U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - Blogs http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php Political Discussion Forum: All views on politics and other subject matter are welcome. Political forum. en Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:29:06 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.USPoliticsOnline.com/images/misc/rss.jpg U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - Blogs http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php Hillary for Secretary of State ??? http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=66 Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:10:10 GMT The followwing is probaly unknown to most.
I uncovered it trying to determine just what real experience Hillry had as a Lawyerincluding physical contact with the courts. She did not do too well in the incident outlined below.

I hope refreshing ones memory or exhibiting evidentiary material is not considered spamming in the blog areas.
________________________________________

ELECTION 2008
Counsel confirms Hillary's 'fraudulent' Watergate brief
Clinton was fired for allegedly colluding with Kennedys to protect JFK legacy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 07, 2008
2:25 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Hillary Clinton, with chief counsel John Doar (left), bringing impeachment charges against President Nixon before the House Judiciary Committee in 1974
Details of Hillary Clinton's firing from the House Judiciary Committee staff for unethical behavior as she helped prepare articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon have been confirmed by the panel's chief Republican counsel.

Franklin Polk backed up major claims by Jerry Zeifman, the general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee who supervised Clinton's work on the Watergate investigation in 1974, reported columnist Dan Calabrese in a column republished by WND.

Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, called Clinton a "liar" and "an unethical, dishonest lawyer."

He contends Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelation of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate "look like a day at the beach."

Her brief, Zeifman said, was so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970.

Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed.

Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files.

Looking back on the case amid Clinton's fierce battle with Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, Calabrese sees a picture emerging "of a very ambitious young lawyer who was eager to please her political patrons, and was willing to mislead and undermine established committee staff and senior committee members in order to do so."

The columnist, editor in chief of the North Star Writers Group, noted Zeifman has been "trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him."

(Story continues below)




Zeifman said Clinton, then 27, was hired to work on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who also was Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick case.

When the Watergate probe concluded, Zeifman said, he fired Clinton from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. She was one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career, Calabrese pointed out.


Jerry Zeifman

Zeifman told the columnist he fired Clinton because she was a liar.

"She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer," Zeifman said. "She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Zeifman said Clinton collaborated with several individuals, including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who later became counsel in the Clinton White House. Their aim, he said, was the seemingly implausible scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

The Kennedy allies, Zeifman said, feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by the president's counsel. Hunt, according to Zeifman, had evidence of nefarious activities by President John F. Kennedy's administration, including purportedly using the mafia to attempt to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Polk regarded Clinton's memo as dishonest because it tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn't exist. But, unlike Zeifman, he considered it more stupid than sinister.

"Hillary should have mentioned [the Douglas case] and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion," Polk told Calabrese.

But Zeifman argues that if Clinton, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, House Judiciary members also would have been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Polk recalls Zeifman told him at the time he believed Clinton's primary role was to alert Marshall if the investigation was taking a turn against the Kennedys' liking.

"Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going," Polk said.

Polk remembered some Democrat committee members, as well as nearly all the Republicans, were upset at the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon.

Zeifman said top Democrats, including then-House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, believed Nixon clearly had the right to counsel.

"Of course the Republicans went nuts," Polk said. "But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, 'Who's in charge here?' If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you're going to give him a trial, for him to say, 'My rights were denied,' – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it."


Bill and Hillary Clinton on their wedding day in 1975

Polk said Zeifman rightfully "went nuts," as well, but "my reaction wasn't so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid."

Calabrese concludes: "Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don't really think that's in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States."

The columnist noted Polk recalled something else that started long ago.

"She would go around saying, 'I'm dating a person who will some day be president,'" Polk said. "It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton's political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast." ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=66 Scenarios for the Obama Years: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=65 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:42:23 GMT By Randall Hoven

The real Barack Obama is still unknown, supposedly. One take is that he is a smart guy who will move toward the center and govern moderately and competently. Another take is that he is the most radical person to ever hold the position of President who will take the US on a hard left course into a socialist state lacking any resemblance to the country our founders gave us.


I also have a third scenario, and it is my scariest one: he will do the latter, but make it appear like the former. That is, he will be take the US on a hard left course, but in such a way so as to not scare the Christopher Buckleys and soccer moms of the world too much, too soon.


The Good. The first scenario is the one believed by Christopher Buckley and other "conservatives" who voted for Obama. They believe that Obama will moderate himself once in power and govern like the reasonable fellow in his campaign ads. This would not be that terrible of a situation. Yes, we would get more liberal policies, but nothing too terrible or irreversible - probably not much worse than if McCain had won. If the electorate wants to fix things after experiencing some of this, it will swing from 52% liberal to perhaps 52% conservative in 2010 or 2012. No harm, no foul.


The Bad. The second scenario is what Rush Limbaugh believes. Obama, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, will so overdo it that the electorate will quickly rectify things starting in 2010, just like it did in 1994. In 1993, President Clinton's first executive order was to allow open gays to serve in the military. Then he appointed his wife to the secret committee to socialize the 15% of the economy that is health care. Both efforts failed, one in the courts and the other in Congress, and set the electorate to trying to fix its mistake. An all-Republican Congress was voted into office in 1994, the first time since 1952, shortly followed by capital-gains tax cuts, free trade, the end of welfare and budget surpluses. (Remember those Republicans?)


The Bad scenario might be characterized by the following.


Gays in the military. Congress could change US Code, Title 10, Section 654 to allow open gays in the military. (Congress sets such rules. President Clinton tried to change them by Executive Order, but the courts ruled only Congress can change its own rules on military regulations.)

Gay marriage. The Democrats could overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and thus make gay marriage the law of the land throughout the country, including how such couples are treated on federal taxes and Social Security rules. That is, since gay marriage is already the law in at least two states (by court rulings, not legislation or popular support), ending DOMA would force recognition of those marriages throughout the states and federal government.


Stem cell research. Federal funding of research that destroys human embryos, beyond a few existing embryos, was restricted by Executive Order under President Bush. President Obama can eliminate this Order immediately, and Congress could then get to work passing legislation to fund human embryonic stem cell research, thus incentivizing early abortions that yield such embryos.


Abortion. Congress could pass the Freedom of Choice Act and overturn the Hyde Amendment, and thus eliminate all restrictions on abortion and get the federal government back into the business of funding abortions in the US and around the world.


Censorship. By bringing back the so-called fairness doctrine, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and virtually all of talk radio would be eliminated. The internet could be regulated and political speech further restricted under McCain-Feingold type rules.


Mandatory national service. Obama stated that national service would be the "central cause" of his Presidency. At a minimum, this would likely entail dramatic expansion of AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps as well as mandatory "public service" hours as part of high school and college requirements. It could mean a draft, or mandatory service, and a national force in size and funding comparable to the current US military. Think of it as ACORN with $500 billion in annual funding and that your sons and daughters must serve.


Socialized health care. While I have stated tepid support for some kind of universal health coverage (with significant caveats), what we will likely get from the all-Democrat federal government will be full-blooded socialized medicine from price controls on drug companies to insurance mandates and a Medicare-like bureaucracy imposed throughout the system, with no simplification of or reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. A single-payer system like Canada's or the UK's will look good by comparison.


Court appointments. President Obama will nominate, and the Senate will approve, the most leftist, "living-breathing Constitution", judges to federal courts. Such judges could easily rule that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right; that gay marriage is a Constitutional right; that women must receive comparable pay for like work; that the 14th Amendment's equal treatment clause requires taxpayer funding of just about anything you can think of, from schools to sports programs; that the Boy Scouts must allow openly gay adults to take 12-year-old boys camping; that school administrators have more say in your child's upbringing than you do; that "private property" is effectively a meaningless concept if you do not use it to serve "the public purpose" as conceived by any public official; etc. (Here's a secret: courts have already ruled in favor of many of these concepts.)


Taxes, spending, regulation. Taxes will be increased, especially on people who pay them. Social Security taxes will be applied to all income levels. The Death Tax will be restored in full, and then some. We might get totally new taxes, such as a national sales tax, a value added tax, or a wealth tax. Spending will go up, perhaps dramatically, on everything but Defense. New regulations will be imposed on everything from investment banking and hedge funds to work rules and insurance mandates.


Foreign policy. It will be all talk and no action when it comes to national defense. We will reward enemies (e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, Russia) and punish friends (e.g., Columbia, Israel). We will work through the UN as much as possible, and we'll probably put ourselves under the jurisdiction of the World Court. Look for Donald Rumsfeld and perhaps George W. Bush to be prosecuted in the Hague.
Rule of law. Voting rules will be weakened so that vote fraud will be widespread but undetected. The border will become a meaningless line on a map, since border enforcement will be weakened, no one will be considered "illegal", and every border-crosser will get all the rights and benefits of citizenship once foot is set here. Generally, think Chicago-Daley on a national scale.

The Ugly is continued at....... http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...bama_year.html ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=65 Of Schemes Dreams and Adventure II http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=64 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:00:35 GMT As I worked to correlate factors for Sm D, & A I came across the following that expresses my ruminations far better than I can,

The content paints a picture easily understood from a broad and close-up view.

Read it and gain more understanding of where we are and how we got there financially.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/reserves.htm

Bill ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=64 Of Schemes, Dreams and Adventure. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=63 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:01:48 GMT Of Schemes, Dreams and Adventure.

Hitting the mid 70s seemed to be the start of real deterioration in respect to thinking about adventures and then carrying them out. ( a hard fact to accept)

I have always looked at life as an adventure and have for the most part had the good fortune to be able to live (unlike Walter Mitty) that which I dreamed of.

Now at 81 and a widower it appears the spirits willing but the body suffers an energy brownout limitation to the extent that only one of the few joys still retained is to sit at my computer digging up facts to refute the spin artists and scoundrels who may outnumber the “Semi Sane”.

Let’s start here:

A statement for the record by the “American Apparel & Footwear Association” before the “House Ways and Means Committee” in 2007 for the purpose of convincing our government despite the loss of 1.7 million jobs in that industry and the fact that 99 percent of all footwear and 91 percent of all apparel sold in the United States is imported is a good event.

“As of the date the above statement was made three quarters of the entire U.S. footwear and apparel workforce has been eliminated.”

Now comes the Novacaine for the posterior…..

To justify the elimination of virtually all the jobs in this category the claim is made that many new jobs were created because of the lower price in warehousing and selling same.

I will go no further with this blog if the problem is not apparent it never will be….

Next related blog on a different industry. ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=63 Black Clothes And What It Signifies http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=62 Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:34:40 GMT
President-elect Obama, right, and Michelle Obama walk
out of Spiaggia restaurant after having dinner in Chicago,
Saturday, Nov. 8, 2008. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)



Clothes are a great indicator of a persons mood and personality. You can tell a great deal about someone from just looking at what they choose to wear every day.

Some people like black clothes because it's slimming. Some wear it when they are depressed, and some wear it to make a statement.

When I attended my father's funeral I wore all black because I wasn't exactly happy and my sister, who isn't known for being the sharpest tool in the shed, said "Why all the black. Are you turning vampire or something?"

I said nothing because the reason was obvious or should be obvious. You wear black primarily because of the mood you're in. It is supposed to be an unassuming color or a color that minimizes your image and indicates you aren't part of the glitz and glamor of a superficial world. People who go Goth are rebelling from society. The darker the better. It indicates depression or a dark nature.

But why do African-Americans wear black? Why do they wear it to church and wear it to formal settings? What does it tell us about them?

I cannot get anything black for my wife to wear because it will remain on the hanger or left in the box it came in. She insists on wearing bright colors. She grew up in a church where almost everyone wore black and from her experience the members who insisted in dressing only in black had very dark natures. To them the clothes fit their personalities.

Black is the color that has been used for decades to show solidarity in the black community. It is the unofficial color of the Nation Of Islam. Imagine the effect it would have had on voters if the Obamas had appeared in public on a regular basis dressed like the picture above. When I saw it I was alarmed because it can only mean one thing, that the Obamas are more racially conscience then advertised. The KKK wore white hoods and robes and blacks wear all black. It's kind of an in your face thing without you even knowing they're in your face.

Now I know that people will say the Obamas are just trying to be formal, but I'm afraid this is a direct indication of their attitudes and ethnic preferences. If this is the way they feel most comfortable then I think we have been had. This is the real First Family and I think in the next year there is plenty about them they have been hiding. They are under the microscope now so they will find it more difficult to hide what they are from the public. I wonder what else they've been hiding from us. Well, I already know but I think there are millions of Americans who voted for Obama that will be shocked to find out what they are really like. ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=62 When the tires meet the road extended. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=61 Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:02:30 GMT When The Tires Meet The Road …Sequel… The comparative benefits of the process I have outlined ( assuming we immediately begin a program such as T. Boon Pickens recommends) are explained as follows: OBSERVATIONS All countries are to a degree dependent on one another to some extent large or small. Our own growth has been possible because of abundance and exploitation of Natural Resources, Capital Investment and Labor Access with “energy production” a major factor. The need and desire to possess a continuing and adequate supply of these entities has been and is now cause (if lacking) of war. Suggestions (implementation) The comparative wages of all trading countries will become equal (for trading purposes) by developing a formula based on the average mean wages paid in each entity. Formulas already exist to equalize all existing currencies with that of the U.S. Dollar for comparative purposes and Import Tariff’s could be either applied or unnecessary as the case may be for all including non treaty members according to the formula. Benefits Producing product in other than ones own country will not be prohibited but will be no more profitable than producing it at home (considerations other than formulary aside). Exporting countries may raise their labor rates and provide stronger markets for our own exports. Arguments for and against welcome ! When The Tires Meet The Road …Sequel…

The comparative benefits of the process I have outlined ( assuming we immediately begin a program such as T. Boon Pickens recommends) are explained as follows:

OBSERVATIONS

All countries are to a degree dependent on one another to some extent large or small.

Our own growth has been possible because of abundance and exploitation of Natural Resources, Capital Investment and Labor Access with “energy production” a major factor. The need and desire to possess a continuing and adequate supply of these entities has been and is now cause (if lacking) of war.

Suggestions (implementation)

The comparative wages of all trading countries will become equal (for trading purposes) by developing a formula based on the average mean wages paid in each entity. Formulas already exist to equalize all existing currencies with that of the U.S. Dollar for comparative purposes and Import Tariff’s could be either applied or unnecessary as the case may be for all including non treaty members according to the formula.

Benefits

Producing product in other than ones own country will not be prohibited but will be no more profitable than producing it at home (considerations other than formulary aside).

Exporting countries may raise their labor rates and provide stronger markets for our own exports.

Arguments for and against welcome ! ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=61 Reasons Not To Vote For Obama http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=60 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:41:53 GMT

There are several reasons that Obama shouldn't be President of The United States. None of them are disqualifiers according to the Constitution but they are good reasons why he will never be a good President, and what we need now during these trying times is a President with sound judgement and solid principles, both of which Obama does not possess.



--------------------------------

Obama exhibits narcissistic tendencies.

Extreme infatuation with oneself, self-centered, expects to be recognized as superior

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited power, success, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Sees himself as “special” and should only have to affiliate with others of a similar stature

Takes advantage of others to achieve his needs

Demonstrates a constant need for admiration or approval

Exaggerates personal achievements while minimizing those of others

Is convinced that he is unique

Feels entitled to special treatment and that rules frequently don’t apply to him

Very charismatic or charming at first, but can quickly switch from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde without apparent cause

Demands compliance with his expectations

Is unable to demonstrate or understand empathy or compassion

Does not seem to feel real happiness or positive emotions

Often criticizes and/or puts others down

Assumes himself to be more knowledgeable than those around him

Quick to anger or feel insulted or slighted

Denies he has issues to work on – sees himself as nearly perfect

May often take unnecessary risks

Frequently humiliates or abuses others, although he doesn’t see it as abuse

Sulks when he doesn’t get his way

Nothing is ever his fault

Exaggerates the truth or blatantly lies

Rarely treats anyone with respect or kindness

Doesn’t acknowledge or respect other’s boundaries

Always wants to be in control

May drink and drive regularly

His needs for attention, time, and space matter – yours do not

Has difficulty putting himself in another’s shoes

Rarely recognizes the accomplishments or abilities of others

Doesn’t appear to have a conscience

Does not take criticism well and becomes defensive easily

Rarely expresses appreciation of others

Is easily hurt and insulted

Considers most others in the world “idiots”

Shows no feelings of remorse or guilt for his mistakes or the hurts he dishes out

Wins most arguments through the use of rationalizing his behavior

Blames others for all his problems

Frequently complains that whatever you do, it isn’t “good enough”

Is often paranoid – thinks people are talking about him behind his back

Has a hard time accepting the opinions or ideas of others

Always has to win any argument

Is often envious of others, or thinks others envy him

Rarely can understand another’s point of view

Hates to stand in line – he shouldn’t have to, as his time is more valuable than others

Leaves others feeling as though they need to “walk on eggshells” around him

Hates to be thought of as ordinary or average

Is desperate to have the biggest house, car, bank account, or title



-------------------------------------------

Obama wouldn't be able to get a security clearance because of his friends and associates.



Statement Of Personal History Questionaire excerp.......

DD form 398 1 mar 64

Para. 17-

1. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party U.S.A. or any communist organizations anywhere?

2. Are you now or have you ever been a member of any organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of Government or which has adopted the policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the constitution of the United States, or which seeks to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means?

3. Are you now or have you ever been affiliated with any organization of the type described above as an agent, official, or employee?

4. Are you now associating with, or have you associated with any individuals, including relatives, who you know or have reason to believe, are or have been members of any of the organizations identified above?

5. Have you ever engaged in any of the following activities of any organizations of the type described above, contribution(s) to, attendance at or participation in any organizational, social, or other activities of said organizations or of any projects sponsored by them, the sale, gift, or distribution of any written, printed, or other matter, prepared, reproduced, or published by them or any of their agents or instrumentalities?


If Obama has to answer "Yes" to any of the above questions he would be a dangerous choice for POTUS.

-------------------------

Quote:

Unable to completely ignore contrarian opinion and data - he transmutes them. Unable to face the dismal failure that he is, the narcissist partially withdraws from reality. To soothe and salve the pain of disillusionment, he administers to his aching soul a mixture of lies, distortions, half-truths and outlandish interpretations of events around him. These solutions can be classified thus:

The Delusional Narrative Solution

The narcissist constructs a narrative in which he figures as the hero - brilliant, perfect, irresistibly handsome, destined for great things, entitled, powerful, wealthy, the centre of attention, etc. The bigger the strain on this delusional charade - the greater the gap between fantasy and reality - the more the delusion coalesces and solidifies.

Finally, if it is sufficiently protracted, it replaces reality and the narcissist's reality test deteriorates. He withdraws his bridges and may become schizotypal, catatonic, or schizoid.

The Antisocial Solution

The narcissist renounces reality. To his mind, those who pusillanimously fail to recognize his unbound talents, innate superiority, overarching brilliance, benevolent nature, entitlement, cosmically important mission, perfection, etc. - do not deserve consideration. The narcissist's natural affinity with the criminal - his lack of empathy and compassion, his deficient social skills, his disregard for social laws and morals - now erupt and blossom. He becomes a full fledged antisocial (sociopath or psychopath). He ignores the wishes and needs of others, he breaks the law, he violates all rights - natural and legal, he holds people in contempt and disdain, he derides society and its codes, he punishes the ignorant ingrates - that, to his mind, drove him to this state - by acting criminally and by jeopardizing their safety, lives, or property.

The Paranoid Schizoid Solution

When narcissism fails as a defense mechanism, the narcissist develops paranoid narratives: self-directed confabulations which place him at the center of others' allegedly malign attention. The narcissist becomes his own audience and self-sufficient as his own, sometimes exclusive, source of narcissistic supply.

The narcissist develops persecutory delusions. He perceives slights and insults where none were intended. He becomes subject to ideas of reference (people are gossiping about him, mocking him, prying into his affairs, cracking his e-mail, etc.). He is convinced that he is the centre of malign and mal-intentioned attention. People are conspiring to humiliate him, punish him, abscond with his property, delude him, impoverish him, confine him physically or intellectually, censor him, impose on his time, force him to action (or to inaction), frighten him, coerce him, surround and besiege him, change his mind, part with his values, victimize or even murder him, and so on.

Some narcissists withdraw completely from a world populated with such minacious and ominous objects (really projections of internal objects and processes). They avoid all social contact, except the most necessary. They refrain from meeting people, falling in love, having sex, talking to others, or even corresponding with them. In short: they become schizoids - not out of social shyness, but out of what they feel to be their choice. "This evil, hopeless world does not deserve me" - goes the inner refrain - "and I shall waste none of my time and resources on it."



http://samvak.tripod.com/journal42.html
http://www.matus1976.com/mfdlist/MFD...20movement.txt ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=60 pre war and the Japanese http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=59 Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:29:41 GMT One of the beads on the Neckless: Oil tankers...even then.. The Panay incident !. http://www.usspanay.org/attacked.shtml One of the beads on the Neckless:

Oil tankers...even then..

The Panay incident !.

http://www.usspanay.org/attacked.shtml ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=59 Ole Man Ribber that Ole Man Ribber http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=58 Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:46:54 GMT I guess this is the only safe place for me to post ! Why Wars are Fought: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Japan_attack_the_US_in_December_1941 Possibly of interest to some. Is there a connection with our current views ? I guess this is the only safe place for me to post !

Why Wars are Fought:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Ja..._December_1941

Possibly of interest to some.

Is there a connection with our current views ? ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=58 When The Tires Meet the Road http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=57 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:21:09 GMT The abundance of Natural Resources and Capital Investments were the keys that pushed our Nation forward from the beginning and allowed us to exploit that abundance. As we gradually depleted that abundance and grew in numbers we (as the other developed Western Countries had done for centuries ) found it necessary especially in respect to “Energy” to go farther afield in our own exploitations driven first from an initial financial aspect and later because of developing scarcity. Eventually “Chickens come home to roost” and our dependence on “Foreign Energy Sources” and the awareness of those whose natural resources were so coveted and the economical and political importance of such, we find ourselves in wars seeking to assure the adequate control of supply to maintain our very existence. We have (all of us in the west) managed to maintain our grip on the situation through “Gun Boat” type diplomacy but now are locked in battle over the idea that method will no longer work and control is slipping away. We have furnished our “exploited entities” with not only Capital but anger over our political activities in respect to control to the extent they represent a formidable threat especially to ourselves. It is with a certain amount of belief that the expression “ Idle hands are the devils workshop” is true and when we couple that with the need to maintain a living wage both domestically and internationally, if we look carefully we see the word “exploitation” becomes less than beneficial to large numbers of humans. There are those who in a loud voice proclaim “Free Trade” is the answer. It would be the answer for some “if” we could continue to find and exploit “low cost labor” but others in our own country would find themselves jobless as they are currently doing. Fair Trade IMO would be the more likely method to use if it could be developed for use. How such a system might be developed and implemented is quite complicated because we live in a “dynamic “ environment that has to be considered. However; if as a future goal (apart from killing the opposition) of making a market for our goods is desired we might start out by a “western agreement” to not restrict a manufacture from producing or selling goods whereever one pleases but within the agreement that the importing country (whom so ever) will impose a tariff that accelerates to equal the average wages of the importing country and de-accelerates to nothing in the same manner. We need to fall back to a defendable position and as T Boone Pickens says “Go for it” in respect to new and improved Energy sources NOW (In conjunction with adaptation of the above) The abundance of Natural Resources and Capital Investments were the keys that pushed our Nation forward from the beginning and allowed us to exploit that abundance.

As we gradually depleted that abundance and grew in numbers we (as the other developed Western Countries had done for centuries ) found it necessary especially in respect to “Energy” to go farther afield in our own exploitations driven first from an initial financial aspect and later because of developing scarcity.

Eventually “Chickens come home to roost” and our dependence on “Foreign Energy Sources” and the awareness of those whose natural resources were so coveted and the economical and political importance of such, we find ourselves in wars seeking to assure the adequate control of supply to maintain our very existence.

We have (all of us in the west) managed to maintain our grip on the situation through “Gun Boat” type diplomacy but now are locked in battle over the idea that method will no longer work and control is slipping away. We have furnished our “exploited entities” with not only Capital but anger over our political activities in respect to control to the extent they represent a formidable threat especially to ourselves.

It is with a certain amount of belief that the expression “ Idle hands are the devils workshop” is true and
when we couple that with the need to maintain a living wage both domestically and internationally, if we look carefully we see the word “exploitation” becomes less than beneficial to large numbers of humans.

There are those who in a loud voice proclaim “Free Trade” is the answer. It would be the answer for some “if” we could continue to find and exploit “low cost labor” but others in our own country would find themselves jobless as they are currently doing.

Fair Trade IMO would be the more likely method to use if it could be developed for use.

How such a system might be developed and implemented is quite complicated because we live in a “dynamic “ environment that has to be considered. However; if as a future goal (apart from killing the opposition) of making a market for our goods is desired we might start out by a “western agreement” to not restrict a manufacture from producing or selling goods whereever one pleases but within the agreement that the importing country (whom so ever) will impose a tariff that accelerates to equal the average wages of the importing country and de-accelerates to nothing in the same manner.

We need to fall back to a defendable position and as T Boone Pickens says “Go for it” in respect to new and improved Energy sources NOW (In conjunction with adaptation of the above) ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=57 Colin Powell: A House Negro No More! http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=56 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:17:25 GMT

Colin Powell: A House Negro No More!

by Blame Bush

Former Uncle Tom, House Negro, and unrepentant war criminal, Colin Powell, gave his coveted endorsement to Barack Obama last weekend, hailing our future President as a "transformational figure".

Transformational, indeed! Saturday night, Powell was a still just a lapdog of the Bush Junta, a lying liar who lied about WMD's in Iraq, and had blood on his hands for the millions of innocent Iraqis that Bush murdered so he could steal their oil. But on Monday morning, Powell crawled out of his bed a "man of courage", a "true patriot", and a "great American". That's quite a transformation. And all he had to do to cleanse himself of his past sins was declare his unconditional love for Obama.

When it comes right down to it, blind devotion is all Obama really asks of any of us. In return, he annointest us with hope, change, and free health care until our cup runneth over. Even DicKKK Halliburton Cheney, Rummy RumselKKKd, and KKKarl Rove can be absolved of their crimes - and cured of various maladies ranging from male-pattern baldness to racism - if they simply drop to their knees and declare fealty to our future President, Barack Obama. And he will be our president, as long as the superstitious, bible-clinging evangelical nutjobs of the GOP don't get in his way. ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=56 Deficit Hypocrisy http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=55 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:19:19 GMT

Deficit Hypocrisy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Budget Policy: Call it the iron law of modern liberalism — deficits matter only when they're useful in defeating tax cuts. When time comes to unleash government spending, they can be ignored.



Indeed, two liberals who were most vocal about deficits as President Bush advanced his tax cuts are now wearily dismissing them.

In 2003, when the deficit was $377 billion, Rep. Barney Frank said Bush's dividend tax cut would have "negative long-term effects on the deficit," and that deficits "are over the long term a negative for the economy."

But just the other day, as the deficit has reached $455 billion and could go to $800 billion next year, Frank said: "I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat."

Consider the deficit was about $377 billion in 2003, while it is now $455 billion and could go as high as $800 billion next year. If anything, deficit fear should be in the driver's seat.

An even more notable switcheroo is New York Times columnist, Democratic mouthpiece and freshly minted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. In column after column from 2001-2003 he denounced the Bush tax cuts for leading to "skyrocketing budget deficits."

About-face! A week and a half ago Krugman wrote: "What we need right now is more government spending. . . . Now is not the time to worry about the deficit."

But let's not be too hard on Frank, Krugman and their ilk. They are giddily anticipating a President Obama and expanded Democratic majorities in Congress. For the first time in almost three decades a liberal wish list of government spending can finally be enacted. Why let a little thing like the deficit get in the way?

Liberals say new spending is necessary for the economy. "This is a time for a very important kind of dose of Keynesianism," says Frank. Krugman thinks "temporary" spending is good "to fight a recession."

Don't believe it. Government can only spend what it drains from the job-producing private sector. And "temporary" government spending is like a unicorn — it doesn't exist.

Ultimately, higher deficits will lead to higher taxes. According to Frank, "Later on, there should be tax increases . . . there are a lot of very rich people out there we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

In the end, Frank, Krugman and other liberals may not pay a price for their blatant hypocrisy. The taxpayer, unfortunately, won't be so lucky. ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=55 Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=54 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:28:25 GMT Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=54 western Motivation http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=53 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:26:18 GMT This forum has more of the curious and seeks answers. What follows is illuminating in respect to presenting a composit of factors for contemplation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/jun/02/hearafrica05.equatorialguinea http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/favour.htm http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1700.htm This forum has more of the curious and seeks answers. What follows is illuminating in respect to presenting a composit of factors for contemplation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...uatorialguinea

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/favour.htm


http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ir...hm/ire1700.htm ]]> skeptic1 http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=53 Colin Powel Cashes In On Obama http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=52 Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:49:25 GMT

Colin Powell endorsing Obama let me know that anybody can be bought.

Powell endorses Obama for president - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com

Obama says he took in $150 million in September. I guess that's why the banking crisis started. All of those Obama supporters withdrawing their cash to send to Obama. :blink: Who would have thought that everyone was doing well enought to send Obama $150 mil. I thought the economy was in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Go figure.

Colin Powell endorses Obama and then he appears on Meet The Depressed to say exactly what Obama's staff wrote for him to say, that he doesn't like the direction that the Republican party is going, you know, letting us keep more of our own money, and that the choice of Sarah Palin made him question McCain's judgement.

Dude, that's what Obama and his media has been saying!! Imagine that.:thumbup1:



Even Fox is starting to sound like they've been bought off. Is it any coincidence that the week Obama says "If it weren't for Fox my poll numbers would be better",

BAM!!!!!!

Fox commentators start ragging on McCain about his debate preformance even though most people would say he did very well, just not good enough to totally destroy Obama. Now they claim that the Obama juggernaut has put this election out of reach for the wrinkly old man John McCain. Even the SNL punching-bag Sarah Palin isn't helping him anymore. Who cares about ACORN. Who cares that they are on film holding Obama rallies even though they are taxpayer funded and by law supposed to be non-partisan.

Let's face it folks, Obama is getting a ton of money from somewhere and if he were foolish enough to declare the sources, which he isn't about to do, you would find that much of it comes from outside the country. [George Soros, Hamas]

Let's be honest, it takes money to run for President. You have to pay to get key individuals to endorse you. Colin Powell is no exception. ]]> mudwhistle http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/blog.php?b=52