
yguy says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:01 am

sfjeff: But what they can do is interpret the Constitution, and that is something indeed the Supreme Court has, does and should do.

And I never said anything different, obviously.

Heck see Citizen’s United. Clearly the President disagrees with the Supreme Courts decision- a precedant setting ruling. By your interpretation, if President Obama thinks that the Supreme Court was improper, he could ignore that ruling

No, that is not my interpretation. He can’t just “think”, he has to believe that in good faith – which is something Obama has shown no capacity for, but that’s another discussion.
Sef says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:19 am

I hope that “yguy” is not really teaching Constitutional Law somewhere. Woe be to his students when they try to take a bar exam.
yguy says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:22 am

Lupin: Greg has already responded — @ 16. Jul, 2010 at 12:06 pm — to Dalek yguy’s inane string of self-contradicting statements (@ 16. Jul, 2010 at 11:21 am) so I’m not going to do it, but will only note that yguy has not responded to my challenge asking him to prove that he had exhibited any interest whatsoever in “defending” the constitution when the proverbial boot was on the other foot.His silence constitutes ample proof that yguy is a hypocrite

The accusation might have superficial merit had you demonstrated any violation of the oath by W, but obviously you’re too clueless about the Constitution to be able to make any credible claims along those lines.

Which is not to say W didn’t violate the oath in other ways, but you wouldn’t care about that.

and only cares about such matters when a black man is in the White House.

Gee, who knew Slick Willie was black?
yguy says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:27 am

ellid:
By definition, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling

It is surely a wonder to witness such genial willingness to parade such flamboyant idiocy in front of God and everybody.
yguy says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:29 am

Dr. Conspiracy:
I do not think it has been established that yguy is serious. I think that yguy’s propensity to evade difficult questions suggests a lack of seriousness.

So are you ever gonna tell me why you think Fukino was required by HI law to issue those press releases about Obama?
yguy says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:32 am

Sef: I hope that “yguy” is not really teaching Constitutional Law somewhere.Woe be to his students when they try to take a bar exam.

Yes, I’m afraid common sense has never been held in terribly high esteem by the legal profession, which perhaps is why the general disdain for lawyers is at least as old as Jesus of Nazareth.
Sef says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:54 am

yguy:
So are you ever gonna tell me why you think Fukino was required by HI law to issue those press releases about Obama?

Why do you think there had to be a law requiring her to issue a press release? That’s just plain silly!
richCares says:

July 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Why do you think there had to be a law requiring her to issue a press release? That’s just plain silly!
.
What did you expect, this is yguy after all, being silly is his MO
Majority Will says:

July 17, 2010 at 12:51 pm

richCares: Why do you think there had to be a law requiring her to issue a press release? That’s just plain silly!
.
What did you expect, this is yguy after all, being silly is his MO

Silly meaning an unnatural combo of bat crap crazy and homemade whiskey?
Lupin says:

July 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm

@yguy

You have been given several chances to prove you’re not a racist, and failed. The only thing you’ve said that vaguely approaches a denial was that you hated “Slick Willie” as much as Obama — and that doesn’t get you off the hook, it just reconfirms your blind, narrow tribalism.
Lupin says:

July 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm

I see the right wing in Israel is also trying to redefine what a “natural-born jew” is:

Quote:
“The bill includes a provision to put conversions under the control of the Orthodox chief rabbinate, anathema in any case to non-Orthodox Jews but particularly raising concerns that those who have undergone Conservative and Reform conversions abroad would no longer be eligible for Israel citizenship under the Law of Return.”

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=181448

Oy vey.
Majority Will says:

July 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Lupin: I see the right wing in Israel is also trying to redefine what a “natural-born jew” is . . .

A shanda fur die goy.
misha says:

July 17, 2010 at 8:05 pm

Lupin: I see the right wing in Israel is also trying to redefine what a “natural-born jew” is:Oy vey.

Here’s a real oy vey: Glenn Beck has revived ‘Jews killed Jesus’:

http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-glenn-beck-rape-and-murder-girl-in.html
Majority Will says:

July 17, 2010 at 8:14 pm

misha:
Here’s a real oy vey: Glenn Beck has revived ‘Jews killed Jesus’:http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-glenn-beck-rape-and-murder-girl-in.html

I swear I wasn’t there.
Majority Will says:

July 17, 2010 at 9:25 pm

For fun try: old1 obama

on Google.com
misha says:

July 17, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Majority Will: For fun try: old1 obamaon Google.com

I looked. Another nut.
Rickey says:

July 17, 2010 at 11:22 pm

Sef: I hope that “yguy” is not really teaching Constitutional Law somewhere.Woe be to his students when they try to take a bar exam.

Of course, applying yguy’s reasoning, if the Supreme Court were to rule that a birther lawsuit has standing, Obama is free to ignore the ruling as long as he has a “good faith” belief that it is unconstitutional. Except that it isn’t clear who in yguy’s constitutional republic has the authority to pass judgment on whether a belief is in good faith.
Lupin says:

July 18, 2010 at 1:32 am

yguy: I believe this says everything about you that needs to be said.

Thanks for your participation.

Avoidance, avoidance.

It’s easy: show me a link to any writing, blog posting, etc., where you criticized the previous administration. Anything at all.

FAIL.
sfjeff says:

July 18, 2010 at 2:00 am

“Then the system is unconstitutional.”

I pretty much figured you thought that way. Whereas I think the system you propose would be unconstitutional.

“He can’t just “think”, he has to believe that in good faith – which is something Obama has shown no capacity for, but that’s another discussion.”

But that is the whole point. I don’t want a single President to be endowed with autocratic powers simply because of his “belief” in something. A President who believed in good faith that the clear Constitutional intent of the “right to bear arms” really meant only as part of a militia could order the confiscation of all privately held firearms. Clearly the Supreme Court feels otherwise, but a President could feel as the dissenting 4 justices did.

I don’t want to rely upon the Presidents faith in anything. I would prefer to rely upon the law.
sfjeff says:

July 18, 2010 at 2:02 am

“there is no such thing as an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling”

And he is right of course. There are bad Supreme Court rulings, there are shameful Supreme Court rulings, but there are no unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 11:53 am

Rickey:
Of course, applying yguy’s reasoning, if the Supreme Court were to rule that a birther lawsuit has standing, Obama is free to ignore the ruling as long as he has a “good faith” belief that it is unconstitutional.

He’d be free to ignore it whether it’s constitutional or not, since such a ruling requires neither action nor restraint by the President.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 12:05 pm

sfjeff: I don’t want a single President to be endowed with autocratic powers simply because of his “belief” in something.

Of course not. You’d rather see such powers vested in 5 unelected people.

A President who believed in good faith that the clear Constitutional intent of the “right to bear arms” really meant only as part of a militia

It’s not possible to believe that in good faith.

could order the confiscation of all privately held firearms.

He would need more than a cockamamie interpretation of 2A to justify that.

I don’t want to rely upon the Presidents faith in anything. I would prefer to rely upon [edicts from black-robed Ephors].

Obviously, and it’s because of people like you that America is sinking into despotism.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm

sfjeff: “there is no such thing as an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling”And he is right of course. There are bad Supreme Court rulings, there are shameful Supreme Court rulings, but there are no unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.

Fine. I bring suit in federal court against all homosexuals on the grounds that their presence annoys me. After the appeals in lower courts are exhausted, SCOTUS grants cert and, having found my arguments compelling, proceeds to order all homosexuals exterminated.

Perfectly constitutional, right?
Majority Will says:

July 18, 2010 at 12:19 pm

“Obviously, and it’s because of people like you that America is sinking into despotism.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! It’s like Beck vomited onto Doc’s blog.
Sef says:

July 18, 2010 at 12:21 pm

yguy:
Fine. I bring suit in federal court against all homosexuals on the grounds that their presence annoys me. After the appeals in lower courts are exhausted, SCOTUS grants cert and, having found my arguments compelling, proceeds to order all homosexuals exterminated.Perfectly constitutional, right?

You won’t have standing since your harm is not particularized. You won’t even get out of the dugout, let alone first base. But you conveniently ignore the ability of Congress to impeach & remove a justice.
Sef says:

July 18, 2010 at 12:40 pm

yguy:
Fine. I bring suit in federal court against all homosexuals on the grounds that their presence annoys me. After the appeals in lower courts are exhausted, SCOTUS grants cert and, having found my arguments compelling, proceeds to order all homosexuals exterminated.Perfectly constitutional, right?

What would be your reaction to someone bringing a lawsuit in Federal Court against all birthers on the grounds that they “annoy” him? I dare say he could even get up a class action & RICO case.
sfjeff says:

July 18, 2010 at 1:54 pm

“Of course not. You’d rather see such powers vested in 5 unelected people.”

I believe that the Constitution is clear that there is a seperation of powers- that the Executives branch is to enforce the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the law. The Constitution details how the Supreme Court is chosen. If you want an elected Supreme Court, change the Constitution.

“It’s not possible to believe that in good faith.”

Which shows both the flaw in your reasoning process, and your argument.

There are reasonable people who do indeed believe that the Second Amendment refers primarily to a miliitia rather than an individual right to bear arms. The fact that you believe it is impossible for someone to believe that in good faith is a testiment to your close mindedness, and essential inability to understand those who hold differing opinions than your own. You are the people I want the Constitution to protect minorities from.

“could order the confiscation of all privately held firearms.

He would need more than a cockamamie interpretation of 2A to justify that.”

As I understand your wierd interpretation of the Constitution, all the President needs to really, really believe or have faith that he is right, in order to make whatever he does Constitutional. Of course, Congress could impeach him- as they could a Supreme Court they disagreed with.

[edicts from black-robed Ephors].

Yeah I see you have made this exact argument before. Call them what you will, the Supreme Court is the party that is interprets the Constitution, not the President.

“Obviously, and it’s because of people like you that America is sinking into despotism.”

If by despotism, you mean an America where citizens are allowed to vote, regardless of their racial identity or religion, sure. If by despotism you mean an America where individual morality and religiion isn’t dictated by the government, sure. If you mean an America where protection of the law extends to all sure, I am proud to be part of such despotism.

I reject a Taliban-like government that you would impose upon the rest of us.
sfjeff says:

July 18, 2010 at 2:04 pm

“Fine. I bring suit in federal court against all homosexuals on the grounds that their presence annoys me. After the appeals in lower courts are exhausted, SCOTUS grants cert and, having found my arguments compelling, proceeds to order all homosexuals exterminated.Perfectly constitutional, right?”

As Consitutional as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2.

As I said, the Supreme Court has made bad decisions, horrible decisions, and will do so again. As has the President and the Congress. But I would rather entrust our laws to being written by one power, enforced by another and interpreted by the third.
Rickey says:

July 18, 2010 at 2:26 pm

yguy:
He’d be free to ignore it whether it’s constitutional or not, since such a ruling requires neither action nor restraint by the President.

Please. If SCOTUS ruled that a birther lawsuit could go forward, it obviously would require a response by Obama. According to your “logic” he could simply ignore discovery demands, refuse to appear for a deposition, etc., all on the grounds that the SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional.

Your entire argument is ludicrous. I would be interested to know if you can cite one recognized constitutional scholar or attorney who agrees with you.
Rickey says:

July 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm

yguy:
Fine. I bring suit in federal court against all homosexuals on the grounds that their presence annoys me. After the appeals in lower courts are exhausted, SCOTUS grants cert and, having found my arguments compelling, proceeds to order all homosexuals exterminated.Perfectly constitutional, right?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

yguy thinks that the way to win an argument is to raise an utterly implausible and inconceivable hypothetical!
sfjeff says:

July 18, 2010 at 3:32 pm

I took a break to make breakfast(Machaca of sorts, yummy) and while mulling over Yguy’s odd view of the Constitution I realized once again that this has to be his argument.

His real issue with with Roe V Wade. From his perspective, since the Supreme Court ruling in his mind is clearly ‘unconstitutional’ then the Supreme Court must not be invested with the power to decide constitutional questions- hence his weird comment about the Supreme Court making amendments to the Constitution.

And his point about the President and how the President can do what he wants with the Constitution as long as he is acting in ‘good faith’ is part of his whole fantasy. Just as they were hoping that George W would somehow end Roe v Wade, Yguy hopes for a conservative President that will issue an edict that Roe V Wade is unconstitional, and cannot be enforced. There is no down side to Yguy’s position, since all abortion is murder, and no liberal President is going to come out to the other extreme, mandating abortion.

Just look at all of Yguy’s arguments as part of his crusade against Roe V Wade.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm

Sef:
You won’t have standing since your harm is not particularized.

You mean if I were granted standing, any decision based on it would be unconstitutional?

Or is this your way of saying the judiciary, while not bound by the Constitution, IS bound by case law?
Sef says:

July 18, 2010 at 3:40 pm

yguy:
You mean if I were granted standing, any decision based on it would be unconstitutional?Or is this your way of saying the judiciary, while not bound by the Constitution, IS bound by case law?

When are you going to “return back” to the Constitution.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm

yguy:
You mean if I were granted standing, any decision based on it would be unconstitutional?Or is this your way of saying the judiciary, while not bound by the Constitution, IS bound by case law?

You would never be granted standing just like you haven’t been granted standing under the birther cases. Your argument is irrational and has no basis in the law.
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 3:57 pm

yguy:
Fine. I bring suit in federal court against all homosexuals on the grounds that their presence annoys me. After the appeals in lower courts are exhausted, SCOTUS grants cert and, having found my arguments compelling, proceeds to order all homosexuals exterminated.Perfectly constitutional, right?

Your specific example doesn’t work, because the Supreme Court is an appeal court, which means it decides questions of law and then remands to a lower court to actually rule on the case.

But I suspect the point you’re attempting to illustrate is, what if the Supreme Court issues a decision that everybody else thinks is contrary to the Constitution. Well, the fact is that the Constitution says that the Supreme Court is the authority on what the Constitution says — so according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is always right.

That of course can be quite unsatisfactory, but that is what the law is.

In the past, when a President and Congress are fed up with the Supreme Court, they have packed it. That of course is pretty unsatisfactory too, but legal.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 4:10 pm

sfjeff: “Of course not. You’d rather see such powers vested in 5 unelected people.”I believe that the Constitution is clear that there is a seperation of powers- that the Executives branch is to enforce the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.

To bad you can’t point to any provisions vesting the power of interpretation in any one branch, huh?

There are reasonable people who do indeed believe that the Second Amendment refers primarily to a miliitia rather than an individual right to bear arms.

No, there aren’t – or if there are, they won’t believe it when I get done with them.

The fact that you believe it is impossible for someone to believe that in good faith is a testiment to your close mindedness,

Yes, my mind is as closed to nonsense as yours is to self-evident truth.

and essential inability to understand those who hold differing opinions than your own.

Most who tangle with me don’t just hold differing opinions, they’re in denial. That’s why they refuse to consider the logical consequences of their premises.

…I want the Constitution to protect minorities…

Except for the minority of people who refuse to believe in nonsense. If the little boy exclaims that the Emperor is nude, you’ll ship him off to prison or a reeducation camp, given the power to do so.

As I understand your wierd interpretation of the Constitution, all the President needs to really, really believe or have faith that he is right, in order to make whatever he does Constitutional.

No, unlike you, I don’t think anyone can make anything constitutional by fiat. Rather, he must base his official acts on a good faith interpretation of the Constitution, since he cannot possibly obey his oath otherwise.

But of course you believe in a government of men rather than laws, so you can’t possibly understand that.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Dave: Well, the fact is that the Constitution says that the Supreme Court is the authority on what the Constitution says

Then surely you won’t have any problem citing those provisions.
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 4:35 pm

yguy:
Then surely you won’t have any problem citing those provisions.

Well, I wouldn’t say it’s no problem, not having memorized it, so I did have to go look it up. But on the other hand Article III is not that long, you should check it out. Here’s the relevant parts:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and other things…]
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Sef says:

July 18, 2010 at 4:35 pm

yguy:
Then surely you won’t have any problem citing those provisions.

A3S2C2 “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

This would seem to imply that if Congress so chose it could say that SCOTUS couldn’t rule on a law’s constitutionality.
bovril says:

July 18, 2010 at 4:36 pm

Dave: In the past, when a President and Congress are fed up with the Supreme Court, they have packed it. That of course is pretty unsatisfactory too, but legal.

Dave,

Actually this has never happend although it has been threatened before, last time I believe was FDR and 1937.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Dave:
Well, I wouldn’t say it’s no problem, not having memorized it, so I did have to go look it up. But on the other hand Article III is not that long, you should check it out.

I don’t need to, trust me.

Here’s the relevant parts:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and other things…]

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Exactly where in any of this do you find exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution vested in the Judiciary?

And if it is, how do you suggest anyone under a constitutional oath undertake to obey it without interpreting it?
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 5:12 pm

yguy:
[on the subject of reading Article III] I don’t need to, trust me.

I was under the impression that you were a fan of the Constitution. But if you don’t want to read it, that’s up to you.

Exactly where in any of this do you find exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution vested in the Judiciary?

I do not find an exclusive authority, I find a final authority.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm

Sef:
A3S2C2“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
This would seem to imply that if Congress so chose it could say that SCOTUS couldn’t rule on a law’s constitutionality.

It might, to anyone who doesn’t understand that it’s focused exclusively on the issue of original versus appellate jurisdiction, and who forgets there is no constitutional requirement for lower federal courts.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Dave:
I do not find an exclusive authority, I find a final authority.

And you find such authority, exactly?
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm

yguy:
And you find such authority, exactly?

Sorry, I don’t understand your question.

Article III makes clear that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the law, explicitly including the Constitution. Is that what you’re asking?
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Dave:
Article III makes clear that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the law, explicitly including the Constitution. Is that what you’re asking?

I’m asking how you get to that conclusion from anything you quoted.
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:13 pm

yguy:
I’m asking how you get to that conclusion from anything you quoted.

OK, I see you’re taking this “I don’t need to read it” to great lengths.

Since you’re playing that game, then why don’t you tell me who you think is the final authority on interpretation of the Constitution, and then you can show me where the Constitution says that.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Rickey: Thank you for admitting that you can’t cite a single Constitutional scholar or attorney who agrees with you.

Does this guy qualify as a constitutional scholar?

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:37 pm

yguy:
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

So Jefferson agrees that judges are not the exclusive authority on the Constitution. They are, however, the final authority.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:40 pm

Dave:
OK, I see you’re taking this “I don’t need to read it” to great lengths.

Guess Jefferson didn’t need to read it either.

Since you’re playing that game, then why don’t you tell me who you think is the final authority on interpretation of the Constitution,

That would be We the People, obviously. That’s why Lincoln was never impeached, and even reelected, despite the fact that ignoring a court order that purports to enforce a constitutional provision is clearly, at first blush, an impeachable offense.

and then you can show me where the Constitution says that.

It doesn’t say it explicitly, but no other conclusion is consistent with the concept of self-governance.
Dave says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:47 pm

yguy:
Guess Jefferson didn’t need to read it either.

As I pointed out above, your Jefferson quote agrees with me.

[quoth I:] and then you can show me where the Constitution says that.

[quoth yguy:] It doesn’t say it explicitly, but no other conclusion is consistent with the concept of self-governance.

So I guess Doc C needs to add one more feature of Constitutional Fundamentalists: insisting the Constitution says things that are not only contrary to established precedent, but can’t even be supported by anything in the Constitution.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Dave:
So Jefferson agrees that judges are not the exclusive authority on the Constitution. They are, however, the final authority.

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Dave:
As I pointed out above, your Jefferson quote agrees with me.

Not really, you’re just trying to confuse the issue by drawing a distinction where there is no substantive difference.

So I guess Doc C needs to add one more feature of Constitutional Fundamentalists: insisting the Constitution says things that … can’t even be supported by anything in the Constitution.

Gee, I’d never have thought to call you a constitutional fundamentalist.
The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

July 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Dave: Actually, I’m trying to explain the issue, but clearly it’s slow going.

No, you’re explaining the issue to someone who doesn’t want to listen to your explanation.
Rickey says:

July 18, 2010 at 7:38 pm

yguy:
Does this guy qualify as a constitutional scholar?

Jefferson is merely stating what I have said previously. It is all about our system of checks and balances. The President can check the Congress through the power of the veto. The Congress can check the President by overriding a veto. SCOTUS can check both Congress and the President by issuing rulings on the Constitutionality of legislation and executive orders.

Any ruling on Constitutionality by SCOTUS immediately becomes the law of the land. However, this does not mean that SCOTUS is the “ultimate arbiter,” because SCOTUS decisions can be overruled by Constitutional amendment. SCOTUS decisions have also been subsequently overruled by SCOTUS itself.

No single branch of government is superior to the other two, although each has its own distinct functions. This is basic civics. Show me where Jefferson ever said that the President has the authority to defy a SCOTUS ruling.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Dave:
On the contrary, a decision of the Supreme Court can be quoted in any court of law as a controlling authority, and can’t be appealed anywhere. This is what makes them the final authority.

The final judicial authority, sure, but not the final interpretive authority on the Constitution, because as s a practical matter, their rulings can be ignored, as Marbury likely would have been had it issued the writ contended for by the plaintiff; and as a legal matter, nothing in the Constitution binds the other branches to their rulings. What they are all bound by is their oaths of office, which amount to a pledge to obey the will of the People, the supreme expression of which is the Constitution – not a translation thereof by a few people set apart more by their attire than by their probity.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm

Rickey: Show me where Jefferson ever said that the President has the authority to defy a SCOTUS ruling.

Again,

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

If this is the case, and SCOTUS issues a ruling that is repugnant to the Constitution, what do you suppose the proper response by a President would be, if not defiance?
Keith says:

July 18, 2010 at 8:43 pm

yguy:
… What they are all bound by is their oaths of office, which amount to a pledge to obey the will of the People, the supreme expression of which is the Constitution – not a translation thereof by a few people set apart more by their attire than by their probity.

NO! You have said repeatedly that the oath taker is responsible for upholding the Constitution. SCOTUS is final arbiter of what the Consitution says. The “will of the people” is often unconstitutional, but the oath taker is responsible for understanding how the Constitution restrains his/her actions.

Specific example: It is often the case that the ‘Will of the People’ often calls for some ne’er-do-well to be strung up by his thumbs, his eyes burned out with hot coals, and earwigs jammed up his anus. A sworn law enforcement officer who obeys the “Will of the People” and performs these rituals would be violating his oath which binds him to the provisions of the Constitution and the various SCOTUS rulings about the Constitution and the rights of the accused which include the rights of the accused to be informed of his rights, legal representation, a fair trial, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

I repeat for emphasis: sworn office holders need to understand the Constitution and how it relates to and constrains their actions in their jobs. They need to understand how SCOTUS has interpreted Constitutional provisions and how those interpretation relates to and constrains their actions in their jobs.

In reaching that understanding, they will undoubtedly interpret some provisions and have some provisions explained to them. To the extent that they reach their own conclusions based on their own interpretations they cannot and must not believe that that conclusion is the final interpretation.

Congress can pass any law it wants, and the President may sign it. That alone does not make it Constitutional. Congressmen and Senators work very hard to ensure the bills are Constitutional because they don’t want them tied up in the Supreme Court all the time. To do this they must understand how the Constitution applies to the problem addressed by the bill and will necessarily formulate their interpretation of it informed by previous SCOTUS rulings as appropriate. Never-the-less, any bill can be challenged and if someone is aggrieved can petition the Supreme Court to review it. The Supreme Court is the Final adjudicator.

No one here is arguing that SCOTUS is the EXCLUSIVE body that has to understand and interpret the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that SCOTUS is the FINAL authority when interpreting the Constitution.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm

Greg: Do you think, maybe, Dr. C. was recasting promiscuity as a freedom of association issue?

Yes, that I was, although not knowing the legal background you cited.
yguy says:

July 18, 2010 at 9:35 pm

Doc, why were those posts moved to the OT dump where no one can respond?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 18, 2010 at 9:52 pm

yguy: Doc, why were those posts moved to the OT dump where no one can respond?

The posts were completely off topic for Obama Conspiracy Theories; the thread was very long and going nowhere, and the discussion had largely devolved into a set of personal insults. So I cut it off. I also deleted half a dozen gratuitous personal insults, one of which was yours.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

July 25, 2010 at 11:00 pm

Eugene: Looks like my little troll hit job regarding my posts linking Fitzpatrick /Darren huff to the GOP commisioner murder is being talked about all over birtherstan. They are certainly up in arms about it … The thing is — You OBOTS don’t like my tactics; I’m just trying to give them a taste of their own medicine. They blame obama and company for everything hey can with no evidence to back it up … Funny thing is, you obots defended the birthers — using logic to conclude Walter or Darren probably didn’t have anything to do with the murder…. Would they ever use logic or reason to defend you? Hell no…I’m just a lone provocateur troll. (I do have a slight bit of hate for those lying weasel conservatives. San fransisco queer type liberals don’t sit too well with me either.) -Jean Gibson, aka Eugene, Aka marco, aka casper, aka junebug

I find it entirely funny that you would talk about san fransisco queer type liberals and you not being able to sit too well after them in the same sentence.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 2:18 am

“I find it entirely funny that you would talk about san fransisco queer type liberals and you not being able to sit too well after them in the same sentence.
”

Queers will be queers but, seriously, “males” who act sissy and feminine aren’t my thing . . they can do what they want and I have no problem even if they want to have a sissy wedding but why should I admire something that is foreign to me?
Lupin says:

July 26, 2010 at 2:30 am

Eugenewhy should I admire something that is foreign to me?

I feel sad for you.

So you go through life with no understanding, even less admiration, of things that are foreign to you?

You could go to China, Egypt or Peru and not admire the Imperial City, the Pyramids or Machu Picchu? Read a translation of Homer and not admire The Iliad?

Just because the gay subculture is “foreign” to you — even though nothing human should be so “foreign” to another human — you couldn’t possibly admire some of its components such as love, mutual respect and courage against hostility and bigotry — no more than you could admire, say, The Diary of Anne Frank?

In fact your choice of words indicates thinly veiled contempt. You are a sad individual.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 2:32 am

Why should I be politically correct and tell you : “Oh, yes, I am totally comforted by something that nature isn’t even comfortable with — If nature meant for it to happen , Men and Men would fit together and be able to pro-create..”. But ya know, at least I’m not so self righteous that I would go trying to make life more difficult for gay partners by telling them how to live their lives. We live in a free country. They are free to do whatever they want. The fact remains, however, that I’m not personally comfortable with male on male sex — I love women ; Two hot women together is enough to make my dick hard. But tell me, sir, why should something sit well with me that I have a natural repulsion torwards? I’m not prejudiced. I have met and had friendly conversations with gay folk .. I don’t try to make them uncomfortable nor do they make me uncomfortable. Just this idea that liberals are gun hating san fransisco pascifist homos doesn’t sit well with me.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 2:35 am

” courage against hostility and bigotry ”

The fact is, I’ve never expressed hostility torward any gay folk…. Just because I’m sexually repulsed by the idea of a couple hairy men together doesn’t mean I condemn them or want to tell them what to do… You need to accept the fact that some people are securely heterosexual and are NATURALLY repulsed by such –otherwise there would be more bi sexual people out there wouldn’t there?
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 2:39 am

*expressing
Lupin says:

July 26, 2010 at 2:42 am

Eugene: The fact is, I’ve never expressed hostility torward any gay folk…. Just because I’m sexually repulsed by the idea of a couple hairy men together doesn’t mean I condemn them or want to tell them what to do… You need to accept the fact that some people are securely heterosexual and are NATURALLY repulsed by such –otherwise there would be more bi sexual people out there wouldn’t there?

This would read well as a satirical post in THE ONION.

And BTW homosexuality is abundantly displayed in nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

You just added ignorance to bigotry, but then both usually go together.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 3:18 am

Just because animals do it makes it natural and acceptable for humans? I guess we should EAT our offspring just because some animals do it?

Seriously man, stfu . You lose.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 3:23 am

By your logic I should not have any natural repulsion when I see people eating/killing their offspring or their mates just because animals do it….
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 3:37 am

One last thing ; I have not NOR HAVE I EVER demonized people or spread hate speech on anyone for having different views on homosexuality than I … You, however, are pushing YOUR VERSION of morality on ME. You are demonizing ME for not having the same world view as you. In that, you are no better than conservatives who try to pull the same crap.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 4:43 am

“Lupin,

You’ll be happier, healthier, and wiser if you avoid engaging with a self-descrbed troll.

This is especially true when the troll’s comments are incoherent at best.”

Seriously, people like you and lupin are why I can’t EVER identify with the far left . You demonize the conservatives for pushing their version of morality on others – yet YOU do the same thing you friggin hypocrites.
Eugene says:

July 26, 2010 at 4:45 am

You are just as bad as conservatives. You are self righteous ignorant fools.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 26, 2010 at 8:08 am

Eugene: Seriously, people like you and lupin are why I can’t EVER identify with the far left .

Sounds like a fallacy of generalization.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 26, 2010 at 8:14 am

Eugene: they can do what they want and I have no problem even if they want to have a sissy wedding but why should I admire something that is foreign to me?

I suggest you take your off-topic views on this subject elsewhere. This site is about Obama Conspiracy Theories.
jtx says:

July 28, 2010 at 9:55 pm

There are no doubt some of you on this blog who have either contributed to, or been inviolved in covering up for, the series of criminal document fraud actions proven in these videos.

For those of you who may be swallowed up in this dragnet here’s some information for your enjoyment and more full understanding of what you’ve become involved with.

Suggested sequence for watching Dr. Ron Polland’s YouTube “FRAUD IN THE USA” video clips;

enter the channel using the #0 link below and then immediately pause the displayed video and open the videos noted in the #1 – #9 sequence:

#0 http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/BWciae2HFKc YouTube channel entry; then select and view:

================================================

#1 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 1)”

#2 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 2)”

#3 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 3)”

#4 “FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 4)”

$5 “It’s the conspiracy, Stupid!”

#6 “HAIL TO THE CHEATS!”

#7 “BLUE HAWAII”

#8 “FRAUD IN THE USA: “SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED” (Chapter 2-1)”

#9 “FRAUD IN THE USA: “MAKE A DATE WITH A SEAL” (Chapter 2-2)”
Dr. Conspiracy says:

July 28, 2010 at 10:04 pm

jtx: There are no doubt some of you on this blog who have either contributed to, or been inviolved in covering up for, the series of criminal document fraud actions proven in these videos.

Just when I cleaned out the old ban list…
kimba says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:31 pm

“Slartibartfast wrote:

we determined that Charo isn’t a birther.”

Not exactly. charo WAS a birther. She admitted to being “concerned” about eligibility, which is by definition a birther, but was convinced by the State Dept memo to file in the FOIA documents. She claims to not be concerned anymore unless something “new” comes up. The question I have remaining is does this mean something new to the history of birther discussion or something “new” to charo? Because if she is now comfortable it is a fact that the President was born in Honolulu, HI, then there are only two possible reasons why that could be true and he would not be a natural born citizen. We know those two things are untrue in the case of Barack Obama, so there can be no “new” something that can come up.
G says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm

kimba: Not exactly. charo WAS a birther. She admitted to being “concerned” about eligibility, which is by definition a birther, but was convinced by the State Dept memo to file in the FOIA documents. She claims to not be concerned anymore unless something “new” comes up. The question I have remaining is does this mean something new to the history of birther discussion or something “new” to charo? Because if she is now comfortable it is a fact that the President was born in Honolulu, HI, then there are only two possible reasons why that could be true and he would not be a natural born citizen. We know those two things are untrue in the case of Barack Obama, so there can be no “new” something that can come up.

Gee whiz, Kimba. Give it a rest and drop it already.

Obviously you didn’t read Charo’s comments very well. She quite clearly stated several times that the additional info gleaned from the recent FOIA requests combined with the existing info out there was now enough to settle the issue enough for her, in that it ALL backed up Obama being BORN IN HONOLULU, HI.

You seem to want to leap to conclusions and imply that somehow she’d start going down the deVattel rabbit hole, but that is a false accusation to make. For one, I don’t recall her ever pushing deVattel notions in all of her time here.

For another, even if she ever had, that too is an “eligibility” argument that birthers try to make and she was very clear in recently stating that she has NO eligibility issues of concern:

charo: G,

There aren’t any present matters anymore concerning eligibility for me.

So please just drop your witch-hunt already and let it go.
kimba says:

August 8, 2010 at 7:52 pm

“G
So please just drop your witch-hunt already and let it go.”

One man’s “witch-hunt” is another’s birther call out. I think charo will be back with some issue that raises “concerns” again. You know as well as I do, the only thing new would be because it’s *new* to charo. I am entitled to my opinion. If you want people to agree with you or shut up, you’re going to have to start your own blog.
G says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Kimba,

I’m not meaning to attack you either, but I think its time to just let the whole matter drop.

I realize that I’ve come off very frustrated with your attitude (which I am) and that is not helpful on my part, so I wish to try to cool things and retract most of what I just wrote in my previous post, as it does not help matters. I leapt a bit too quickly to respond back to you, in part because I’m still ticked off at the weasel response you tried to pull on me yesterday, of which you have still not apologized for nor corrected.

Well, let me try to put things back on the right foot by being more fair than I just was in my previous post and take back some things in my criticism of you that I shouldn’t have said:

I should not have said that you didn’t read what she wrote, because that’s unfair and not necessarily the case, since you also referred to her FOIA request statements and some of her recent quotes. I think you’ve just missed the questions I asked that she was responding to and are refusing to acknowledge that she’s not buying into birther notions any more. She never really fully was if you read her entire history – just coming across more or less “sympathetic” to their cause.

And before you go there, I realize that you have not explicitly referred to deVattel, so I also should not jump to conclusions and read that implication into your statement.

You want to harp on the fact of her word choice on “present matters”…I think that doing so is of no value except to try to continue to be antagonistic.

If anyone says that they presently have no issues of concern, then it means just that and you shouldn’t try to force games of future what-ifs. If she comes back on another day touting some new birther claim or theory out there, then feel free to tear it down, but I seriously doubt that is going to happen.

So again, just let it go and move on.
kimba says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm

“G wrote:

So again, just let it go and move on.”

Unless Doc has made you a moderator stop instructing other commenters.
G says:

August 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm

kimba,

I’m just as entitled to my opinion as you are, so stop telling me what to do as well. Look, I tried to cool things down with you in the last post, but you have chosen to continue to be nothing but an antagonistic person.

Yes, this is a free board and you can say what you want (within Dr. C’s rules). I’ve never claimed to be a moderator here, but I have every right to my opinion too. So just as you want to be able to “call out” birthers even when they denounce birtherism, I too can freely call you out whenever I feel like it.

I think you have demonstrated inflexible bully-like McCarthyism, as well as having acted like a weasel and that you dodge any sense of self-responsibility. That is my opinion of your actions here and I’m just as entitled to convey my opinons as you are, so you have no right to tell me to STFU either.
James says:

August 21, 2010 at 8:43 am

http://networkedblogs.com/74fPG
James says:

August 21, 2010 at 9:14 am

http://media.podcastingmanager.com/0/8/8/4/7/185470-174880/Media/8-18-10.mp3
Recorded interview with Lucas Smith about the birth certificate that he claims is Obama’s and that he bought for $5K from a Kenyan official. His videos can be seen on his You Tube Page – InspectorSmith
Squeeky Fromm says:

October 1, 2010 at 4:39 pm

To Joezeppy:

But you still didn’t talk about why Mobamba himself isn’t doing anything to PUT THE FIRE OUT. Its real funny to me how he has time to want to help Muslims get tax breaks for their zakats or something like that which can be used 1/8 for dynamite and underwear and such, but can’t sit down with Megyn Kelly or Sharon Rondeau and say here’s this stuff everybody is hollering about.

He had time to drink beer with the GUYS in the garden one afternoon, and take TWO MILLION vacations, but he can’t take the time to talk about something with 1/4 plus 1/5 of 300 million people, which has to be close to150 million people.

He has let this thing fester and he is the one who is going to have to pop it! So why don’t he, HUH????

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

October 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Squeeky Fromm: To Joezeppy:But you still didn’t talk about why Mobamba himself isn’t doing anything to PUT THE FIRE OUT. Its real funny to me how he has time to want to help Muslims get tax breaks for their zakats or something like that which can be used 1/8 for dynamite and underwear and such, but can’t sit down with Megyn Kelly or Sharon Rondeau and say here’s this stuff everybody is hollering about.He had time to drink beer with the GUYS in the garden one afternoon, and take TWO MILLION vacations, but he can’t take the time to talk about something with 1/4 plus 1/5 of 300 million people, which has to be close to150 million people. He has let this thing fester and he is the one who is going to have to pop it! So why don’t he, HUH????Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter

What are you talking about zakats? Obama did put the fire out he used a fire extinguisher, poured water all over it removed the sticks, etc. Birthers are trying to light the fire again in the mud with their own urine.

So here comes the crazy BS where you try to conflate all muslims to being terrorists. So I guess all christians bomb abortion clinics then? Two million dollar vacations? When did he spend that much and when was it not his own money? Where did you learn to count? How did a small minority become half the people living in the US?
DP says:

October 1, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Squeeky Fromm: To Joezeppy:But you still didn’t talk about why Mobamba himself isn’t doing anything to PUT THE FIRE OUT. Its real funny to me how he has time to want to help Muslims get tax breaks for their zakats or something like that which can be used 1/8 for dynamite and underwear and such, but can’t sit down with Megyn Kelly or Sharon Rondeau and say here’s this stuff everybody is hollering about.He had time to drink beer with the GUYS in the garden one afternoon, and take TWO MILLION vacations, but he can’t take the time to talk about something with 1/4 plus 1/5 of 300 million people, which has to be close to150 million people.
He has let this thing fester and he is the one who is going to have to pop it! So why don’t he, HUH????Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Where to even begin?

First, he his campaign did produce proof in the form of a document posted on the web that appears to fully conform with documentation Hawaii issues. The diehard fools claimed it was a forgery even though Hawaii would be free to identify it as inconsistent with their records and never did.

Hawaii state officials, and even the Governor, far from denouncing this proclaimed forgery, said “we checked the record sand he was born here.” That didn’t stop the diehard fools. They decided the entire state of Hawaii was in on the scam and turned to sources like common criminal and con man Lucas Smith and blatant fraud Ron Polarik. They did these insane things because they don’t care about evidence; they want to believe in their own reality because they hate Obama.

You, like Megyn Kelly and Sharon Rondeau, are a hate-filled loser who won’t accept any proof Obama would ever offer. Decent people understand that there’s no reason he should waste a moment on you.
JoZeppy says:

October 1, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Squeeky Fromm: To Joezeppy:But you still didn’t talk about why Mobamba himself isn’t doing anything to PUT THE FIRE OUT. Its real funny to me how he has time to want to help Muslims get tax breaks for their zakats or something like that which can be used 1/8 for dynamite and underwear and such, but can’t sit down with Megyn Kelly or Sharon Rondeau and say here’s this stuff everybody is hollering about.He had time to drink beer with the GUYS in the garden one afternoon, and take TWO MILLION vacations, but he can’t take the time to talk about something with 1/4 plus 1/5 of 300 million people, which has to be close to150 million people. He has let this thing fester and he is the one who is going to have to pop it! So why don’t he, HUH????Squeeky FrommGirl Reporter

There is no fire. Get over it. You are amoung a small minority of people who are blinded by personal hate. A small minority that pretty much consists of exclusively people who would never vote for him anyway, and are just looking for an excuse to deny his legitimacy. He permitted his COLB to be posted on the internet. Something no other presidential candidate has ever done. The reality is there is nothing he can ever do to satisfy the ungovernorable malconents that make up the likes of birthers. Birther accepted the anonomous postings of self proclaimed experts to create the myth that there was evidence it was a forgery, then attack a real computer expert, who openly used his name and published his credentials who debunked their pseudo science. The very fact that you reject the COLB, and the statements of the Hawaiian government is all the proof any rational person needs to conclude giving you anything eslse would just be a waste of time. So again, why should he even degrade the office of the president to even acknowledge your existence?
Ellid says:

October 1, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Squeeky Fromm: To Joezeppy:But you still didn’t talk about why Mobamba himself isn’t doing anything to PUT THE FIRE OUT. Its real funny to me how he has time to want to help Muslims get tax breaks for their zakats or something like that which can be used 1/8 for dynamite and underwear and such, but can’t sit down with Megyn Kelly or Sharon Rondeau and say here’s this stuff everybody is hollering about.He had time to drink beer with the GUYS in the garden one afternoon, and take TWO MILLION vacations, but he can’t take the time to talk about something with 1/4 plus 1/5 of 300 million people, which has to be close to150 million people.
He has let this thing fester and he is the one who is going to have to pop it! So why don’t he, HUH????Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

1. “Zakat” is the charity donation required of pious Muslims. It has nothing to do with weapons. Not only are you wrong, but you are showing yourself to be an anti-Muslim bigot.

2. Sorry, but Muslims aren’t the ones with ritual underwear. That’s the Mormons.

3. The President of the United States has far more important things to do than give an interview to a lying little traitor like Sharon Rondeau, who has openly called for a military coup against the legally elected government of the United States.

4. The “beer summit” kept Boston from erupting after one of the city’s most distinguished academics was arrested in his own home because he forgot his keys.

5. President Obama has taken less than half as many vacation days as either President Bush II or President Reagan.

6. Your statistics are presented so poorly as to be meaningless.

7. Comparing a false controversy to a pimple is disgusting.

8. You’re a middle aged functional illiterate in desperate need of mental health counseling, not a “girl reporter.” Please get it.
Squeeky Fromm says:

October 1, 2010 at 5:44 pm

To ellid:

You said: “1. “Zakat” is the charity donation required of pious Muslims. It has nothing to do with weapons. Not only are you wrong, but you are showing yourself to be an anti-Muslim bigot.”

I went to wiki. You have to go two places because for some reason the first one doesn’t tell you what “Fi_sabil_Allah” is in ENGLISH. But just hit the blue part. I was curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi_sabil_Allah
Squeeky Fromm says:

October 1, 2010 at 5:49 pm

To ellid:

I hit enter too quick. Anyway, yes it does have to do with weapons.

” In Islamic context, it is to be on the path of Allah. Although it is a wide-ranging term, it is generally interpreted as referring to military Jihad.

This has led to Zakah, a charity tax meant to benefit the poor (being by extension in the cause of Allah’s), being ruled by some jurists as to be used for Jihad.”

BUT, here is my question for you. Howcome you just assumed I am an anti-Muslim bigot. Did you even bother to look up ZAKAT before you started name calling??? Huh, I bet NOT!!!

Why didn’t you look it up? Already had your mind made up? I looked it up this morning when I first saw the video on greatwire because I am suspicious of what people shove at me.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
DP says:

October 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm

Squeeky Fromm: To ellid:I hit enter too quick. Anyway, yes it does have to do with weapons.
” In Islamic context, it is to be on the path of Allah. Although it is a wide-ranging term, it is generally interpreted as referring to military Jihad.This has led to Zakah, a charity tax meant to benefit the poor (being by extension in the cause of Allah’s), being ruled by some jurists as to be used for Jihad.”BUT, here is my question for you. Howcome you just assumed I am an anti-Muslim bigot. Did you even bother to look up ZAKAT before you started name calling??? Huh, I bet NOT!!!Why didn’t you look it up? Already had your mind made up? I looked it up this morning when I first saw the video on greatwire because I am suspicious of what people shove at me.Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Look, if that’s all you k now about Zakat, you’d be better off trying not to use it as a support point for any argument you make.

Zakat is conceptual identical to the concept of tithing in Christianity. It is a religious obligation for the faithful, and as such, was tax deductible long before Obama came around, as long as the contribution went to a mosque or recognized charity.

In the long history of Islam, the legal question has been raised as to whether this obligation can be used to fund other obligations, such as jihad, which does not refer only to war. The same questions have been raised in the history of Christianity regarding the ultimate recipients and destination for tithes. Christian tithing was also used to support wars and other things in the past.

Islam has a complication today that is well recognized by military and legal authorities. Specifically, organizations like Hamas provide charitable functions to various populations while simultaneously waging war against Israel. So a contribution to Hamas’ charitable works could be consistent with one’s obligation for Zakat, but money is fungible. Specific charities have fallen afoul of the law on precisely this issue. It’s complicated, and sometimes its hard to tell where charity becomes a legal bypass. Some Irish organizations ran afoul of the same thing in the IRA’s hay day.

So, tax deductibility for Zakat is not new, and most Muslims in this country simply give the money to their local mosque or organizations collecting for flood, tsunami, etc. relief in other countries. To the extent any of that money could be diverted to another cause, the Feds are, and have been, on top of it.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

October 1, 2010 at 8:17 pm

Squeeky Fromm: I hit enter too quick. Anyway, yes it does have to do with weapons.

” In Islamic context, it is to be on the path of Allah. Although it is a wide-ranging term, it is generally interpreted as referring to military Jihad.

This has led to Zakah, a charity tax meant to benefit the poor (being by extension in the cause of Allah’s), being ruled by some jurists as to be used for Jihad.”

OK FOLKS, argument about religion is OFF TOPIC for this blog. This is Obama Conspiracy Theories, not Jesus was a liberal!

To the dump wi’ye!
Phil Cave says:

October 2, 2010 at 6:46 pm

Your husbands health care costs rose because the Republicans and some Democrats refused to provide for the single payer or Medicare-Plus option. Instead they have persisted in keeping health care a “for profit” resource. For profit means that the people running the health care have to make a profit for their shareholders and to pay their exorbitant salaries. I suspect one or more of the health care “leaders” received $50.00 per second in salary out of the profits, perhaps more. Don’t look for them to be helping you out.
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 6:55 pm

Phil Cave: Your husbands health care costs rose because the Republicans and some Democrats refused to provide for the single payer or Medicare-Plus option.Instead they have persisted in keeping health care a “for profit” resource.For profit means that the people running the health care have to make a profit for their shareholders and to pay their exhorbitant salaries.I suspect one or more of the health care “leaders” received $50.00 per second in salary out of the profits, perhaps more.Don’t look for them to be helping you out.

You have made conclusory statements without proof. You can’t show that the costs would not have risen with a single payor option; I can show that as soon as the health care bill was passed, health care went up.

BTW, I am directing you to A Soldier’s Perspective regarding the suicide issue you mentioned somewhere along the way. CJ Grisham has written a very personal account. You may be interested (he is not a birther.)
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:00 pm

Phil,

I do agree that there are significant abuses that occur; I just don’t believe that you have the right solution. Also, your general health and those of your family, parents may also affect your perspective. I certainly have a different view of health care than I did when I was in my 20’s – not that I am admitting being out of them yet 😉
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm

charo:
You have made conclusory statements without proof. You can’t show that the costs would not have risen with a single payor option; I can show that as soon as the health care bill was passed, health care went up.BTW, I am directing you to A Soldier’s Perspective regarding the suicide issue you mentioned somewhere along the way.CJ Grisham has written a very personal account. You may be interested (he is not a birther.)

Health Care premiums were going up anyway even without the health care bill. Premiums were set to increase arbitrarily as they have been doing for years. Meanwhile insurance company CEOs still make hand over fist. Get rid of the red tape and costs would go down. The single payer option would have provided that with the removal of the excess salaries, bonuses, etc for dropping people from plans.
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:13 pm

Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross:
Health Care premiums were going up anyway even without the health care bill.Premiums were set to increase arbitrarily as they have been doing for years.Meanwhile insurance company CEOs still make hand over fist.Get rid of the red tape and costs would go down.The single payer option would have provided that with the removal of the excess salaries, bonuses, etc for dropping people from plans.

My husband received an e-mail indicating it was projections from the new health care bill that were the cause. Health care decisions are normally made each June. Do you know how much money trial lawyers make on health care?
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:16 pm

charo:
My husband received an e-mail indicating it was projections from the new health care bill that were the cause. Health care decisions are normally made each June.Do you know how much money trial lawyers make on health care?

Who were the projections run by?
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm

The insurance company made the projections of course. I am not stating that there isn’t abuse. But Medicare has tremendous abuse! Allow state to state competition. Cap those punitive awards.

I am sure this discussion could continue for hours.
Phil Cave says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:33 pm

charo: The insurance company made the projections of course.

And of course they need an excuse to raise costs, what better than “Congress did it.”
Agreed this could go on forever. In the meantime I’m happy with my single-payer plan. Saved me $1.3M +/- in the last eight years.
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Phil Cave:
And of course they need an excuse to raise costs, what better than “Congress did it.”
Agreed this could go on forever.In the meantime I’m happy with my single-payer plan.Saved me $1.3M +/- in the last eight years.

Are you generally healthy? You don’t have to answer, but as I said, your actual health status and those of your family members can very much impact your view. If you have never had to deal with the health care world very often, you may have a different point of view. My husband, who does not look in the least like a heart attack candidate, has coronary heart disease. It is simply a matter of genetics. He is an unusual patient at the cardiologist. (When he takes a treadmill test, it is hard to get him huffing and puffing.) We have to look ahead.

Why do people come other countries come here for health care?
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm

charo: The insurance company made the projections of course. I am not stating that there isn’t abuse.But Medicare has tremendous abuse! Allow state to state competition.Cap those punitive awards.
I am sure this discussion could continue for hours.

Gee so they said they would go up. Now how about last years projections? The year before? The year before that? How much has your premiums gone up year over year for the last 5 years?
ellid says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm

charo:
You have made conclusory statements without proof. You can’t show that the costs would not have risen with a single payor option; I can show that as soon as the health care bill was passed, health care went up.BTW, I am directing you to A Soldier’s Perspective regarding the suicide issue you mentioned somewhere along the way.CJ Grisham has written a very personal account. You may be interested (he is not a birther.)

Several years ago Consumer Reports compared equivalent American and Canadian families. Their conclusion: single payer was cheaper and produced better health outcomes.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm

charo:

Why do people come other countries come here for health care?

Why do people from this country go elsewhere for ordinary health care? Yeah rhetorical question yours is just as meaningless
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:57 pm

Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross:
Gee so they said they would go up.Now how about last years projections?The year before?The year before that?How much has your premiums gone up year over year for the last 5 years?

You don’t have to take a nasty tone. Health care is renewed each June. At least that is what was explained to him. He had a job with another company for 15 years and lost it last summer. Health care costs increased over time with the company. Initially, he paid no premiums. That was for a number of years. When it went up, it was still reasonable. It was one of the ways the owner drew people to the company: his health care plan. This new company, same at first health care included in salary. March, costs up.

Yikes, I have to take my son’s friend home.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

October 2, 2010 at 8:01 pm

charo: Why do people come other countries come here for health care?

They come here because we have the best health care in the world.

Why do many Americans go to India for major surgical procedures? Because we have the most expensive health care in the world.

See:

https://www.healthbase.com/hb/pages/medical-tourism.jsp
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross says:

October 2, 2010 at 8:02 pm

charo:
You don’t have to take a nasty tone.Health care is renewed each June. At least that is what was explained to him.He had a job with another company for 15 years and lost it last summer. Health care costs increased over time with the company.Initially, he paid no premiums.That was for a number of years.When it went up, it was still reasonable.It was one of the ways the owner drew people to the company:his health care plan.This new company, same at firsthealth care included in salary.March, costs up.Yikes, I have to take my son’s friend home.

How was my tone nasty? I’ll ask you again how much has your premium gone up year over year for the last 5 years? Before even the health care debate many insurance companies were saying there would be a 34% increase on premiums. They then said if the public option was passed premiums would go up. No matter what premiums were going up and now this is how they justify it
Dr. Conspiracy says:

October 2, 2010 at 8:08 pm

OK GUYS Health Care policy is OFF TOPIC FOR THIS BLOG. To the DUMP wi’ye. This is Obama Conspiracy Theories.
Expelliarmus says:

October 2, 2010 at 8:11 pm

charo: I only have my word to support this, but my husband’s health care costs went up $50 per pay period in March of 2010.

Which would have been prior to passage of the Health Care reform bill, while Republicans in Congress were still trying to block reform. The final bill passed only through use of the reconciliation process (to bypass a GOP filibuster), and the date of passage was March 22. Any increase that went on your husband’s paycheck effective at the start of March would have had to have been in the works months earlier.

The problems you blame Obama for are the creation of the GOP — if the GOP had supported meaningful health care reform instead of spreading false rumors about death panels, then a new law would have been enacted months earlier.

Same issue with jobs: There have been more jobs created in 2010 alone than in the entire 8 years of the Bush administration. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php

If someone sets fire to your house, you don’t blame the fireman who arrive to put the fire out for not restoring it to its original state.
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 11:02 pm

Rickey: There is no direct correlation between health care reform and your husband’s insurance premiums. For one thing, it wasn’t passed until March 21. For another, it has only just now begun to take effect, and it will be years before all of its provisions go into effect.

I have to correct myself after finding the e-mail. The premiums did rise in June versus March, but as you can see the date of the e-mail was just after passage of the bill. I (and my husband) made the implication about the health care bill, not the company. Reason? No one had been required to pay premiums prior to that (unless the employee chose the more expensive option). As you pointed out, certain provisions are coming into effect now, which indicates that the raise in premiums was due to the coming changes. There may have been incremental increases in insurance costs prior to this past year, but the employer was absorbing them. Prior to this June, employees did not have to pay toward premiums. Notice came to the employees in March, after passage of the bill, of a significant increase.

The following changes have become effective and logically are the reason for the large jump in premiums:

* Teens and young adults may stay on parents’ health plans until age 26.
* No more denying children coverage based on pre-existing conditions (Extended to all age groups in 2014).
* No more limits on how much an insurer pays out on coverage for a consumer’s lifetime.
* Restrictions on annual limits on how much an insurer pays out on coverage. (Annual limits to be eliminated altogether in 2014).
* No more rescinding coverage for sick consumers based on accidental application errors.
* Insurers must come up with and implement an improved appeals process for consumers to appeal decisions.
* New health plans must cover a minimum set of preventive benefits, including basic immunizations and certain screenings.

How can these provisions have no effect on the cost of premiums, when they were known to become effective during the policy year? (renewal of policies in June, implementation in September).

******
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:34 PM
To: Division Employees
Cc:
Subject: Insurance Premiums

All,

We have been given some advance notice that our [insurance company] rates could rise as much as 25% on 6/1/10. We are verifying our census data and asking for new quotes to compare with our current rates. Please contact me if you would like to participate in a review panel. Your contribution will be appreciated. We will provide an update at our next employee meeting scheduled for Monday, 4/26 at .

Thank you.
******
Cost was $50 per biweekly pay period. Again, there may have been increases in premiums in prior years, but they were small enough for the company to eat the cost.

Rickey: I doubt that a YouTube video would have been clearer than the photos taken by factcheck.org. And a YouTube video certainly would have been no more convincing to hard-core birthers, who would not accept that Obama was born in Hawaii even if a time machine could taken them back to 1961 Honolulu.

I think I stated in different words than you that hard core birthers won’t accept a youtube video. A video in conjunction with the stills would have been easy to do.
Majority Will says:

October 2, 2010 at 11:09 pm

charo: but as you can see the date of the e-mail was just after passage of the bill. I (and my husband) made the implication about the health care bill, not the company.

And I thought “Health Care policy is OFF TOPIC FOR THIS BLOG.” Maybe my reading comprehension skills are on the fritz.
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 11:13 pm

One more thing. I agree with some of these provisions and would expect that in order to deal with pre-exising conditions and unlimited protection, costs will rise. But this is only the start. If the policy increased 25% what happens when the rest kicks in?

Do you know how much doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance? Work on that and maybe some money can be saved if doctors don’t have to pay so much for the insurance protection. Do you think that government run health care won’t have abuses? Again, look at Medicare. Clean that up and find some money.

Look, I don’t claim to be some kind of expert, but to say that the new health care plan will save money is ridiculous.
charo says:

October 2, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Majority Will:
And I thought “Health Care policy is OFF TOPIC FOR THIS BLOG.” Maybe my reading comprehension skills are on the fritz.

You are right. To the dump this should go.
SvenMagnussen says:

November 1, 2010 at 8:08 pm

As a matter of fairness, I think all naturalized citizens should be given the same opportunity BHO II was given.

Look at Virginia Thomas, her husband was vilified and his accuser, without any evidence to back up her claims, went on to a successful teaching career after a generous book deal. Why wasn’t Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq treated in the same manner?

For that matter, why wasn’t Anita Hill treated in the same way Orly Taitz was treated? Shouldn’t naturalized citizens, like Obama, be given the same opportunity Obama was afforded?
ellid says:

November 1, 2010 at 11:12 pm

SvenMagnussen: As a matter of fairness, I think all naturalized citizens should be given the same opportunity BHO II was given.Look at Virginia Thomas, her husband was vilified and his accuser, without any evidence to back up her claims, went on to a successful teaching career after a generous book deal. Why wasn’t Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq treated in the same manner?For that matter, why wasn’t Anita Hill treated in the same way Orly Taitz was treated? Shouldn’t naturalized citizens, like Obama, be given the same opportunity Obama was afforded?

Virginia Thomas is a naturalized citizen? Fancy that! Here I just thought she was your average, garden variety wingnut!
Arthur says:

November 1, 2010 at 11:14 pm

SvenMagnussen: .Look at Virginia Thomas, her husband was vilified and his accuser, without any evidence to back up her claims, went on to a successful teaching career after a generous book deal. Why wasn’t Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq treated in the same manner?For that matter, why wasn’t Anita Hill treated in the same way Orly Taitz was treated?

It’s a false equivalency to compare Anita Hill to Orly Taitz. Hill never intended on making her allegations public. She was interviewed by the FBI as part of the process that preceeded Justice Thomas’ nomination. She was called to testify by Congress when material from her interview was leaked. After her initial testimony, she agreed to take a polygraph test and according to those who interpreted the results, she did not lie about her statements regarding Justice Thomas. Thomas, on the other hand, refused to take a polygraph test. While I’m sure the whole thing was embarrassing to Thomas, he nevertheless won confirmation to the Supreme Court. I’d say he won the battle and continues to enjoy the spoils of victory. During and after her testimony, Professor Hill was vilified and humiliated by supporters of Clarence Thomas in a very public way.

I work in theatre, and and in my profession, sexual jokes, sexual innuendo, and outrageous sexual behavior are commonplace. I didn’t find anything particular scandalous about Hill’s allegations, although I recognize that other people were disturbed by what they heard and felt Thomas’ nomination should have been withdrawn. Nevertheless, most people had forgotten about the hearings, and Virginia Thomas was foolish to bring them up again.

Now back to Orly Taitz. She deserves all the scorn, ridicule, and sanctions that have been heaped upon her. She is a bigoted shrew and pathological liar, wholly without integrity, reason, or basic human decency. She hasn’t published a book because there aren’t enough idiots in the world who could stand to read it, much less buy it.
gorefan says:

November 2, 2010 at 1:33 am

Arthur: Nevertheless, most people had forgotten about the hearings, and Virginia Thomas was foolish to bring them up again.

All she accomplished by bring up the old story was to give the new story some publicity:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ex-girlfriend-says-clarence-thomas-obsessed-with-porn/19685574
SvenMagnussen says:

November 2, 2010 at 8:36 am

Arthur:
It’s a false equivalency to compare Anita Hill to Orly Taitz. Hill never intended on making her allegationspublic. She was interviewed by the FBI as part of the process that preceeded Justice Thomas’ nomination. She was called to testify by Congress when material from her interview was leaked. After her initial testimony, she agreed to take a polygraph test and according to those who interpreted the results, she did not lie about her statements regarding Justice Thomas. Thomas, on the other hand, refused to take a polygraph test. While I’m sure the whole thing was embarrassing to Thomas, he nevertheless won confirmation to the Supreme Court. I’d say he won the battle and continues to enjoy the spoils of victory. During and after her testimony,Professor Hill was vilified and humiliated by supporters of Clarence Thomas in a very public way. I work in theatre, and and in my profession, sexual jokes, sexual innuendo, and outrageous sexual behavior are commonplace. I didn’t find anything particular scandalous about Hill’s allegations, although I recognize that other people were disturbed by what they heard and felt Thomas’ nomination should have been withdrawn.Nevertheless, most people hadforgotten about the hearings, and Virginia Thomas was foolish to bring them up again.Now back to Orly Taitz. She deserves all the scorn, ridicule, and sanctions that have been heaped upon her. She is a bigoted shrew and pathological liar, wholly without integrity, reason, or basic human decency. She hasn’t published a book because there aren’t enough idiots in the world who could stand to read it, much less buy it.

It’s not over! Justice Thomas, by proxy, is notifying the public he will not accept anymore ridicule or quiet indignation while silently watching an ineligible President be put up on a pedestal.

Anita Hill will have to apologize or Orly Taitz’s fortunes will be changed.
AnotherBird says:

November 2, 2010 at 8:43 am

SvenMagnussen:
It’s not over! Justice Thomas, by proxy, is notifying the public he will not accept anymore ridicule or quiet indignation while silently watching an ineligible President be put up on a pedestal. Anita Hill will have to apologize or Orly Taitz’s fortunes will be changed.

SvenMagnussen they you go telling talk tales ago.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

November 2, 2010 at 9:12 am

SvenMagnussen: It’s not over! Justice Thomas, by proxy, is notifying the public he will not accept anymore ridicule or quiet indignation while silently watching an ineligible President be put up on a pedestal.Anita Hill will have to apologize or Orly Taitz’s fortunes will be changed.

Anita Hill has nothing to apologize for. Virginia Thomas was stupid to call Hill to try to get Hill to apologize because now others are starting to come out saying they were harrassed by Justice Thomas. An ex girlfriend has come forward.
Arthur says:

November 2, 2010 at 9:34 am

Sven:

I adore you’re childish imagination! Your fantasies about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas are almost as improbable as this little girl’s compelling fairytale: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1890164

This one’s dedicated to Lupin.
Dave says:

November 2, 2010 at 10:09 am

SvenMagnussen:
Anita Hill will have to apologize or Orly Taitz’s fortunes will be changed.

Cool, it’s like you’re a fortune teller now. Well, as you may have noticed, Anita Hill very explicitly did not apologize. So, with that fact along with your consultation with the spirits, we know what’s going to happen: Taitz’s fortunes will change. And I assume you’re not referring to the change where we subtracted $20K. Which given the size of her fortune is not much of a change anyhow. Give us a hint: what exactly is Thomas going to do?
Reality Check says:

November 2, 2010 at 11:23 am

SvenMagnussen: It’s not over! Justice Thomas, by proxy, is notifying the public he will not accept anymore ridicule or quiet indignation while silently watching an ineligible President be put up on a pedestal.

Anita Hill will have to apologize or Orly Taitz’s fortunes will be changed.

Justice Thomas will do nothing to help Orly unless she can convince Justice Scalia. Haven’t you been paying attention for 20 years?
Lupin says:

November 2, 2010 at 11:37 am

Arthur: I adore you’re childish imagination! Your fantasies about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas are almost as improbable as this little girl’s compelling fairytale: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1890164

This is truly adorable. Thank you!

I wonder if Sven sees bats too? Bats in the belfry, maybe.
Joey says:

November 2, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Reality Check: Justice Thomas will do nothing to help Orly unless she can convince Justice Scalia. Haven’t you been paying attention for 20 years?

BOTH Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia rejected Orly Taitz’s request for a stay of her $20,000 sanction imposed by the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Orly then accused Justice Thomas’ law clerk of forging the Justice’s signature on the denial.
Daniel says:

November 2, 2010 at 12:22 pm

SvenMagnussen: Justice Thomas, by proxy, is notifying the public

Yeah ’cause Judges are well known for issuing notices to the public…. by proxy

ROFLMAO
JoZeppy says:

November 2, 2010 at 12:31 pm

SvenMagnussen: It’s not over! Justice Thomas, by proxy, is notifying the public he will not accept anymore ridicule or quiet indignation while silently watching an ineligible President be put up on a pedestal.
Anita Hill will have to apologize or Orly Taitz’s fortunes will be changed.

Just when you think that Sven has reached the summits of stupid, he turns around to show us all that he is always up to the task of turning it up a notch.
SvenMagnussen says:

November 6, 2010 at 6:48 pm

I’m not sure the CRS punctures the birther balloon as much as it massages it.

“It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parent’s origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

Soebarkah “elected” not to revoke his Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued by the US Secretary of State in 1968 before he was 18 years and 6 months old. Consequently, the CLN was finalized and affirmed after he was notified in writing of his rights to revoke the CLN before he was 18 years and 6 months old.

It’s not his birth circumstance or the status of his parents that makes Obama ineligible. It’s his finalized CLN.

P.S. Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent.
misha says:

November 6, 2010 at 6:53 pm

SvenMagnussen: It’s not his birth circumstance or the status of his parents that makes Obama ineligible. It’s his finalized CLN.
P.S. Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent.

Post it, and provide a link.
Dave says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:03 pm

misha:
[Sven sez: It’s not his birth circumstance or the status of his parents that makes Obama ineligible. It’s his finalized CLN.
P.S. Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent. ]

Post it, and provide a link.

How do you write the URL for a peyote hallucination?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:11 pm

SvenMagnussen: P.S. Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent.

I have not.
misha says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Dave: How do you write the URL for a peyote hallucination?

Easy: http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/nyt-audio-hallucination.jpg.jpeg
AnotherBird says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:24 pm

SvenMagnussen: It’s not his birth circumstance or the status of his parents that makes Obama ineligible. It’s his finalized CLN.

Sven, just admit you didn’t read the article. If you don’t want to read the article just say so and stop making things up.
misha says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:31 pm

SvenMagnussen: Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent.

I’ve seen Obama’s authentic Kenya birth certificate.
Keith says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Dave:
How do you write the URL for a peyote hallucination?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6gSywSvIc&feature=related
Majority Will says:

November 6, 2010 at 7:52 pm

SvenMagnussen: I’m not sure the CRS punctures the birther balloon as much as it massages it.
“It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parent’s origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”Soebarkah “elected” not to revoke his Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued by the US Secretary of State in 1968 before he was 18 years and 6 months old. Consequently, the CLN was finalized and affirmed after he was notified in writing of his rights to revoke the CLN before he was 18 years and 6 months old.It’s not his birth circumstance or the status of his parents that makes Obama ineligible. It’s his finalized CLN.P.S. Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent.

Who is Soebarkah?
Joey says:

November 6, 2010 at 8:03 pm

SvenMagnussen: I’m not sure the CRS punctures the birther balloon as much as it massages it. “It has long been a recognized principle in this country that if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parent’s origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”Soebarkah “elected” not to revoke his Certificate of Loss of Nationality issued by the US Secretary of State in 1968 before he was 18 years and 6 months old. Consequently, the CLN was finalized and affirmed after he was notified in writing of his rights to revoke the CLN before he was 18 years and 6 months old.It’s not his birth circumstance or the status of his parents that makes Obama ineligible. It’s his finalized CLN.P.S. Yes, Obots, I’ve seen it and it is magnificent.

Wow! “It’s magnificent!” And now if the birther-bots could only find someone with standing to present it in a court of law, we’d have something to talk about!!!
Dr. Conspiracy says:

November 6, 2010 at 8:06 pm

Sven, you have hijacked your last thread on my blog. You are on permanent moderation.
BatGuano says:

November 27, 2010 at 12:08 am

Realist: Actually, no, I could care less what they write about, although I would bet Obama’s would be some marxist fantasy

if obama is a marxist then……. he has an odd way of going about it and to date has been counter-productive to uncle karl’s work.

i’m curious what field you work you’re in that your boss has a “che banner” in his office. is he/she the owner or just a superior ? is it a shepard fairey poster print with a che theme ? those things have increased in value in the market over 10x ( oh the irony ).
Lupin says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:15 am

Realist: Way too many to ignore. You can and do ignore them…or maybe socialism is what you want. I know my boss has a Che banner on his wall….he favors socialism. I do not.
I see many things wrong with him, you see many things right about him.

Can you please stop exposing your shameful ignorance about socialism? It’s as painful to watch as grandpa defecating on the carpet of the living room.
Lupin says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:17 am

Realist: I would bet Obama’s would be some marxist fantasy.

Please prove to us that Obama’s policies are to the LEFT of Nixon’s. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:53 am

BatGuano: i’m curious what field you work you’re in that your boss has a “che banner” in his office,

That struck me as odd, too. Maybe Realist works at a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco, or something.
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:59 am

Realist: Actually, no, I could care less what they write about, although I would bet Obama’s would be some marxist fantasy.

As opposed to Sarah Palin’s capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works and no one gets pregnant out of wedlock, nor loses on “Dancing with the Stars”?
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 3:02 am

Lupin: Can you please stop exposing your shameful ignorance about socialism? It’s as painful to watch as grandpa defecating on the carpet of the living room.

A powerful image, Lupin. And how did you know about what happened at our house thisThanksgiving?!
Majority Will says:

November 27, 2010 at 6:12 am

Arthur:
As opposed to Sarah Palin’s capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works and no one gets pregnant out of wedlock, nor loses on “Dancing with the Stars”?

😀 LMAO

(But as Sarah has admitted, the Palin klan still hops over to Canada to steal a little socialized medicine.)
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 6:25 am

Majority,

For another good laugh, check out how Mother Jones depicts the mother of all Momma Grizzlies: http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2010/11/attack-on-middle-class
Sean says:

November 27, 2010 at 10:05 am

Majority Will: LMAO(But as Sarah has admitted, the Palin klan still hops over to Canada to steal a little socialized medicine.)

Please tell me you’re joking.
realist says:

November 27, 2010 at 10:07 am

BatGuano: i’m curious what field you work you’re in that your boss has a “che banner” in his office,

That struck me as odd, too. Maybe Realist works at a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco, or something.

Realist;
We do solar installation. It’s not in his office you idiots, it’s in his house. I didnt say anything about our office! What made you think that?
Yes, we put solar panels on homes and businesses. He loved Obama, but feels let down by Obama making him (boss) buy health care instead of it being free for everyone.
He often says f%#k the rules, do what you want.
He’s very liberal, although he hates labor unions…..he should hate obama then! Unions are all up his ass!
Sean says:

November 27, 2010 at 10:08 am

Arthur:
As opposed to Sarah Palin’s capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works and no one gets pregnant out of wedlock, nor loses on “Dancing with the Stars”?

Part of her original fantasy was secession from the lower 48 states.
realist says:

November 27, 2010 at 10:13 am

Please prove to us that Obama’s policies are to the LEFT of Nixon’s. Go ahead, I’m waiting.

My pleasure…..he’s been setting up labor unions with tons of money for their support. there is nothing more liberal and socialist than labor unions.
What more do you want to know….he’s spent 13 trillion dollars since he’s been in office.
Thats more than every other administration COMBINED.
He’s bought car company’s banks…(founding fathers warned against nationalizing banks).
Wants free health care for all. Put a moratorium on foreclosures. Sent hundreds of millions to Kenya for “Social programs”.
His grandfather was a marxist, his father was, his mother was…..whats the question?
How can you not see he’s a socialist marxist. His own self proclaimed “Mentor” in his book, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist party in hawaii!
Did you need to ask that question?
realist says:

November 27, 2010 at 10:18 am

Arthur:
As opposed to Sarah Palin’s capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works and no one gets pregnant out of wedlock, nor loses on “Dancing with the Stars”?

Whoever wrote this….it’s the real world…things happen to people everday thats not what they planned.
Dick Chenney’s daughter is gay….and votes republican. It’s real life idiots, not everything in life is black and white. Except Barry O. !!!
Realist says:

November 27, 2010 at 10:48 am

capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works

You gotta be kidding me….they led to the biggest buisness growth and expension in decades during reagan and bush I.
Your obviously socialists on here. So we are supposed to forget those that work so hard, and GIVE money to poor that dont do anything.
Lets raise taxes (penalize)on those that work, and give free stuff (reward) to those that dont.
So whats wrong with trickle down…it’s the most natural way of economics there is.
You get what you earn….what could be easier than that. Whats your option…I cant wait to here that.
BatGuano says:

November 27, 2010 at 11:51 am

Realist: You gotta be kidding me….they led to the biggest buisness growth and expension in decades during reagan and bush I.

how old are you realist ? honest question.
Lupin says:

November 27, 2010 at 11:56 am

realist: Please prove to us that Obama’s policies are to the LEFT of Nixon’s. Go ahead, I’m waiting.

My pleasure…..he’s been setting up labor unions with tons of money for their support. there is nothing more liberal and socialist than labor unions.
What more do you want to know….he’s spent 13 trillion dollars since he’s been in office.
Thats more than every other administration COMBINED.
He’s bought car company’s banks…(founding fathers warned against nationalizing banks).
Wants free health care for all. Put a moratorium on foreclosures. Sent hundreds of millions to Kenya for “Social programs”.
His grandfather was a marxist, his father was, his mother was…..whats the question?
How can you not see he’s a socialist marxist. His own self proclaimed “Mentor” in his book, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist party in hawaii!
Did you need to ask that question?

Your ignorance of American history is truly abysmal.

Let me offer the following *facts* (unlike your gobbledygook about Frank Marshall Davis which is meaningless or your lies about Kenya which are simply ridiculous):

— Nixon befriended Communist China
— Nixon pursued arms control agreements with the Soviets and approved a five-year cooperative program between NASA and the Soviet space program
— Under Nixon, direct payments from the federal government to individual American citizens in government benefits (including Social Security and Medicare) rose from 6.3% of the Gross National Product (GNP) to 8.9%.
— Under Nixon, food aid and public assistance also rose, beginning at $6.6 billion and escalating to $9.1 billion.
— Under Nixon Defense spending DECREASED from 9.1% to 5.8% of the US GNP.
— Nixon IMPOSED a temporary 90 day wage and price freeze. Then Nixon set up a Pay Board to set wage controls limiting increases to 5.5% per year, and a Price Commission to set a 2.5% annual limit on price increases.
— Nixon indexed Social Security for inflation, and created Supplemental Security Income.
— Nixon eradicated the gold standard (an old right wing bugaboo).
— Nixon helped the the automobile industry in the form of removal of excise taxes
— Nixon initiated the Environmental Decade by signing the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972, as well as establishing many government agencies. These included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),[93] and the Council on Environmental Quality.
— In 1971, Nixon created four new government departments: Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Agriculture,
— Nixon reorganized the Post Office Department from a cabinet department to a government-owned corporation: the U.S. Postal Service.
— Nixon established the Consumer Product Safety Commission
— Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program
— Nixon endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment
— Nixon signed the landmark laws Title IX in 1972, prohibiting gender discrimination in all federally funded schools and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
— It was during the Nixon Presidency that the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade ruling. Pat Nixon had been outspoken about her support for legalized abortion. Nixon himself did not speak out publicly, but was personally pro-choice, and believed that, in certain cases, such as rape, abortion was an option
— Nixon approved the development of NASA’s Space Shuttle program

This one is especially important:

— In his 1974 State of the Union address, Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance. On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.
(It failed because Ted Kennedy of all people thought it wasn’t good enough.)

ALL OF THIS IS WAY TO THE “LEFT” OF WHAT OBAMA IS EVEN MERELY PROPOSING.

Now I have yo ask: are you so incredibly ignorant of your recent / past history because you’re too young, you haven’t learned anything at school (and are basically ignorant) or are simply blinded by lies and propaganda from your tribal leaders.

Because you are really really really ignorant.
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm

realist: Arthur:As opposed to Sarah Palin’s capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works and no one gets pregnant out of wedlock, nor loses on “Dancing with the Stars”?Whoever wrote this….it’s the real world…things happen to people everday thats not what they planned.Dick Chenney’s daughter is gay….and votes republican. It’s real life idiots, not everything in life is black and white. Except Barry O. !!!

Realist:

I wrote this. My name is Arthur. My friends call me Art. You can call me your ethical and intellectual superior. Just kidding! . . . Not! No really, just kidding. Thanks for responding to me! The topic of your original post was about fantasy. You made what seemed to be a joke about the President having a Marxist fantasy, and I responded with a crack about Ms. Palin having a conservative fantasy. To me, the point was “fantasy, ” i.e., an imaginative alternative to reality., So I don’t understand why you would refer to me as an idiot for responding in kind to a meme you originated.

Unlike some people who post here, I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.Just as I can discriminate between gratuitous name-calling and measured annoyance. I can also tell the difference between effective and ineffective comparisons. For example, you wrote, “It’s real life idiots, not everything in life is black and white.” In the reality-based community in which I live, the phrase “black and white” denotes something undeniably true or factual. “It’s all there in black and white,” for example, describes a situation in which the evidence is unimpeachable and one can draw an axiomatic conclusion.

You attempt, however, to contrast the concept of self-evident truth with the notion that life produces unpredictable outcomes, e.g., Dick Cheney’s daughter coming out as a lesbian. A more logical contrast for you to make would be: “It’s real life idiots, not everything happens in the way we expect.” That’s a contrast I can get into! For example, “There is ample evidence that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States and that his social welfare policies and foreign policy decisions are to the right of President Nixon’s; unexpectedly, a small group of misinformed cretins believe the opposite.”

Here endeth the lesson. Go in peace, Realist, and sin no more.
Lupin says:

November 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Realist: capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works

You gotta be kidding me….they led to the biggest buisness growth and expension in decades during reagan and bush I.
Your obviously socialists on here. So we are supposed to forget those that work so hard, and GIVE money to poor that dont do anything.
Lets raise taxes (penalize)on those that work, and give free stuff (reward) to those that dont.
So whats wrong with trickle down…it’s the most natural way of economics there is.
You get what you earn….what could be easier than that. Whats your option…I cant wait to here that.

I don’t even know where to start…. Don’t you learn anything about the “New Deal” and John Maynard Keynes in your schools? Even Milton Friedman would laugh at your statements.

You know nothing. You are basically illiterate. Which would be fine if you didn’t expound all these crazy ideas that make no sense and are not even remotely connected to reality.

Just say, “I don’t like Obama and I don’t like his policies” and that will be fine, but don’t try to use labels and economic theories that you obviously know nothing about.

Look, if I said, “I don’t like Obama because his father was an elephant, he’s got three arms and he is a Zoroastrian Sufi Plumber who believes the Moon is made of cheese,” you might be entitled to think I’m an idiot.

That’s exactly what you’re doing.
Majority Will says:

November 27, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Sean:
Please tell me you’re joking.

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?” –Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada’s single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Lupin: Your ignorance of American history is truly abysmal. Let me offer the following *facts* (unlike your gobbledygook about Frank Marshall Davis which is meaningless or your lies about Kenya which are simply ridiculous):<

Lupin,

In countering Realist’s ignorance, I knew that I would not have to detail the numerous reasons why Pres. Obama can be described as being to the right of Pres. Nixon, because I was confident you or some of the other well informed participants would do it for me (and do it more assurredly than I could do). However, I didn’t think it wold happen even before I had completed my initial response to Realist. Thank you!
Arthur says:

November 27, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Realist: capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works You gotta be kidding me….they led to the biggest buisness growth and expension in decades during reagan and bush I.

Trickle-down economic policy did not work, neither in theory nor in practice. Even David Stockman, President Regan’s choice to head the OMB admitted as much, first in an article in the “Atlantic Monthly” in 1982, and then in a 2003 book entitled, “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.” You can look it up; I’m uninterested in doing research for you.

As for Bush 41, one of the reasons he failed to win reelection was that the economy collapsed in the last year of his presidency. GDP was in negative numbers for four quarters, unemployment increased, food prices spiked, and home mortage rates went above 11 percent.
misha says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:37 pm

Lupin: Your ignorance of American history is truly abysmal.

Don’t forget, federal loan guarantees were started by Nixon, for Lockheed. Google it.
dunstvangeet says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm

realist: Please prove to us that Obama’s policies are to the LEFT of Nixon’s. Go ahead, I’m waiting.My pleasure…..he’s been setting up labor unions with tons of money for their support.there is nothing more liberal and socialist than labor unions.

Which labor unions has Obama “set up”. Be specific. All the labor unions that I can think of have existed for 50 years before Obama was President. Did Obama travel back in time and some how set these unions up?

What more do you want to know….he’s spent 13 trillion dollars since he’s been in office.

And no, he hasn’t. The Federal Budget for 2010 (the first budget Obama actually passed) was $3.552 trillion. The Federal Budget for 2011 (one we’re operating on now, which has been in effect since October) is $3.83 trillion. Add those together and you get 7.382 trillion. You only have to go back to 2007 to get above that amount in your combined effort. Want to try again?

Wants free health care for all.Put a moratorium on foreclosures.Sent hundreds of millions to Kenya for “Social programs”.

Mind showing me exactly where Obama sent this “Hundreds of Millions”. Which budget lines. Limit it to the 2010 and 2011 budgets. Furthermore, he has a funny way of showing that he wants “free health care for all” by forcing people to spend money to purchase health care. He never put a moratorium on foreclosures. He just said that foreclosures have to actually prove that the person that they’re foreclosing on actually is in default. He said that the banks, in order to kick someone out of their homes, have to actually be sure that they’re obeying the contracts that they signed, and follow the laws. Oh, my, what a Marxist! Imagine him not wanting banks to basically falsely foreclose on people who are actually honoring their contracts with the banks.

His grandfather was a marxist, his father was, his mother was…..whats the question?

George W. Bush’s grandfather sold oil to the German Nazis and had Nazi Sympathies. I guess that means under your definition that George W. Bush is a Nazi. George W. Bush’s grandfather was a business man who participated in Businesses that financed Hitler’s rise to power. That must mean, according to you, that Bush is a Nazi!
dunstvangeet says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Oh, and the “Bank Takeover”, I believe you’re talking about the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). George W. Bush was the one who actually passed that program.
misha says:

November 27, 2010 at 2:42 pm

dunstvangeet: George W. Bush’s grandfather sold oil to the German Nazis and had Nazi Sympathies.

Charles Lindbergh was an ardent Nazi supporter, and an outright anti-semite. Next…
ron says:

November 27, 2010 at 3:48 pm

realist: Please prove to us that Obama’s policies are to the LEFT of Nixon’s. Go ahead, I’m waiting.My pleasure…..he’s been setting up labor unions with tons of money for their support. there is nothing more liberal and socialist than labor unions.What more do you want to know….he’s spent 13 trillion dollars since he’s been in office.Thats more than every other administration COMBINED.He’s bought car company’s banks…(founding fathers warned against nationalizing banks).Wants free health care for all. Put a moratorium on foreclosures. Sent hundreds of millions to Kenya for “Social programs”.His grandfather was a marxist, his father was, his mother was…..whats the question?How can you not see he’s a socialist marxist. His own self proclaimed “Mentor” in his book, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist party in hawaii!Did you need to ask that question?

curious , you have made some very interesting statements,Realist where are you getting your facts, Could you please provide some references so you can be taken seriously, facts are always welcome on his forum.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

November 27, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Realist: capitalist fantasy where trickle-down economics works
You gotta be kidding me….they led to the biggest buisness growth and expension in decades during reagan and bush I.
Your obviously socialists on here.So we are supposed to forget those that work so hard, and GIVE money to poor that dont do anything.
Lets raise taxes (penalize)on those that work, and give free stuff (reward) to those that dont.
So whats wrong with trickle down…it’s the most natural way of economics there is.
You get what you earn….what could be easier than that. Whats your option…I cant wait to here that.

Realist,

This blog is for the discussion of Obama Conspiracy Theories. Obama’s policies and performance as President are OFF TOPIC for this web site and are moved to a dump for off topic comments. There are plenty of other places for such discussions.
nc1 says:

January 30, 2011 at 1:12 am

Teleprompter malfunction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfK2i9rdrzc
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

January 30, 2011 at 1:20 am

nc1: Teleprompter malfunction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfK2i9rdrzc

Unrelated to this forum
Majority Will says:

February 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm

charo: – Praying peacefully in front of an abortion center within a specified distance has been upheld by the law. No one can browbeat, or for that matter, beat, anyone into believing something they don’t want to believe.

And I’m telling you to fsck off. Are you deaf?
charo says:

February 12, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Majority Will: Let’s consider that my god is not your god as your evangelicals will chant en masse.

Well, mine is vengeful, old and original testament . .there shall be no other gods before me –

He wants to smite you.

I/m not evangelical. I am Catholic, which I said in the comment that you attacked. I never told you what to do. You need anger management. You are a dangerous person.
Paul Pieniezny says:

February 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm

charo: I don’t know what you are talking about regarding obstructing the highway.

Obstructing the highway is an old common law concept, dating back for centuries.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/42.03.00.html

The keyword is inconvenient. Though yes, when doctors and other personnel get killed sometimes, “hazardous” also applies.
Majority Will says:

February 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm

charo: I am familiar with “putting up road blocks.”I thought you were talking about a specific event, the way you phrased your remark.I assume that I am not expected to respond, that you can imply an accusation that I somehow had something to do with the murder of doctors and personnel when I pray at a clinic (which I have done but not on a regular basis).I would be a self-righteous a##(a term of endearment from someone else) to do anything except let the comment stand.

What is wrong with you?
charo says:

February 12, 2011 at 9:47 pm

Majority Will:
Charo –

This is not adversarial.

i respect your intention.

You have replied erroneously many, many times,

So, possibly you are drunk and you need more serious help?

I am allergic to sulfites so I don’t drink (happened in my 20’s). Let’s rewind. There has been a view that the tea party is racist and birthers are an important part of the tea party movement. Maybe you hold that view, maybe you don’t. They are referred to as RWNJ’s, also the religious right. Whatever your view of abortion, the people who peacefully pray hold the view that innocent life is taken, no matter the race. That is the belief but not the point. The point: the kind of people who pray at abortion centers would probably be called RWNJ. For those who want to label, the people who are trying to stop the killing (in the minds of pro-lifers) of white babies feel the same way about minority babies. How is that racist, if the same people who protest the government want to preserve the life of all (even if you think it is wrong to be against abortion).

Paul P. referred, just as Misha, to acts of terrorism committed at abortion centers, seeming to imply that I condoned it. Using violence to stop abortion is wrong.

The topic should have been continued at the open thread. I said that if any further comment was needed, I would take it there. You seemed to think I was hounding you when I saw your response on this thread and carried it over to there.

I don’t have anything else to say on the matter. Any belief that doesn’t hold with yours I would guess is erroneous in your point of view.
US Citizen says:

February 13, 2011 at 2:27 am

Charo, I’m curious if prayer at abortion centers works better than prayer elsewhere?
Does God hear you better if you’re in close proximity to the mother and/or fetus?
Do you not embrace the notion that prayer can be done anywhere and God will hear you?
If so, what are the reasons one would choose to pray outside an abortion center vs inside their own home or church?
I mean, if we eliminate God hears you better (because he can hear you anywhere) and eliminate yourself (because as a good Christian, your own ego is not the issue), then the only people left in this equation would be the patients and doctors.
But since those two groups are either obtaining or providing abortions, it is reasonable to believe they’re not interested in hearing religious viewpoints and prayers thrust upon them.
So what’s the point of praying outside an abortion center if it’s not to intimidate or coerce doctors or patients?
Majority Will says:

February 13, 2011 at 11:15 am

US Citizen:
Charo, I’m curious if prayer at abortion centers works better than prayer elsewhere?
Does God hear you better if you’re in close proximity to the mother and/or fetus?
Do you not embrace the notion that prayer can be done anywhere and God will hear you?
If so, what are the reasons one would choose to pray outside an abortion center vs inside their own home or church?
I mean, if we eliminate God hears you better (because he can hear you anywhere) and eliminate yourself (because as a good Christian, your own ego is not the issue), then the only people left in this equation would be the patients and doctors.
But since those two groups are either obtaining or providing abortions, it is reasonable to believe they’re not interested in hearing religious viewpoints and prayers thrust upon them.
So what’s the point of praying outside an abortion center if it’s not to intimidate or coerce doctors or patients?

Excellent questions.
charo says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm

US Citizen: Charo, I’m curious if prayer at abortion centers works better than prayer elsewhere?

They seem to. (I am not actively involved in the prayer vigils. I have prayed though on several occasions). You asked, so here it is:

After several Forty Days for Life prayer vigils in front of the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic she managed, Abby Johnson finally saw the horror of what she was doing and immediately repented. The same happened to those who fought for the legalization of abortion: Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano. Dr. Nathanson, who admitted to being responsible for the murder of 75,000 innocents by abortion, repented of his crimes and eventually joined the Catholic Church. He credits the daily witness of pro-lifers praying in front of his clinic in all kinds of weather who were charitably begging the mercy of God on his immortal soul.

http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2010/12/remembering-the-holy-innocents/
charo says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:13 pm

misha:
Charo: where was your god in Auschwitz?

Where was your god at slave auctions, when children were sold from their parents?

Let me know.

I can only answer through others (I saw him speak).

http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/captain_guy_gruters

Captain Guy Gruters was a fighter pilot during the Vietnam War and flew over 400 combat missions. He was shot down in 1967 and spent the next 5 years in POW camps, including the notorious “Hanoi Hilton”. In this talk, he relates the incredible experiences of his capture and shares a unique message of how his faith and hope sustained him. He has been married for over 40 years and has 7 children.
Majority Will says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm

charo: I can only answer through others (I saw him speak).

http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/captain_guy_gruters

Captain Guy Gruters was a fighter pilot during the Vietnam War and flew over 400 combat missions. He was shot down in 1967 and spent the next 5 years in POW camps, including the notorious “Hanoi Hilton”. In this talk, he relates the incredible experiences of his capture and shares a unique message of how his faith and hope sustained him. He has been married for over 40 years and has 7 children.

30,000 children just died on your watch.

They were natural born.

Pick your battles, hypocrite.
charo says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm

misha:
Charo: where was your god in Auschwitz?

Where was your god at slave auctions, when children were sold from their parents?

Let me know.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Saints/saint.aspx?id=1453

Retrospectively, Bakhita was very fortunate, but the first years of her life do not necessarily attest to it. She was tortured by her various owners who branded her, beat and cut her. In her biography she notes one particularly terrifying moment when one of her masters cut her 114 times and poured salt in her wounds to ensure that the scars remained. “I felt I was going to die any moment, especially when they rubbed me in with the salt,” Bakhita wrote.

(should have used this link)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=680

I look to saints like her strength when there seems to be so much pain.
charo says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Majority Will: 30,000 children just died on your watch.

They were natural born.

Pick your battles, hypocrite.

I am not God. I accuse myself of my faults more than you do.
charo says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm

Her soul is just beautiful:

On February 8, the Church commemorates the life of St. Josephine Bakhita, a Canossian Sister who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in Sudan.

Josephine Bakhita was born in 1869, in a small village in the Darfur region of Sudan. She was kidnapped while working in the fields with her family and subsequently sold into slavery. Her captors asked for her name but she was too terrified to remember so they named her “Bakhita,” which means “fortunate” in Arabic.

Retrospectively, Bakhita was very fortunate, but the first years of her life do not necessarily attest to it. She was tortured by her various owners who branded her, beat and cut her. In her biography she notes one particularly terrifying moment when one of her masters cut her 114 times and poured salt in her wounds to ensure that the scars remained. “I felt I was going to die any moment, especially when they rubbed me in with the salt,” Bakhita wrote.

She bore her suffering valiantly though she did not know Christ or the redemptive nature of suffering. She also had a certain awe for the world and its creator. “Seeing the sun, the moon and the stars, I said to myself: ‘Who could be the Master of these beautiful things?’ And I felt a great desire to see Him, to know Him and to pay Him homage.”

After being sold a total of five times, Bakhita was purchased by Callisto Legnani, the Italian consul in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. Two years later, he took Bakhita to Italy to work as a nanny for his colleague, Augusto Michieli. He, in turn, sent Bakhita to accompany his daughter to a school in Venice run by the Canossian Sisters.

Bakhita felt called to learn more about the Church, and was baptized with the name “Josephine Margaret.” In the meantime, Michieli wanted to take Josephine and his daughter back to Sudan, but Josephine refused to return.

The disagreement escalated and was taken to the Italian courts where it was ruled that Josephine could stay in Italy because she was a free woman. Slavery was not recognized in Italy and it had also been illegal in Sudan since before Josephine had been born.

Josephine remained in Italy and decided to enter Canossians in 1893. She made her profession in 1896 and was sent to Northern Italy, where she dedicated her life to assisting her community and teaching others to love God.

She was known for her smile, gentleness and holiness. She even went on record saying, “If I were to meet the slave-traders who kidnapped me and even those who tortured me, I would kneel and kiss their hands, for if that did not happen, I would not be a Christian and Religious today.”

St. Josephine was beatified in 1992 and canonized shortly after on October 2000 by Pope John Paul II. She is the first person to be canonized from Sudan and is the patron saint of the country.
charo says:

February 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm

(February 8 is my daughter’s birthday)
misha says:

February 14, 2011 at 4:41 pm

Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Just what we need fitness advice from a drug addled braindead fat guy named Rush

Also, a drug addled braindead guy named Glenn Beck, who refuses to answer a simple question: did you rape and murder a girl in 1990?

All Beck has to do is release his ciminal record abstract stamped “subject has clear record to date,” and this can be over today.

SHOW US YOUR RECORDS BECK!!!
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

February 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm

I’ve been following this case for a while and I know its pretty off topic but justice has been served:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/14/arizona.double.killing.verdict/

An Arizona jury convicted anti-illegal immigration activist Shawna Forde of murder Monday in the killing of a Latino man and his 9-year-old daughter during a 2009 vigilante raid she led on their home.

The Pima County jury convicted Forde on eight counts, including the shooting deaths of Raul Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, and the attempted murder of the child’s mother, Gina Gonzales, at the family’s rural Arivaca home on May 30, 2009.

The jury also convicted Forde on two counts of aggravated assault and one count each of burglary, armed robbery and aggravated robbery.

The jury is scheduled to return Tuesday for the penalty phase of the trial.

Guilty on all 8 counts
misha says:

February 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war

It doesn’t matter. Cheney’s cronies got their paws on the oil.
Black Lion says:

February 26, 2011 at 11:36 am

Below is an the usual smear e-mail being sent by the right….

In less than 90 days, YOU WILL BE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL
LAW to carry a “National ID” card.

Even though no one on Capitol Hill is talking about it, unless it is stopped, the provisions of The Real ID Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat 392), through the Department of Homeland Security, will require the federalization of State-issued driver’s licenses by May 11, 2011.

This is the type of card the Nazi’s and the communists in the Soviet Union made people carry.

The new cards, disguised as a uniform drivers’ license, will be biometric. Each card will store up to a gigabyte of personal data about the card holder AND will contain a GPS tracking chip—so that means the government will know where you are at all times.

No one is talking about this… and certainly, this is something the Obama administration would like to keep quiet.

Barack Obama’s America is quickly becoming Nazi Germany. Did you ever think you would experience invasive, Big Brother tactics in which uniformed officers ask: “Let me see your papers?”

We know Barack Obama doesn’t care what the U.S. Constitution says. SO WE HAVE TO CARE, AND WE HAVE TO STOP HIM.

George Orwell’s “1984” has finally arrived—27 years late.

WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND—WHILE WE CAN. THE CLOCK IS TICKING.

Just click on this link. We have made it easy for you to FAX every Member of the U.S. Congress to tell them to STOP any form of National I.D. cards or National Drivers’ license. Tell Congress that the Real ID Act goes beyond Constitutional limits, and that the American people will not be subjected to what amounts to an internal passport. Further, tell Congress that since the creation of a uniform, federal drivers’ license/ID card exceeds the financial limits established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pubic Law 104-4, 2 USC 1501), this law cannot be implemented because the cost exceeds the limits the federal government can impose on the States. Please help us fight this usurpation of YOUR privacy rights—and CHALLENGE an unlawful demand on the States. OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS must be preserved.

If this battle is not waged—and won—by May 11, 2011, the American people will be carrying a federal ID card that will double as a State-issued drivers’ license. You will need it to vote. You will need it to enter a federal building. You will need it to buy a plane ticket. And, believe it or not, you will need it if you are stopped while jogging in the park or sitting on your front porch. Oh, yes… and because it will be your drivers’ license as well, you will need it to drive your car.

You may be wondering how in the world we could have allowed this to happen. We “allowed it” to happen because we were more concerned about terrorists than civil liberties. Congress passed the Real ID Act on May 11, 2005, creating a mandatory national standard for State-issued drivers’ licenses, making the data points identical on all cards. REAL ID requires State driver’s license authorities to use more stringent measures to verify Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, proof of citizenship and immigration status. The act prescribes 18 SEPARATE SECURITY CONTROLS that States are now required to use when issuing driver’s licenses.

Before a REAL ID can be issued, the applicant must provide the following documentation:

1. A photo ID, or a non-photo ID that includes his or her full legal name and birth date
2. Documentation of birth date (i.e., your birth certificate)
3. Documentation of legal status and Social Security number
4. Third party documentation showing name and place of residence.

No big deal, if you’re trying to keep terrorists out of the country.

But the liberties we will give up in order to accept this government control and intrusion on our privacy are monumental.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Who among us really believes that this National I.D. program is designed to keep us safer? It’s all part of Obama’s regime of control and government centralization.

Please make sure every Member of Congress hears from you. Click this link to FAX Congress and tell them to STOP any form of National I.D. cards or National Drivers’ license. Tell Congress that the Real ID Act goes beyond Constitutional limits, and that the American people will not be subjected to what amounts to an internal passport. Further, tell Congress that since the creation of a uniform, federal drivers’ license/ID card exceeds the financial limits established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pubic Law 104-4, 2 USC 1501), this law cannot be implemented because the cost exceeds the limits the federal government can impose on the States. Please help us fight this usurpation of YOUR privacy rights—and CHALLENGE an unlawful demand on the States. OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS must be preserved.

In 1998 the Clinton Administration tested a privately-funded card without the consent of Congress. Their card was part of a special healthcare program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The program was initiated in five western States and entailed giving women with dependent children free healthcare in the pilot project that actually tested the effectiveness of the biometric cards, which electronically monitored the whereabouts of the cardholder 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by GPS. The test lasted one year. It was deemed to be a success. So you see, the federal government already has the ability to track the whereabouts of its human capital while they work, when they play, and where they sleep.

If this battle is not waged—and won—by May 11, 2011, “Real ID” will go into effect.

You will have to carry your card to vote.

You will have to carry your card to enter a federal building.

You will have to carry your card to buy a plane ticket.

You will have to keep your “national driver’s license” on your person at all times, whether you are driving or not—you will need it whether you are playing tennis, sitting on your front porch, or walking up to the corner to catch a taxi.

THOSE OF US WHO RESPECT OUR CONSTITUTION AND HOLD OUR PRIVACY IN HIGH ESTEEM MUST ACT NOW TO STOP THIS INTRUSION. MAY 11 IS FAST APPROACHING.

Click this link to FAX Congress and tell them to STOP any form of National I.D. cards or National Drivers’ license. Please help us fight this usurpation of YOUR privacy rights—and CHALLENGE an unlawful demand on the States. OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS must be preserved!

Most states are already compliant well before the deadline. Personal data about you has already been taken and it has been stored in a dossier about you.

And this information will be available to law enforcement officials in all other States. That means the presumptions of “unreasonable search” are void, because if you are stopped in any State for speeding, the police in that State can “read” the database assigned to your card and virtually “share your information” over the Internet with any other government agency in any state.

In addition to some First Amendment concerns, the REAL ID Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because driver’s license, as such, should come under State purview, not the laws of the federal government. A federal drivers’ license violates the Tenth Amendment with respect to State power, and obliterates the states’ dual sovereignty with the federal government, making the State subservient to the federal government.

We must do everything that we can to invalidate this Act by May 11, 2011.

Ultimately, just as Social Security Cards were never supposed to be used for ID purposes, Real ID drivers’ license will, very quickly, become de facto national ID cards, which is why people who don’t drive will still need to carry one.

REAL ID is REAL intrusive! We must make sure this doesn’t happen in America. Please send your faxes now.

Sincerely,

Tony Adkins
Conservative Action Alerts
misha says:

February 26, 2011 at 12:32 pm

The Real ID Act of 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

“Representative James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin, the author…attached it as a rider on a military spending bill, H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. The House of Representatives passed that spending bill with the Real ID rider 368-58,and the Senate passed the joint House-Senate conference report on that bill 100-0. President Bush signed it into law on May 11, 2005.”

Ha, ha: a Republican created this law.
Expelliarmus says:

March 14, 2011 at 12:38 am

US Citizen: As for Christian news sites, the only one I read is the Christian Science Monitor.

Christian Science Monitor is not “Christian” in the sense that “Christian” homeschoolers or evangelicals are using that term. It is a very high quality news publication, owned by the First Church of Christ, Scientist — see http://www.csmonitor.com/About/The-Monitor-difference

Christian Scientists are not evangelicals or fundamentalists (none of that “born again” stuff) and so probably don’t would not even be considered “Christian” in the eyes of those who are so proud of slapping that title onto everything they do.

For example, Christian Scientists do not believe in hell, and thus would reject the concept that it is necessary to be “saved” by Jesus in order to get into heaven. Rather, their religion views heaven as being a divine state of mind — a view I personally would consider to be closer to Buddhism than fundamentalist Christianity.

Unfortunately, those who subscribe to a fundamentalist, born-again view of Christianity have both co-opted the name “Christian” as being exclusive to their own beliefs, and refuse to recognize many other denominations (including traditional Catholic) as being “Christian” as they define it.

Anyway… the main point is that the Christian Science Monitor should not be confused with so-called “Christian” publications. It’s not a doctrinaire publication, and even if it were, it would be the expression of a doctrine that is far more open and accepting of other beliefs and viewpoints.
misha says:

March 14, 2011 at 4:07 am

Dr. Conspiracy: There is a lot more diversity among Christians that the stereotypes of the left admit.

I know that from the Jesuits and the Catholic peace movement.

However, John Hagee is a fat, odious bigot. Watch him in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXDAAD_wNw
US Citizen says:

March 14, 2011 at 4:21 am

Expelliarmus: Unfortunately, those who subscribe to a fundamentalist, born-again view of Christianity have both co-opted the name “Christian” as being exclusive to their own beliefs, and refuse to recognize many other denominations (including traditional Catholic) as being “Christian” as they define it.

Anyway… the main point is that the Christian Science Monitor should not be confused with so-called “Christian” publications. It’s not a doctrinaire publication, and even if it were, it would be the expression of a doctrine that is far more open and accepting of other beliefs and viewpoints.

The “so-called Christian” label opens up that whole can of worms that is “What is the true religion, true bible, version, testament, etc..” argument.
If one calls themselves a “Christian”, even a “Christian Scientist”, they are still Christians to me because they are unto themselves and their faith.
No one practices a religion unless they believe they’re in one that’s correct.

The Mormons, the WBC, Roman Catholics, all the various pre and post 16 century revisions and offshoots…whomever… to me they are all or were Christians because unto themselves, they are or were Christians.

One has to embrace inclusion here because otherwise we’re left with popularism or other arguments regarding “true” theology.
There’s no scientific references here. Only faith.
I can’t pass judgment on someone else’s faith, only their actions.

So if they call themselves a Christian, they are… to me… a “Christian.”
I don’t give a hoot over titles because distilled down we’re left with “people that have a believe in Christ.”
Only actions, not words, dictate if that person is being Christ-like either to me in personal dealings or to Christ as each is judged.

The remaining aspect, words, being the product of evangelical and political Christians.
But they are not what defines a Christian to ME.
Words have no meaning to me, nor Christ if not backed by action or practice.
For example, Christ asked that his Gospel be shared.
But if a person does not preach is he still then a Christian?
And what is a church but one man talking and all others listening?

You see, some of the best “Christians” I know: popular people with financial success and families right out of Norman Rockwell paintings, have also proved themselves as very often being huge hypocrites and liars.
More so than many other non-Christians I know.
Outside my own life, I am told of a hugely disproportionate amount of Catholic child molesters.

Despite appearances, many “Christians” haven’t been good examples of what Christ would do or act like.
They don’t act like, practice the actions of or forgive like Christ.
So there is no “so-called Christian” unless they are ALL so-called Christians.
(An apple is never an orange, but there are all kinds of different apples.)
Take everything extraneous away but Christ and man and you have your own church anyway.
Everything else is just a club or school.
The Christian Science Monitor may not reflect “mainstream” Christian beliefs, but man was meant to be diverse.
So they’re Christians to me and as a news outlet, they provide fairly centrist POV.
Personally, I think they’re about as “Christian” as what Obama is, but again, this is all just my opinion. 🙂
misha says:

March 14, 2011 at 6:51 am

Dr. Conspiracy: the stereotypes of the left admit.

I was a Trotskyite in college, then a kibbutznik. I’ve calmed waaaay down.
Expelliarmus says:

March 14, 2011 at 8:31 am

US Citizen: If one calls themselves a “Christian”, even a “Christian Scientist”, they are still Christians to me because they are unto themselves and their faith.
No one practices a religion unless they believe they’re in one that’s correct.

I’m not saying that they aren’t.

I’m saying that you can’t assume that a web site or publication has a particular political or dogmatic perspective because it happens to have the word “Christian” in the title — when the reference was to reading a “Christian” web site and its contents. It’s a secular-focused publication owned by a non-mainstream Church — whatever the religious focus, that particular publication is not intended to be an instrument of directly promoting its precepts.

That is, if a Jehovah’s Witness knocked on your door and handed you a copy of their publication, the Watchtower — and you read it — you would learn a lot about their religious practices and beliefs.

I think you could probably subscribe read every issue of The Christian Science Monitor for a year and not come away learning anything in particular about their religion, unless their happened to be a newsworthy item touching directly on the religion or its adherents..
brygenon8010 says:

March 14, 2011 at 4:21 pm

Dr. Conspiracy: There is a lot more diversity among Christians that the stereotypes of the left admit.

And vice versa!
Rickey says:

March 14, 2011 at 4:39 pm

Dr. Conspiracy:

There is a lot more diversity among Christians that the stereotypes of the left admit.

That’s true. Also, there are those on the right who deny that some Christian religions are genuinely Christian. Jack Chick, for example, says that the Roman Catholic Church is satanic. Most of the evangelical Christians I have known over the years consider the Mormon church to be a cult.

And while many of the leaders of the civil rights movement were Christians, in today’s world the fact remains that the most politically visible Christians are on the right – hence the stereotypes.
G says:

March 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm

Dr. Conspiracy: There is a lot more diversity among Christians that the stereotypes of the left admit.

Rickey: That’s true. Also, there are those on the right who deny that some Christian religions are genuinely Christian. Jack Chick, for example, says that the Roman Catholic Church is satanic. Most of the evangelical Christians I have known over the years consider the Mormon church to be a cult. And while many of the leaders of the civil rights movement were Christians, in today’s world the fact remains that the most politically visible Christians are on the right – hence the stereotypes.

Very good points. I know from personal experience of where I currently live that it is often not safe to mention my Roman Catholic background. Quite a few of the protestant evangelical faiths in the area don’t consider RC’s to be “Christian’s” at all…and usually what they call us is much worse…(especially when they don’t realize there are any people of RC background within earshot). There are so many of those splinter groups, it can be hard for me to tell them apart…but you’d be surprised how easily they can denounce even each other.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people of very, very similar faiths can denounce another’s religion as “false” and “damned”, when the two splinter faiths seem barely distinguishable otherwise.

That is why extreme fundamentalism is a flawed and dangerous philosophy. Applying “purity” tests results in an endless cycle of castigation and exclusion…once you get rid of one group…then you look for the next bit of slight variance as “impurity” and attack it and so on and so forth. It is ultimately self-destructive.

So on that note, I found it quite odd and out of character for Dr. C to suddenly single out “the left” for failing to acknowledge diversity in Christians. If anything, such a statement comes across as bigoted in and of itself.

If he is refering to people of other faith’s or sects having a generalized and stereotypical view of a faith/sect that differs from their own…well that happens across the political spectrum and it is false to try to pin such things on a right/left spectrum.
James M says:

March 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm

G:
Very good points.I know from personal experience of where I currently live that it is often not safe to mention my Roman Catholic background.Quite a few of the protestant evangelical faiths in the area don’t consider RC’s to be “Christian’s” at all…and usually what they call us is much worse…

Wow. One big difference between the world I live in and yours is that in my world, none of these people would get much of an opportunity to share their opinions. I mean, when you really and truly don’t care what other people think about you, you’ve won.
misha says:

March 14, 2011 at 7:41 pm

Speaking of diversity, I’m going to give Angel a Bark Mitzvah. Here’s one to enjoy now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK-z1fvqBno
G says:

March 14, 2011 at 8:56 pm

James M: Wow. One big difference between the world I live in and yours is that in my world, none of these people would get much of an opportunity to share their opinions. I mean, when you really and truly don’t care what other people think about you, you’ve won.

Oh, I find a lot of their statements offensive from the general sense of tribalistic petty religious bigotry they display. Such irrational bigotry in all of its forms is offensive. That is one of the reasons that birthers in general are so offensive. I might not get into my personal beliefs or background growing up with them, but if I’m directly involved in the conversation and not just overhearing it take place next to me, I usually won’t shy away from critically challenging their views.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

March 15, 2011 at 12:27 am

G: So on that note, I found it quite odd and out of character for Dr. C to suddenly single out “the left” for failing to acknowledge diversity in Christians. If anything, such a statement comes across as bigoted in and of itself.

You perhaps didn’t see the comments that promoted my remark, comments so offensive that I took the rare step of deleting them.
misha says:

March 20, 2011 at 1:59 am

Black Lion: WND published an op-ed by Larry Klayman

Klayman is that rare creature: a Jewish conservative. He’s also a shande. Klayman literally sued his mother!!

“Klayman did not dispute the fact that he is suing his mother, Shirley Feinberg.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2317/
nc1 says:

March 21, 2011 at 12:44 am

They ought to print a t-shirt containing the following statement: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”.

The question is – if President does not have this authority – how about the Usurper-in-Chief? Is usurper restricted by the Constitution?
Steve says:

March 21, 2011 at 1:13 am

nc1: They ought to print a t-shirt containing the following statement: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”.The question is – if President does not have this authority – how about the Usurper-in-Chief? Is usurper restricted by the Constitution?

How can he be a usurper if he won the election?
Daniel says:

March 21, 2011 at 1:38 am

nc1:
They ought to print a t-shirt containing the following statement:“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”.

The question is – if President does not have this authority – how about the Usurper-in-Chief?Is usurper restricted by the Constitution?

He got permission from the Illuminati Lizard Men, of course.

Please do try to keep up, nc1, won’t you?
nc1 says:

March 21, 2011 at 2:40 am

G: Sorry, it was authorized by the U.N.This is a joint coalition effort, not a US campaign.

Those were not my words – it was an excerpt from an interview given by US Senator Barack Obama in 2007.

US Congress did not authorize the use of military force against Libya. A Nobel prize winner started a war without US Congress approval. What is next on the agenda?
obsolete says:

March 21, 2011 at 2:48 am

Do you hate Obama so much that you side with Gaddaffi instead of the U.S. nc1?
misha says:

March 21, 2011 at 3:21 am

nc1: US Congress did not authorize the use of military force against Libya. A Nobel prize winner started a war without US Congress approval.

The president can commit troops for 30 days, without Congressional approval.

Read this:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/12-use-troops-without-congressional-authorization.html
misha says:

March 21, 2011 at 3:22 am

obsolete: Do you hate Obama so much that you side with Gaddaffi instead of the U.S. nc1?

Yes.
nc1 says:

March 21, 2011 at 3:37 am

misha: The president can commit troops for 30 days, without Congressional approval.

Read this:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/12-use-troops-without-congressional-authorization.html

Obama’s words not mine:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Are you saying that he is not familiar with Constitution?
nc1 says:

March 21, 2011 at 3:58 am

obsolete:
Do you hate Obama so much that you side with Gaddaffi instead of the U.S. nc1?

Where did I say a word about supporting Gaddafi?

I am just pointing out that Obama is a lying hypocrite. Do you think he would have any problem lying about eligibility for US presidency? I don’t have any doubts he would say anything to anyone to get what he wants.
Sean says:

March 21, 2011 at 4:24 am

I was wondering how they were going to spin this Libya thing. The Right is criticizing Obama for 1. waiting too long and 2. not taking a bigger roll.

You, nc1, are criticizing him for taking ANY roll. Well, talk to the UN and the Arab League. Gaddaffi doesn’t have many if any friends.
Lupin says:

March 21, 2011 at 5:07 am

I will leave others to debate whether the US’s intervention in Libya is proper and legal under your system, or even politically advisable.

However, I want to point out something which (from what I’ve read on the US blogs) seem to have gone massively unreported in your country.

I can’t say that the French are particularly stirred by the humanitarian reasons, support of the rebellion, etc. Most see (probably rightly so) President Sarkozy using this as an opportunistic mean of boosting his stature after his disastrous performance in the recent Tunisian crisis.

Far, far more important — I cannot overstate this — is the fact that, on March 20, Gaddafi openly threatened civilian air and sea traffic in his section of the Mediterranean sea. Here is the link to his declarations on TV:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390695/Muammar-Gaddafi-threatens-Europe-after-UN-injustice.html

This threat concerns hundreds of civilian flights flying daily near Libya (eastward and westward) as well as near-over it (north- and southward). Then we have cruise ships, ferrys and oil tankers in that section of the Mediterranean as well.

Gaddafi already stands guilty of blowing up the flight over Lockerbie and has (or had?) an airforce quite capable of causing untold damages in the busy international airspace and waters near his country.

Such a threat was/is quite real, and basically could not stand unchecked. At this stage, Gaddafi sealed his fate: there is no alternative but to remove him from power.

I assure you that this factor, above all others, is the reason why about 60/70% of French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, etc. support any action aiming at taking him out.
misha says:

March 21, 2011 at 6:40 am

The Magic M: In a country like Germany where we are strong on industrial hardware but weak on natural resources, that translates to “back to the Stone Age”.
It just goes to show what the results look like if you let wishful thinking and ideology blind you towards reality.

Germany could have gotten more from Russia in legitimate trade, than it did by looting.
ellid says:

March 21, 2011 at 7:20 am

nc1: Where did I say a word about supporting Gaddafi?

I am just pointing out that Obama is a lying hypocrite.Do you think he would have any problem lying about eligibility for US presidency?I don’t have any doubts he would say anything to anyone to get what he wants.

And what proof have you ever offered that you are not a Balkan spy sent to undermine and disrupt the government of the United States? It would be nice to have a reply for once.
Scientist says:

March 21, 2011 at 7:55 am

Lupin: Far, far more important — I cannot overstate this — is the fact that, on March 20, Gaddafi openly threatened civilian air and sea traffic in his section of the Mediterranean sea. Here is the link to his declarations on TV

Of course that threat came after the air attacks on Libya on the 19th, so they cannot be the justification for the initial actions.

I have to say, I am of 2 minds regarding this action. In general I am opposed to the US or France or NATO being the world’s policeman. Interventions often have unintended consequences. However, the counter-example of Rwanda, which won the day here from Hillary’s side, is also powerful. I think that weighed on Sarkozy as well, since France was very much culpable there, both for having armed the Hutus and for not intervening in what was clearly their zone of influence (French-speaking Africa) where they had intervened many times before and since Would Qaddafi have massacred civilians if he took Benghazi? We can’t know for certain, but he certainly might have. So, there are ttimes when intervention is justified and times when it isn’t. This one is a close call.

As far as Presidential power vs Congress, whether one likes it or not, all recent Presidents have acted pretty much at will in foreign policy. After all, Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 and certainly didn’t ask Congress. Nor did he before invading Grenada. And he went against the expressed will of Congress in arming the Contras and got off on a diminished capacity defense. I am greatly enjoying the contortions of those on the Right as they condemn Obama for doing what they praised Reagan for. I also enjoyed their calling Obama a wimp last week and puffing about how Reagan was a real man for bombing Libya. I note the effectiveness of Reagan’s actions on Libya as shown by the fact that Qaddafi remains in power 25 years later.

So, if Congress wants to rescind the War Powers act, that is their right, provided they do so for Presidents of both parties. Before they celebrate in their new found power, they should stop to consider that if they do their duty and actually declare war as they are supposed to, they will have to share in the blame when things go badly.
misha says:

April 3, 2011 at 5:58 pm

Tarrant: I just get the feeling that there are a number of sub-cultures in the US for which education is simply not a priority, nor are those that strive for it accorded much in the way of respect.

“Is there hope for the American system of public education? Can the lack of discipline, poor methods, and weak standards produce the quality of education that Christian parents desire for their children? Children who need to be taught academic skills, patriotism, and hard work are growing up in an educational system which says that the whole of education is “life adjustment.” Max Rafferty, on the front of his book entitled Classroom Countdown, states “Progressive education has produced many people who can riot but cannot read, who understand pot but not Plato, and many who think the classroom is a place for ‘adjusting, but not learning’.” Here are Biblical answers for you and your family. Read and be blessed.”

http://www.watke.org/min_chrschool.htm
misha says:

April 5, 2011 at 4:34 pm

thefarleftView: since when , and in who’s right mind, is a known self admitted terrorist a
good collaborator ??

Christians who terrorize clinics and murder physicians, have an abundance of apologists. See Terry Randall, former used car salesman, and James Kopp. Kopp has an army of supporters: The Army of God (that’s their literal name.)

Ayers was never prosecuted; all charges were dropped.
Robert Clark says:

April 17, 2011 at 12:38 am

Robert Clark: March 30, 2011Americans Less Likely to View Obama as a Strong Leader.by Jeffrey M. Jones“PRINCETON, NJ — Americans have grown increasingly less likely to view President Obama as a strong and decisive leader since he took office. Roughly half now believe this aptly describes him, compared with 60% a year ago and 73% in April 2009.”http://www.gallup.com/poll/146876/Americans-Less-Likely-View-Obama-Strong-Leader.aspxBob

A floundering presidency heading for a fall? Barack Obama hits rock bottom in latest Gallup poll.
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: April 15th, 2011

The latest Gallup figures are even worse than the most recent Quinnipiac University national poll released at the end of March, which tracked Obama at just 42 percent approval. As I noted in a previous piece, President Obama receives strong negativity ratings for his handling of virtually all key issues, including the economy, budget deficit, health care, foreign policy and energy policy:

According to Quinnipiac, on the economy 60 percent of Americans disapprove of his performance, including more than a quarter of Democrats. That figure rises to 64 percent on the budget deficit. On health care, less than 40 percent of Americans back the president, with 55 percent opposing. On foreign policy, 47 percent disapprove of his handling, compared to just 41 percent in favour, with only two in five Americans approving of his leadership of the Libya issue.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100084185/a-floundering-presidency-heading-for-a-fall-barack-obama-hits-rock-bottom-in-latest-gallup-poll/

Bob

[Obama’s job performance is off topic for this blog. I’m moving the comment to the off-topic dump. Doc.]
END the FED says:

April 19, 2011 at 2:14 am

Why is there a Media Blackout on this Important Information ???

has FEMA been talking to the States about this , have you heard anything ??? This is a FEMA directed activity , and they already have a 2.3 million people 11 state drill planned for the next week coming up .. where’s the Media on this and what are they anticipating ????

http://www.shakeout.org/centralus/
http://blog.fema.gov/2011/04/engage-your-group-in-shakeout.html

Take a Look at the map details in this link , look what the Navy is showing on a New USA Map have a Major earthquake . the Links above came from this Link .
http://altnewsreport.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/floodmap-nle2011/

http://thealienproject.blogspot.com/2011/04/seismic-tremors-precursors-to-imminent.html

[FEMA Conspiracy theories are outside the scope of this web site. Doc.]
Keith says:

April 19, 2011 at 9:17 am

END the FED: Why is there a Media Blackout on this Important Information ???

has FEMA been talking to the States about this , have you heard anything ??? This is a FEMA directed activity , and they already have a 2.3 million people 11 state drill planned for the next week coming up .. where’s the Media on this and what are they anticipating ????

Sorry you have reached the wrong web site.

I think you wanted Above Top Secret

It’s OK though, I know how easy it is to type in the wrong domain name, especially when they are so close and all.
G says:

April 19, 2011 at 10:58 am

END the FED: Why is there a Media Blackout on this Important Information ??? has FEMA been talking to the States about this , have you heard anything ??? This is a FEMA directed activity , and they already have a 2.3 million people 11 state drill planned for the next week coming up .. where’s the Media on this and what are they anticipating ????http://www.shakeout.org/centralus/http://blog.fema.gov/2011/04/engage-your-group-in-shakeout.html Take a Look at the map details in this link , look what the Navy is showing on a New USA Map have a Major earthquake . the Links above came from this Link .http://altnewsreport.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/floodmap-nle2011/ http://thealienproject.blogspot.com/2011/04/seismic-tremors-precursors-to-imminent.html

Ok chiken little. Calm down and stop letting crazy conspiracy sites drive your irrational fears.

The first two links are to legitimate sites and reference a harmless voluntary educational event to show people how to prepare and react in the event of an earthquake. Sounds more similar to Earth Day type events. If you find this type of training helpful, then sign up and attend a prepardness event. Simple as that.

Your second 2 links are nothing but paranoid conspiracy sites. Places that grasp at grains of real info and then spin wild fear tales around them. If you get your info from places like this and take them seriously, then you truly are paranoid and gullible.

Yes, there are various fault lines and areas WITHIN the continental U.S. Nothing unusual or new about that. All of our land masses exist due to the natural occurrence and movement of tectonic plates. So of course earthquakes can and do happen and at some point, there will be further movement along any of these plates.

I am highly skeptical of that “US Navy Map” of the future US that you seem to be all frightened about. Sounds like someone with an overactive imagination made that up themselves. I notice there are no source links to any legitimate sites carrying that map…

If you understood anything about tectonic plates and their movement or timescales, you would realize it is pure fantasy to think that such vast rifts and drastic changes would be able to occur from tectonic movements from a single set of events or even over the course of your lifetime.

[FEMA conspiracy theories are off topic for this web site.]
misha says:

April 19, 2011 at 4:57 pm

END the FED:
God Bless you all , and know that like all things that are of Gods creation the truth sooner or later sets them free . Take care .

G: If you are hearing voices in your head and think that is God speaking to you…then seek medical attention.

GW Bush: God told me to invade Iraq. Sounds familiar.
END the FED says:

April 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm

God made Earth a Finite element therefore God is In control of us all Not Government …..
END the FED says:

April 19, 2011 at 5:16 pm

Read this , it sure makes the case that our Past and Present Presidents are working for and only are the enablers of the Hierarchy and the Sheeple are just the pawns in their wake …….. http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/
END the FED says:

April 19, 2011 at 9:44 pm

Bush Obama , they are all the Same …..
Majority Will says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:24 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Do you have a point?Socialism is good?Is that it?The issue is whether or not Osama is a socialist.Of course he is in heart of hearts, but he can only push things so far.In his case the goal is to co-opt big business.Funny.It’s we conservative-libertarians that are most opposed to corporate welfare nowadays.Hmm.

Osama? WTF are you again?
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Funny. It’s we conservative-libertarians that are most opposed to corporate welfare nowadays.

Ron and Rand Paul are hostile to reproductive freedom. Hardly libertarian. Ron Paul is an anti-semite.
Scientist says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Obama’s policies are the decimation of small business and corporate welfare run amuck in the billions, and that idiot Bush got the ball rolling for him. Hell, socialist Western Europe has all but erased small business from its economic infrastructure.

Here’s the list of top 10 countries to start a business: 1. Denmark; 2,, Canada; 3. US; 4. Sweden; 5. New Zealand; 6. Ireland;;7. Switzerland; 8. Norway; 9. Iceland; 10. Netherlands

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859204575525883366862428.html

Conclusions: The US is a good place for small business under Obama. So is Europe (at least northern Europe)

The middle class is shrinking to some extent (the doom-sayers are exaggerating). It started well before Obama.

“You true-believing libertarians are so silly and naive, though repeatedly debunked by historical economic experience” There. Fized it.
Michael David Rawlings says:

April 26, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Slartibartfast: Okay, thanks for explaining. I accept your dispute with President Obama is ideological and based on your view of his positions (which I believe are based on right wing propaganda rather than facts – but that’s not a discussion for this site…). So, in my opinion (which is nothing more than what I think) your ignorance (which may or may not be willful) has left you vulnerable to right-wing propaganda* which has prejudiced you (to some extent) against President Obama. So I would consider your bigotry (which I feel has been hinted at in your comments) to be both relatively mild (non-existent when compared to a birther) and unintentional (I believe that you truly feel you are being objective – I have no questions about your motives whatsoever). As for the label socialist’, I don’t feel that it is appropriate for someone who is arguably ideologically to the right of President Nixon…*not your fault, but you should probably watch less FOX NEWS. Do you ever find out what they’re saying on MSNBC? I keep track of what they’re saying on FOX to make sure that I can debunk it (it’s pretty easy to do) – can you do the same to liberal arguments? I doubt it.

You might want to pull your head out of your ass and get a clue. You’re not talking to just anyone. My political ideology is informed by years of study and experience. I own it—lock, stock and barrel. Keynesianism is economically destruction—Nixonian Keynesianism, Obama’s hopey-change, a distinction that makes no difference to me in the end. Either way, we’re talking about nanny government with which this Lockean has had quite enough. I’ve been dissecting and refuting the arguments of leftist ninnies for years . . . with both hands tied behind my back. Not your fault though, apparently you were born a presumptuous ass.

BTW, there’s nothing mild about my ideological bias against Obama. I despise the man and his politics with a great passion. There’s no tingle running up my leg when he speaks. Nevertheless, I always maintain an objective view of things relative to real world imperatives, namely the fundamentals of liberty. I leave the obsession with bigotry or racism or prejudice to the Pollyannic pretensions of leftists.
Obsolete says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:07 pm

Michael David Rawlings, are you a conspiracy theorist who believes that Valerie Plame was a “desk jockey”, despite the claims that she was covert by the CIA, the Justice Dept., and the sworn testimony by CIA chief Michael Hayden?

If so, you are cut from the same cloth as the birthers & truthers, and your the A-1 Prime Example here of someone whose ideology forced their head deep into their own anal cavity.
JoZeppy says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:11 pm

Michael David Rawlings: Bull. The left has always been the epicenter of crazy, tolerated by the leftward-leaning mainstream media and the Democratic Party. The vast majority of the conservative movement knows damn well that birthers are idiots. On the other hand. . . . 9/11 Truthers. The Plame-Wilson scam. Population-bomb hysteria. Global-cooling hysteria 40 years ago. Global-warming hysteria today. Race-baiting, class warfare pimps as far as the eye can see. Leftist nutcases who use epithets like “fascist” or “Nazi” to describe their political opponents (Lockeans for crying out loud!) as casually as a dog licks it genitals. Don’t sidle up to me about the political right’s failings. I despise the political left unrelentingly and know them for the demagogues and the thieves and the thugs that they are. Busy-body, control freaks. That’s contemporary liberalism, as opposed to the classical liberalism of our founding..

Well, there was an interesting rant of right wing propaganda.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:16 pm

Michael David Rawlings: the Pollyannic pretensions of leftists

The kibbutzim are the foundation of Israel.

Michael David Rawlings: as opposed to the classical liberalism of our founding..

The Founding Fathers owned slaves.
misha says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Michael David Rawlings: I’m light years ahead of most intellectually

What books, or textbooks have you published? Are you on a faculty? What is your CV?

Libertarian? I’ll repeat it: Ron Paul is an anti-semite. Michele Bachmann personally received $250K in farm subsidies.

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,4651/
Obsolete says:

April 26, 2011 at 9:47 pm

An answer would be great- the Plame deniers are almost like pre-birthers. No matter howuch evidence was released to prove Plame was covert, deniers found a way to ignore, discredit and ask for further confirmations.
Like birthers, they ignored overwhelming evidence in favor of ridiculously vast and complex conspiracies. That didn’t even make sense.
Slartibartfast says:

April 26, 2011 at 10:00 pm

Michael David Rawlings: You might want to pull your head out of your ass and get a clue.You’re not talking to just anyone.My political ideology is informed by years of study and experience.I own it—lock, stock and barrel.Keynesianism is economically destruction—Nixonian Keynesianism, Obama’s hopey-change, a distinction that makes no difference to me in the end.Either way, we’re talking about nanny government with which this Lockean has had quite enough.I’ve been dissecting and refuting the arguments of leftist ninnies for years . . . with both hands tied behind my back.Not your fault though, apparently you were born a presumptuous ass.

You may have taken on some pansy liberals who’s good intentions couldn’t cover their lack of understanding, but I doubt you that you’ve measured yourself against a hard core scientific empiricist who’s idealism is tempered by a rigorous pragmatism and a deep, intuitive understanding of dynamical systems (like the economy or the government or the climate or the birther movement) and their behavior. You aren’t the only one who’s thought about these things. And I wasn’t born with it, I worked hard to get my ass to be this presumptuous. I never assumed that you were unintelligent and you would be wise not to make that assumption about me. I feel just as strongly about my positions as your do about yours and I am more than capable of defending them on their merits.

BTW, there’s nothing mild about my ideological bias against Obama.I despise the man and his politics with a great passion.There’s no tingle running up my leg when he speaks.Nevertheless, I always maintain an objective view of things relative to real world imperatives, namely the fundamentals of liberty.I leave the obsession with bigotry or racism or prejudice to the Pollyannic pretensions of leftists.

Personally, I’d rather be obsessed about what the appropriate policy goals are and how best to achieve them, but the divisiveness, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of the Republicans has made responding to groups of bigots like the birthers necessary. And there’s nothing mild in my belief that your vaunted economic philosophy is both ethically and financially bankrupt either.

Michael David Rawlings: I just got to this site, as a member of yours suggested I link my stuff to it as you guys were like-minded birther debunkers.

We’re debunkers – I wouldn’t say we’re like-minded (outside of an agreement that birthers are whackjobs we’re nowhere near monolithic or homogeneous…).

If you have information unknown to me about certain matters, I have no problem with that.

That’s funny, because you seemed to have a problem when I pointed it out…

I’m wide open to good, solid information.Instead you want to be an ass about, beating me over the head about a matter that I haven’t looked at in over a year.

‘Beating you over the head with it’? What a drama queen you are. Had you just said ‘thanks for the info’ (or ‘here’s why you’re wrong’) and ‘I disagree about the significance of DUAL citizenship’ then I would have been satisfied and let the matter drop. Had you actually engaged me on the ideas, I would have been happy to respond in kind. What you’re seeing now is a direct result of your own behavior. Don’t like it? Act in good faith and it will be rewarded with earned respect – but you’ve already thrown away the respect that I give to people with the benefit of the doubt.

I wrote those pieces months ago.So update me.

That’s what I was trying to do – yes, I was poking you a little, but you breezed in here in a pretty arrogant posture and I wanted to see how you would react. I think your reaction was pretty telling…

But you take your lectures and your tone and shove them, you arrogant prickI’m light years ahead of most intellectually,

I have a PhD in mathematics and I model the protein-protein interactions that make up the DNA damage G2 checkpoint in the cell cycle (among other things). Scientist is actually a laboratory scientist (who’s written more than a few papers in some very impressive journals…). Others here are successful professionals of other sorts. Sorry, Mikey, but you’re not light-years ahead of anyone here (well, except the birthers…). The only people who’s opinions I accord additional authority to here are the various lawyers that comment (especially those like Vince Treacy who comment under their real name [by the way, my name is Kevin Kesseler if you’d like to check my bona fides]) and the Doc (who has extensive experience in record keeping). I give everyone else the respect they deserve. If you think that I was initially disrespectful to you, then I apologize as that was not my intent, but you’ve earned the disrespect you’re getting now.

and if paid any real attention to my stuff you would know that and know that your attitude is out of line and unnecessarily presumptive and provocative.Enough.

Interesting what it provoked… (and I did pay attention to your stuff – I cared enough to critique it. If you are that thin-skinned then maybe you shouldn’t be putting it on the web where people might see it).

I’ll look at what you’ve got and update that particular article accordingly, but my stuff is solid and well worth the effort that was invested in it.

How special. I don’t even care enough to disagree.

I know plenty of things you don’t, jackass, as we all possess any number of insights that no one person can possibly contain.I don’t go about lecturing people who are clearly open to the facts and trying to get it right.Screw you!

I find it fascinating that someone who is ‘clearly open to the facts’ reacted so poorly when they were shown a factual error they had made. But maybe that’s just me…

Comments are closed.

The great mother-in-law of all off-topic dumps

About Dr. Conspiracy

394 Responses to The great mother-in-law of all off-topic dumps

Welcome

Conspiracies

Recent Comments

Donate

Recommended books

Quick Reference

Archives

Quick Reference