The American Spectator

Pluto Boy| 11.10.08 @ 7:34AM

France has in now way solved the nuclear waste problem. You have fallen to the plutonium industry propaganda. Reprocessing leaves lots of liquid waste which must be dealt with, essentially no draw-down in the plutonium separated, and is totally dependent on government handouts. It would never survive if it weren't a socialist operation. As for nuclear power, if this is a mature industry, why do they want to redistribute our wealth to themsleves in the form of loan guarantees on the federal level and rate increases in many states to pay in advance for these plants? Keep big government and handouts away from these folks.

Melvin| 11.10.08 @ 8:47AM

How long will Americans put up with this economic eco-terrorism? I suppose I answered my own question in a way. Because Americans not only will put up with this economic terrorism, many will help foster it.
The rest of the world is lit up like a Christmas tree and the US is reverting back to the dark ages.
Excuse me President-elect Obama's security corps is getting ready to kick my door in because I said, "Christmas."
I forgot Christmas was one of the banned words of our dear leader.

JJ Joseph| 11.10.08 @ 8:51AM

OK, how about Canada? Canada's nuclear waste is managed by a 1% charge on the power revenues. The 1% pays for burying the waste at the centre of the earth. Dig a huge hole and bury the stuff for 100,000 years. Works fine. It's not a problem.

stu.b.con| 11.10.08 @ 8:56AM

Obviously there is an effort to litter conservative web sites with obamunist propaganda! How about some maturity from the pluto boys?!?
being cold and in the dark is not the future I hoped for for my children and grand children. Is dear leader ramping up the candle industry to pick up the slack or are we waiting for an environmental impact study?

Stu| 11.10.08 @ 9:37AM

I'm involved with Yucca Mountain as a pro-nuclear whistleblower. The article author should contact me. www.yuccamountainexpose.com

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 10:25AM

Since the election of Barack Obama is, in actuality, a cosmic joke, I've decided to treat it that way - with a laugh and a chuckle at each and every story that emanates from the Lap-Dog press describing another one of the "Messiah's" plans.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not naive. Before he's thrown out of office, this clown will do more damage to the American economy than even Jimmy Carter.

But that day of reckoning will eventually come, and idiotic ideas like "Wind-Farming" as a means of solving our nation's energy needs will forever be part of Obama's joke of a legacy, much like "Malaise", "...An inordinate fear of communism...", and "...Put on a sweater..." are associated with that nit-wit Carter.

I'm prognosticating here, but I think we can probably forsee $6.00/gallon gas, sky-high costs for heating oil, regularly scheduled brown-outs, extra taxes for people with central air-conditioning (so unfair to the poor, don't you think?), taxes for folks who water their lawns, and perhaps another depression as part of this moron's (Obama's) legacy.

It will be fun watching Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et al, try and explain to the American people how all of this calamity is really George W. Bush's fault! "Democrats Gone Wild", unrestrained by a Republican President in the White House, may ultimately lead to the complete downfall of the Democrat Party.

Meanwhile, our job is to reform the Republican Party so as to ensure that we never again nominate a pathetic candidate like John McCain.

So sit back and enjoy the comedy show! The Beer and peanuts are on the (tax-payer) house!

John Smith| 11.10.08 @ 11:00AM

The case for impeaching George W. Bush is clear and convincing and has been discussed at length elsewhere. Those discussions continue and reach more mainstream media outlets every day. The list of reasons to impeach grows longer with each passing week.

The Bush administration has dishonored America and the values and principles on which she was founded. In the community of nations, America is not considered an honorable nation anymore. It does not live up to its international commitments nor the values on which it was founded and for which it was once held in high esteem. Its policies encourage and tolerate acts by government officials and employees that the international community, as well as U.S. law, considers criminal.

A formal repudiation of Bush's dishonorable behavior is a necessary step towards restoring America's honor. Our Constitution allows only one way to do that and that way is impeachment. It is not necessary for him to be convicted in the Senate in order to repudiate him, although that would be a stronger repudiation, and his impeachment is not enough to restore our nation's honor.

However, it is a necessary step and the minimum that must be done. Our government needs to be on record in a formal and official way as understanding the criminality and culpability of this administration and roundly condemning it.

Only then can America begin to repair its honor and credibility with the civilized world.

Anthony| 11.10.08 @ 11:39AM

I just read in today's local rag that Obama intends to use executive orders to renege on promises of energy independence and oil drilling, wind and solar are exempt. They'll be gas lines in America inside a years time, as well as serious brownouts this summer. The Alinsky acolyte learned well, the ends do justify the means, whatever it takes to win, lies, distortions and propaganda. His drones are in for a rude awakening. Back to Jimmy Carter time, but this time, it will be a far meaner and far less tolerant administration; disent will be delt with harshly. Watch for Obama's National Civilian Security Force standing on your corner coming soon.

Dennis Brewer| 11.10.08 @ 11:46AM

Eloquently stated b.s. Mr. Smith, but you obviously drank every drop of the left's venomous koolaid!

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 11:47AM

To: John Smith

Re: Cliche's about Bush, etc...

Dear John Smith,

As you have consciously decided to replace "Obama Rules" as the forum's Village Idiot, I thought I'd take time to address the ludicrous nature of your post.

First of all, anyone who thinks that George W. Bush violated the Constitution in any way, shape, or form is a dysfunctional thinker. I'd like for you to cite, with specific, Constitutionally-referenced examples of EXACTLY what crimes Bush is guilty of...Go ahead. Do your best. back-up your high-minded rhetoric with a few facts. [crickets]

Need I remind you, Johny-boy, that your Dem-buddies backed-up Bush every step of the way, from official authorization of the war in Afghanistan, to the invasion of Iraq, to wire-tapping, to Guantanao Bay, etc, etc...But again, I don't want to burden you with facts.

However, the Dem's complicity in these so-called "crimes" is important, because the Democrats have, since 2006, controlled both Houses of Congress. Therefore, Johny, you need to ask yourself a question:

Why didn't these brave Democrats in the House and Senate throw caution to the wind, and move forward with a full, formal impeachment inquiry of Bush???

Now, don't give me any nonsese about how the Republicans would have blocked it; true integrity requires doing what is right rather than what is attractive. If the Democrats TRULY believed that Bush should have been impeached, then it was their DUTY to do exactly that...But, they didn't. Why?

Could it be that thyer were too timid? Gutless, even? If so, then they're not fit to serve.

Or could it be that they knew the charges were baseless, that they'd be laughed out of court, and that the American people would not stand for such partisan shenanigans in wartime??

Either way, the facts torpedo your theory.

Now, onto the idea of "America's credibility" being damaged by Bush...You need to take off the tin-foil hat...Seriously.

The President's job is NOT to smooth the egos and sensibilities of the feckless leaders of western Europe ("Old Europe", per Cheney and Rumsfeld). Nor is it his job to worry about what our enemies think. In fact, if our enemies are upset with us, that's probably the best indicator of a President's success.

If that thought was a tad abstract for you, let me further elucidate:

1. When Iran is upset with us, that means we're doing the right thing.
2. When Iran is happy with us (or, our President), that menas we're doing the "wrong" thing. That's because Iran is an illegitimate, rogue nation that may soon be bombed into the stone age...But let's not get off-track...

To put it in another way that you might understand, our enemies are VERY happy that Obama won the elction - and it isn't because they want to help and retore America's "credibility" - it's because they know that with a weak, inexperienced, naive intellectual lightweight like Obama in the White House, there's practically no limit to the shenanigans they can get themselves into. With Bush in the White House, all they could count on was a big, fat "Daisy-Cutter" bomb turning their insides into chili-powder...So which do you think they prefer??

And finally...Can you describe what part of the "civilized world" you want us to look respectable for?

The Muslim world? The people who practice slavery, female genital mutilation, suicide bombings, and stonings of rape victims? The guys who make women wear Burkhas? Should we be respectable to them?

How about the Chinese?? You know, those sweet-hearts who run over students with tanks, suppress religion and freedom of speech, harvest the organs of political prisoners, and destroy the environment (ever hear of the 3-Gorges Dam??) Should we worry about what they think?

Maybe we need to worry about what the Russians think? Maybe we shouldn't have offended Czar Putin and the resurgent Soviet Empire as they destroy Georgia??

Honestly, Johny...The only one I'm worried about is you. People like you will weaken our nation and make us vulnerable in the face of our enemies. Obama is step number one. I'm worried about steps 2, 3, and 4...

Alexandra| 11.10.08 @ 11:47AM

I obtained 15 years of wind energy production records [from Edison] and the 4,000+ windmills near Palm Springs only generate 100+/- MW per year! And this will do what for our energy supply? They only generate 14 - 20% of installed capacity and mostly at night.
And it's true, they seldom work in the summer when we need power the most. Further, because of winds intermittent nature, it needs "back up" power [like having a tow truck follow you for when you break down] from conventional sources. In the mean time we suffer from visual blight, noise and property devaluation.
Wind power is a duplication of power the utilities already have to have, ready to take over in a moments notice. So, we are paying twice for the same power, plus they also are fleecing us ratepayers for building new grids for this useless energy. Anyone interested in getting these first time ever revealed records can e-mail me at bobweit@msn.com.

John Smith| 11.10.08 @ 11:56AM

Doctor Right: Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney for the following reasons:

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

Thank you for listening. Please join me in this cause to help impeach Bush.

Anthony| 11.10.08 @ 12:18PM

John Smith is the poster-boy for Obama's new Facism. In this media age of the internet and other instant news, all information that one needs to make an intelligent observation is at one's disposal, including video footage. It is beyond comprehension that the events leading up the the Iraq War, only a scant 4 yrs. ago, are lost on these drones. If memory serves, there was a 9-12 month build up the the war. President Bush consulted Congress, who twice voted on the war resolution, including Clinton, Edwards and other stellar leftists, who now claim being "fooled". Bush went to the UN, whose countless resolutions were laughed at and ignored for over 10 yrs by Saddam. The UN and Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum, which he ignored. Entire books have been written to disprove all of Mr. Smith's fevered paranoia. But Mr. Smith gives himself away with comments, such as the "community of nations" and "international agreements". Mr. Smith despises nationalism, especially American exceptionalism, his rant is nothing more than his hatred for America. The new world order has America brought to its knees by its enemies, especially the domestic ones. Obama has brought them out in droves. Mr. Smith: If there is cosmic justice, Lenin, from hell, is looking upon you and laughing himself silly; "useful idiots" are still in plentiful supply. Mr. Smith will enjoy his role in Obama's Civilian Security Force; brownshirts and jackboots, included. BTW, how is it that enlightened, civilized, Europe hasn't elected a black as president or prime minister, yet we Americas must kiss Europe's butt?

Tom Paine | 11.10.08 @ 12:20PM

Mr Tucker,

Rush Limbaugh has declared the nation in an "Obama Recession," a hilarious bit of political hyperbole for the record books.

Now comes your article. You offer some interesting information and facts in it, and then speculate on what you think Obama is "likely" to do. (This kind of prediction hasn't worked out too well for people on your side.)

But please. An "Obama Energy Disaster"?

We've just got through with seeing what happens when you put two oilmen in charge.

But more to the point. This country has known we were heading for an energy crisis since the 1970s. The ONLY president that has done something about it was Jimmy Carter, who I take it is scion of Satan around here.

Under Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes this country has squandered nearly every opportunity to do something about energy we had.

In the mean time we sent hundreds of billions to autocratic, terrorist supporting countries in the Middle East. But as long as gas was under 3.00 a gallon, you were a Marxist or an eco-terrorist for even mentioning the coming crunch.

Well, now it's hear folks. And no, it's never going away. And no - no, no, no - there isn't enough oil in N America or our oceans to get us out of it.

We're talking about trillions of dollars of wealth. If it were there, trust me, we would be drilling it.

So Obama's been elected -- not even a week ago. But it's HIS energy crisis?

Give the guy a chance. He's WAY smarter the clowns we've had in there lately. Let's just see what he does.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 12:23PM

Melvin --

You had some stiff competition. But indeed, yours is the dumbest post I've ever read on the internet.

And if you say anything mean back, I'll tell the Grinch and he'll come take your Christmas tree away.

Marc Jeric| 11.10.08 @ 12:45PM

Comments (random):
1) Which race is racists, white or black? 50% of whites voted for Abu Hussein, as well as 95% of blacks. The answer - blacks are racist, whites are not.
2) Terrorists are not an army associated with a nation - they are international criminals engaged in mass murder of civilians. They should be treated just we treat deadly viruses or bacteria - death on the spot - no ACLU criminals to intervene.
3) Man-made globaloney warming scam has been proven to be such by 31,000 scientists (9,000 of them PhD's) who signed "Petition on global warming" and "Manhattan Resolution" (see Internet);
4) Several centuries were spent by people searching for a perpetuum mobile, an eternal youth stone, and a chemical process to transform lead into gold; that's why we call those centuries "dark ages". Today we have the so-called "environmentalists" engaged in promoting wind and solar power - a totally unreliable and enormously expensive scam to be subsidized by trillions of depreciating dollars.
5) The far-left has left us with a veritable gallery of morons and rogues, starting with what's his name Gene, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, that disbarred felon Clinton, Gore, and now the successful Abu Hussein - have you seen the Arab Street dancing again?
6) After the Clinton recession of 2000-2001 aggravated by the Clinton-caused terrorist attack of 9/11, we had 5 years of extraordinary economic growth with minimal unemployment; then came the Democrat majority in 2006, followed by this financial crisis caused entirely by the Pelosi-Reid-Frank-Dodd-Shumer clique, and by the ongoing recession and growing unemployment.
7) Now a prediction - with Abu Hussein in power we will see socialized medicine, massive nationalization of industries, unheard-of inflation, energy boondoggles by trillions, gas at $4.50 plus a gallon, government-sponsored make-work projects, and no nuclear power plants, no oil drilling, massive and expropriating tax increases, urban riots, sky-rocketing crime rates, marxist court appointments - well, I am running out of predictions but you see the trend.

stphdys| 11.10.08 @ 12:53PM

Dr Right you haven't been right about any thing as far as I see. The "White Repubican Media" labeled Obama Messiah, so cut that crap! Being the naive boy that you are you haven't came out of the cosmos enough to see that for the last "30 years the republican strategy is completly wrong us less you would have us believe that giving away jobs, and incuring debt to the enemy is the correct way to grow American Ideas. You just stay in your dream world and look up to your own Messiahs the Corporate Gods.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 12:58PM

To: John Smith

Re: Short on facts, long on cliches...

Now read carefully, John. Instead of cutting-n-pasting from a Lib website, I'm using my vastly superior brain to refute your idiocy.

To the first charge: (#1)

WRONG.

The USA does NOT need the permission of the UN to go to war. Never has - never will. We are a sovereign nation. Our sovereignity was attacked on 9/11 (maybe you heard?), and we responded by making lots of dead terrorists.

The decision to invade Iraq was based on a careful analysis of 10+ years of intelligence gathering by the CIA, MI-6, and other foreign intelligence services. This includes the tenure of the "brilliant" Clinton Administration. Not ONE of these intellignece services would have been willing to go on record and say "Oh, there's no WMD in Iraq!"

Additionally, the UN that you love and owe allegiance to passed no less than 14 resolutions against Iraq and Saddam Hussein for failing to live up to his obligations after the cease-fire in 1991, and dismantle his WMD.

SCORE: Doctor Right - 1; John Smith - 0

To the second charge: (#2)

WRONG.

No "torture" was authorized. If you call water-boarding "torture", then you've never been tortured. "Thousands of captives" WERE NOT tortured, and "dozens" did not die from said "torture". If you claim they did...Cite the case. If you cite "Abu-Ghraib"...then pardon me while I spit-up laughing! Making naked men play twister is not exactly on-par with the best, most painful methods of Hitler's S.S. or Stalin's NKVD, but hey, it's good for a laugh!!!

SCORE: Doctor Right - 2; John Smith - 0

To the third charge: (#3)

WRONG.

You Libs REALLY have problems listening and comprehending SIMPLE facts:

1. Terrorists DO NOT qualify for the protections of the Geneve Convention. They never signed the treaty themselves (they can't, since they're officially STATELESS), and they are classified as "Illegal Enemy Combatants". The GC only applies to enemy soldiers in uniform. Did ya' get that??? Therefore, when caught, they're meat. We can hold them , transport them, and water-board them to our hearts content! (Sucks to be an illegal enemy combatant!)

2. Foreign citizens DO NOT qualify for the protections afforded to US Citizens under the "U.S". Constitution. This means they don't get mirandized, and they don't get due process. Would you like to have a lawyer in every fox-hole, you moron??

SCORE: Doctor Right - 3; John Smith - 0

To the Fourth Charge (#4):

WRONG.

This one is laughable. Terrorists hide in civilian neighborhoods, and wear civilian clothing. They do this on purpose. If civilians are killed while fighting terrorists, blame the terrorists who put them in jeopardy.

And if lame-brained "journalists" get killed while putting themselves in harm's way during a war...Well, have you ever heard the joke "What do you call 1,000 journalists chained to a rock and tossed into the ocean?" Answer: A good start!

"Illegal weapons"? If you lame-brains were as indignant about terrorism as you are about the ways in which we defend ourselves, this would be a different war.

SCORE: Doctor Right - 4; John Smith - 0

To the fifth charge (#5)

WRONG.

Actually, I already addressed this one. If the Democrats thought this was "illegal", I guess they shouldn't have sided with Bush, and voted to approve the program (which was itself approved by a Federal Judge). But they did vote for it - including Barack Hussein Obama. Know why? Because they know that the American public approves of it, and they didn't have the GUTS to vote against it. Wow. What leadership...

SCORE: Doctor Right - 5; John Smith - 0

To the sixth charge (#6).

WRONG.

To this, I can only say "What the hell are you talking about??"

You do realize that we DON'T have a Parliamentary system in the USA, right? That the President DOES NOT have to do what Congress says or wants simply because they say it...right???

Oy...

SCORE: Doctor Right - 6; John Smith - 0

To the seventh charge (#7)

WRONG.

This one is PARTICULARLY amusing, since anyone with a brain knows that Gore tried to steal the election in 2000, and was soundly thrashed I recommend you read "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election", by Bill Sammon. Of course, the "conventional wisdom" is that it was Bush who tried to steal it...Sorry, the facts say otherwise. Democrats have been stealing elections for years, including 1960, when the dead won Illinois for John Kennedy, so you can go cry to someone else on that charge.

But just for the sake of argument...Let's say that your insinuation is true, and that Bush DID "steal" the 2000 election. Good! Al Gore is a dangerously deluded incompetent who should not be allowed anywhere near the White House...So keeping him out was for the good of the nation, including you!

Now, as far as 2004 and 2006 are concerned...Stop whining and pony-up the proof. I won't hold my breath...

SCORE: Doctor Right - 7; John Smith - 0

To the eighth charge (#8)

WRONG.

The "leaker" of the identity of Valerie Plame (who was NOT a covert agent) was Richard Armitage, who worked in the State Department for Colin Powell. Both Powell and Armitage KNEW who leaked the information, and they let an innocent man, Scooter Libby, hang for it. That's REAL honorable. The Fitzgerald Inquiry did NOT uncover 1 scintilla of evidence proving that Bush, Cheney, et al had anything at all to do with this episode (which was fake, and cooked-up to cover for Joseph Wilson's incompetence, and Plame's complicity in getting him the assignment). Libby was not found guilty of "leaking". He was charged with giving false statements to a Grand Jury.

So you need to get your facts straight. Nice try.

And since when do Libs care about CIA agents???

SCORE: Doctor Right - 8; John Smith - 0

To the ninth charge (#9)

WRONG.

No "Unitary Executive Theory" exists, except in the minds of Libs. Additionally, much of these "privelige" assertions were made in the face of numerous, excessive, frivolous, and unconstitutional demands by Congress for access to confidential discussions between the President and his staff, and requests for Congressional authority in the War Powers Act that exceed the Constitution.

Please produce the actual brief that requests a suspension of Habeus Corpus for US citizens accused of criminal/civil acts that violate state and local laws. We already covered this - and I already proved you dead wrong.

SCORE: Doctor Right - 9; John Smith - 0

To the tenth charge (#10)

WRONG.

This one is the BEST (meaning "the stupidest").

First of all, it's not the President's Constitutional Duty to "assist after a hurricane".

Secondly, and most importantly, any disaster in New Orleans is the DIRECT results of 100+ years of Democrat-Party government, including Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society". In summation, New Orleans, and the state of Louisiana, have (until recently) been governed EXCLUSIVELY by the Democrat Party. The failure of state and local officials to assist the citizens of New Orleans was a failure of the Democrat Party'sa official policies.

The Democrats made the people of New Orleans into drones who are completely dependent upon "government" to survive. Most of them had lost even the common sense to get the hell out of town. The Mayor (a democrat) and the Governor (a democrat) refused the Fderal government's initial offer of assistance. The Democrats also approved the design of the levees.

Notice the difference in response to Hurrican Ike. The new Governor, Bobby Jindal, is the first Republican Governor in the history of Louisiana. Not coincidentally, the evacuation and aftermath of Ike went VERY smoothly...Or the Lib-Media would have made sure we heard about it.

FINAL SCORE:

DOCTOR RIGHT: 10
John Smith:

Stphdys| 11.10.08 @ 1:34PM

Paul O' Neil as claimed that Bush was planning the invasion of Iraq months after is election and finding suitor for exploration of the Iraq oil field. Also CIA Director Tenant informed Bush that Sadam didn't have WMD's and Bush dismissed this information. The report was written instead to look like he had so that Bush could continue his plan and become a real "Commander and Chief" creating the situation his father had but didn't act on. Don't just read on article and base your argument or should I say inflate your head as to have us think you are intelligent. Quite trying to run that rush limbaugh crap with your ridicules rant that you believe your self. Most CIA, and National Security Personell continue to disprove the notion that Iraq should have been attached. So instead of going after the terrorist we just helped shuffle them into Iraq. Like I said before you are nieve.

Robert| 11.10.08 @ 1:36PM

John Smith...go back to stumpfing Pochohantas. Quit wasting space here. You and that other borrowed 'patriot' namesake Thomas Payne-in-the-neck...go back to Daily Kos and Huffington whence you came. You way out of your league here .

This is a blog for thinkers...not Dem KoolAid purveyors. I suggest targeting your vast reserve of hatred and elitism for Hussein Obama' s Sturmabteilung Corps. You both meet all the intellectual qualifications. All you'll need are jackboots and a brown shirt.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 1:37PM

Dr Right--

Just a few corrections. Some of Geneva's provisions do constrain us with respect to irregulars. You're correct to say that the more well-known provisions only apply to uniformed, legitimate soldiers, but there are also provisions dating back decades that cover any prisoners whatsoever. If they're completely subdued, in captivity, treating them in degrading, dehumanizing ways is against Geneva.

There are also US laws that govern the treatment of any prisoners whatsoever, and many of those laws may have been violated by some soldiers or agents of the government. That should concern you as a citizen, although I see it probably does not.

Finally, you misunderstand the spirit of the US Constitution ENTIRELY, which is unfortunate.

The Constitution is NOT necessarily there to protect only US citizens. Remember, when the founders were writing the founding documents, there was no such thing as a "US citizen."

The Constitution puts a restraint on government power. The overall point is to prevent the government from abusing coercive power at all, whether with respect to citizens or anyone else.

Sexual humiliation, threatening prisoners with death or even rape, depriving prisoners of sleep and food for weeks, and other forms of abuse are certainly contrary to a number of legal and treaty obligations.

They are also the actions of the weak. Cruelty is weakness as the world sees it.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 3:11PM

To: My fellow Conservatives

Re: Liberal trolls on TAS Online

Dear Friends,

Don't despair about the Libs who are trolling these boards ("Obama Rules", "John Smith", etc). They're losers looking to get a rise out of us in the wake of a depressing election result (which really wasn't all that surprising, given the caliber of the person that the Republican Party oligarchy nominated).

Don't treat them like the thugs at DailyKos.com treat anyone with a dissenting opinion (I should know - I've been banned from DailyKos at least 5 times under different aliases).

At TAS Online, we're not fascists; we're FOR Free Speech, and the open exchange of ideas, even the REALLY stupid ones (like "Change") that get liberals elected. We will fight to the death for a Liberal's right to be a Liberal (OK...that may be a stretch...And I don't want to presume to speak for the rest of you, but you get the point)

So welcome them here with open arms, and let them spew their vitriolic idiocy. Think about it - the most important thing is that they're HERE, reading TAS Online. Maybe they'll even learn something! And, once the reality of the Obama Presidency sinks in, as opposed to the fantasy, some of them may even become zealous converts to Conservatism!

I had one "Kos-kid" at DailyKOS.com tell me point-blank:

"We're not about Free Speech!"

Truer words were never spoken.

So let's be better than they are.

And when they say something stupid (and they will), use our superior grasp of the facts to shove it right down their weasily, un-American, Obama-lovin' throats.

Good times!

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 3:21PM

To: Tom Paine

Re: 10-0 vs. "John Smith"...You want a beating, too?

Dear Tom:

Sorry, but as someone who makes a living as a writer, I have some advice for you:

Cite the source.

Just saying it isn't good enough. Oh, it may be good enough for an Obama-drone who voted for the empty-headed "Change"...But it ain't workin' 'round here, know what ah'm sayin'??

Your brief treatise on the Constitution is a Joke. The Constitution was officially adopted in 1787. The last major action of the Revolutionary War was the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. That's 6 years later, AFTER the negotiated surrender by the British which led to this thing called "Independence"...maybe you've heard of it??

Also, the Constitution exists for the SOLE PURPOSE if protecting American Citizens...Not Zimbabweans, or Saudis, or Argentinians. I'm not sure what they're teaching you in High School, but your Mommy and Daddy should sue your local school board.

Come back when you have facts, Jr,...not opinions.

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 3:54PM

Dr Right --

Citizens were defined differently in 1787 AND in 1791. But my larger point was that the founders began as citizens of Britain to found a new country, of which no one was yet citizen.

The point is that their aspirations were bigger than securing a few liberties for themselves. The Constitution primarily shapes and defines government by constraining its power, not primarily by selecting a group of people for whom liberty is secured.

It's a small difference, but in this case it's a difference that makes all the difference.

The reason we have prison camps in other countries is because the Constitution is alive to any expression of government power on US soil.

The Constitution limits many actions by the government outside of the US as well, although precisely how it does becomes more complicated. Which is precisely why Gitmo is where Gitmo is.

If Eisenhower could come back from the dead and see a US soldier engaged in sexual humiliation of ANYONE, I can guarantee you he would never stop throwing up.

It's not right, it's not effective, it's against the principles upon which this country was founded, and it's devastating to the standing of this country in the world.

That's the fact, Jack.

boozebuster| 11.10.08 @ 3:56PM

This is my first and maybe last time here at the spectator. I am looking for a safe place to educate myself on conservative views.. This site is brutal..so much negative and harsh criticism of anyones opinions..

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 4:01PM

Dr Right

See also that I said "founding documents." Included -- and first -- among them is the Declaration. You wanted a cited text. Try this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

No mention of US citizenship there, partner (which, of course, would be impossible).

Jefferson is laying the groundwork for a form of government that will take hold living up to universal principles of justice -- just as good in Indonesia as in Connecticut.

Happy holidays, comrade. And keep the aspidistra flying.

megapotamus| 11.10.08 @ 4:08PM

So it's Korea and not North or South Korea? If there are 11 reactors being built total what's the distribution? Just a joke but let's not forget the simple facts of geography since we are already forgetting the facts of economics, history and now even physics. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Not in physics, not in economics and contrary to temporary appearances, politics. Doesn't anyone remember that the rolling blackouts in CA destroyed Gray Davis. If unremedied energy shortages will destroy any politician. If he allows them to occur and persist, they will destroy Obama. We are living now on our principal in nearly every realm. It will be exhausted shortly and again, our little party will be crashed by reality. You can BlameBush til doomsday. He didn't invent winter. And Obama can't stop it.

ToAnthony| 11.10.08 @ 4:10PM

Anthony, you may be right about the Obama's Civilian Security Force standing on every street corner. I can GUARANTEE you this: I'll be standing there with my Smith and Wesson dealing out HOT LEAD to every OBAMA corps member that tresspasses on my property! Bring that crap to Texas and see how many of them die...

Out

John Smith| 11.10.08 @ 4:16PM

Dr. Right: Senior members of the Bush administration made repeated claims that Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction and WMD programs, and was a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States and the world.

Following the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, many months of exhaustive investigations found no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. No evidence of active WMD programs was found.

Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the first Gulf War, and was never reconstituted. Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. Its biological weapons were destroyed in 1991 and 1992. Through 1998, U.N. weapons inspectors repeatedly checked suspected facilities, and had installed cameras to monitor activity at these sites.

Additionally, Bush officials suggested a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, citing as evidence contacts dating back over a decade.

They specifically claimed that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al-Qaeda, could supply the terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction, and could join forces with them to attack America.

However, there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Although some meetings were held between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda – these never led to any ongoing relationships. Mutual distrust and animosity between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden made forging such a relationship highly improbable.

davod| 11.10.08 @ 5:09PM

"Dr. Right: Senior members of the Bush administration made repeated claims that Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction and WMD programs, and was a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States and the world. "

You silly Billy:

Everyone was saying that Sadaam had WMD.

You really need to get your facts straight. As I recall, going into Iraq was a pre-emptive action because of the threat of what Sadaam might do based upon his history.

We now know that the oil-for-food sanctions were a sham, with a number of countries on the UN Security Council involved in the corruption.

George Bruce| 11.10.08 @ 5:19PM

Tom Paine | 11.10.08 @ 11:20AM

"Rush Limbaugh has declared the nation in an "Obama Recession," a hilarious bit of political hyperbole for the record books. "

Very true. Limbaugh should have called it a Dodd/Franks Recession. Obama was simply not in the US Senate long enough to be blamed for more than a proportionate share of the sub-prime mortgage mess. However, he was the second largest recipient of FNMA campaign contributions during his short time in the Senate. Obviously the FNMA managers, who did more than anyone to instigate the sub-prime crisis, figured Obama would be good for business as usual............ at least until the roof fell in. I did read somewhere that Obama was involved in a 1990's lawsuit against Citibank to enforce the CRA against them. If I remember correctly, a consent decree was entered to force Citibank to make one half of their loans to sub-prime borrowers.

Still, Limbaugh does exaggerate a little.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 5:27PM

To: Tom Paine

Re: Continued avoidance of reality, etc...

Dear Tom,

Nice try. I ask for specifc examples, you offer more pablum and opinions.

To wit:

"Citizens were defined differently in 1787 AND in 1791. "

Ok...Sounds good...But can you DESCRIBE this difference??? Can you prove that it even existed?? No...

"...The founders began as citizens of Britain to found a new country, of which no one was yet citizen."

By declaring independence, they knew that the Crown considered them traitors. It was a de-facto re-nunciation of British Citizenship, which, in any case, was never formally granted to each and every colonist...So, you're wrong again...

"The point is that their aspirations were bigger than securing a few liberties for themselves."

Yes...They wanted to secure liberty for an entire nation which they called "The United States of America"...Not "France", or "Australia", or "Lichtenstein". What you say sounds nice, but there's absolutely NO basis in fact for believeing that this is anything but your whimsical supposition...

"It's a small difference, but in this case it's a difference that makes all the difference."

Ummm...Sure...

"If Eisenhower could come back from the dead and see a US soldier engaged in sexual humiliation of ANYONE, I can guarantee you he would never stop throwing up."

Are you laboring under the strange misconception that US Soldiers weren't arrested and executed during World War 2 for crimes against the civilian populaces in the countries they occupied?? Are you really that naive?? US Soldiers have committed rape and murder in all major wars - WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc...It's simply a fact of life that when you put hundreds of thousands of men together in one place, inevitably, some of them will be scum-bags. And when those scum-bags do scummy things and get caught they're punished...By Uncle Sam. Unlike you, I recognize that this type of behavior in US Soldiers is the EXCEPTION...NOT the rule. And also unlike you, I have a hard time believing that Dwight David Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, would have "thrown-up" when he heard about Abu-Ghraib. He was a grown man, not some limp-wristed liberal panty-waist. he probably would have said "Hmmmph. Find the idiots responsible...If they broke the law, punish them."

Your other post that references the Declaration of Independence is a straw-man. The Declaration of Independence is exactly that...A "declaration" of the rights of man, a lofty document expressing the will of the founders...The Constitution explains specifically how that new nation will be Governed. That's not a small difference...It's HUGE.

Please come back...I enjoy educating you.

Doctor Right| 11.10.08 @ 5:32PM

To: John Smith

Re: Should I toss you a life preserver??

"Through 1998, U.N. weapons inspectors repeatedly checked suspected facilities, and had installed cameras to monitor activity at these sites."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The UN Inspectors were repeatedly turned away by Saddam Hussein once he realized that the UN mandate had no teeth, and the UN lacked the guts to enforce their numerous resolutions.

Clinton is ON RECORD in 1998 excoriating Hussein for his refusal to grant access to the insoectors, despite the resolutions. Clinton, his cabinet, and the intelligence services, all believed that Hussein had WMD...

If yopu want to re-write history to impress a bunch of Lib-chicks, be my guest...But it don't work 'round here...

Tom Paine| 11.10.08 @ 6:19PM

Tom Paine has a few parting words.

1. The paranoiacs and bigots among you make your entire political philosophy sound like something history will soon pass by, without regret.
2. The anti-intellectualism being cultivated in your midst is a huge mistake. Conservatives did well when they offered new ideas and made strong arguments defending them. Curling up into a ball and whining about the NY Times just makes you sound weak and foolish. William F Buckley was a highly cultured elitist and a proud intellectual. There's nothing wrong with elitism when you believe in creating a society in which everyone has the chance to become a part of the elite.
3. Happy Holidays, comrades.

GOP305| 11.10.08 @ 6:48PM

Doctor Right is pretty much ending the comments for this discussion. An educated conservative tops kool aid drinking libs any day

Anthony| 11.10.08 @ 8:09PM

I can't stop thinking about when during the campaign, as the energy issue was starting to register with the voters, that Obama and the Democrats passed that sham oil drilling legislation upon their return from another recess. It was all a calculated and cold-blooded lie, to deceive voters that drilling for more domestic oil was going to happen. And now, today, Obama announces executive orders to cancel out that sham legislation. When will the dupes learn?These Democrats are the lowest of the low, they have no shame and no morality. They are hard core reprobates that will do everything and anything for power. P.S. ToAnthony: I'd be proud to stand side by side with you.

Scrapiron| 11.10.08 @ 10:32PM

Me think John Smith has been in the Koolaide jar. Better watch that, Hussein O will spike it like the Revrund Jones did or maybe have Revrund Wright do his dirty work.
It might be fun watching the 'O' lovers have to call their lord and master to get permission to read book or talk to a neighbor. Funny, but I remember the communist takeover (by democrat design) of South Vietnam. First they came for the politicians, then they came for the teachers, then they came for those who considered themselves educated elitest. Have you ever seen the massive piles of bones of what was once Vietnam's liberal progressives? I have a link to actual pictures somewhere but will just wait and see the real thing, democrat bones. Welcome to your very own nightmare.

Howard ino| 11.10.08 @ 11:16PM

This is a CLASSIC:

"The case for impeaching George W. Bush is clear and convincing and has been discussed at length elsewhere."

And we just elected a Marxist...

John... you have to be kidding!!!!!

Just damn!!!!!

Danny L. Newton| 11.11.08 @ 4:17AM

Liberals are immune from performance standards and anyone pointing out that any proposed solution will perform poorly because it violates some law of physical science or the dismal science of economics. The limitations of wind energy are well known and have been for centuries. The physics behind energy conversion have been well know and can be mastered by 14 year olds with or without Chinese calculators.
Telling them that a car has been shown to be more efficient than a bus in terms of BTU consumption per passenger mile in eight out of the last ten years of available data turns on no light. Trying to point out that trains are not as efficient as highways in terms of passenger miles of production only makes them more adamant about building them. Tell them that the reason that roads routinely produce higher passenger throughput at lower overall costs because cars can pass each other and trains can not, except in exotic circumstances, just makes them livid. Explaining to them that transit has limits because we are already spending 15,5% of the gas tax money on 1.5% of the population simply does not compute. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable that the Social Security system is heading toward two people supporting one retired person. No problem for them... sounds more intimate rather than impractical. Costs don't matter because they have the magic redistribution wand to wave over every silly concept. It is the thought that counts.
Part of this mental block comes from full acceptance that Keynesian Economics assures that every ditch that can be fallen into can be overcome with a deficit spending tow truck. This is a little like belief in reincarnation. If this economy fails, we will spend our way to a better one. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation is one that showcases their belief that performance standards do not matter. There is no such thing as an under performing mortgage. The only performance they are interested in is the political performance of gratitude at the polls. The ratio of income to debt is just another evil performance measure that means to keep people down.

RightinMissouri| 11.11.08 @ 4:40AM

Dr. Right,
In short… I like your style.

Line by line you have articulated what it means to be staunchly opposed to all that the “regressives” on the left have to offer. Now, if I can just place where I have read your work before. Your writing style gives me some hints but I am still unable to recollect. Any hints?

John Smith and Tom Paine are so far out their league and they simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

Keep up the good work!!!

Richard Argyll| 11.11.08 @ 4:49AM

France is also building wind turbines. They have a major wind energy program.
Brazil and China also are major wind energy builders. China plans 30-100GW by 2020. Even South Korea is getting into wind energy.

So it' s not quite relevant to compare the US to other nations and claim they are doing mostly nuclear.

Richard Argyll| 11.11.08 @ 4:50AM

Not mentioned here is that all the major nuclear programs are government run. France's was virtually 100% government started and run, put in place by a completely socialist system,

Bill Woods| 11.11.08 @ 4:03PM

'But at best windmills produce only 30 percent of their "nameplate capacity" and they are almost useless on torpid summer days.'

Actually windmills produce their nameplate capacity when the wind is blowing strongly — it's just that it usually isn't.

'The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has nodded agreement and will require an environmental impact statement before early site clearance can begin. That will probably add three years to the [Vogtle] project.'

Probably not. The Early Site Permit was expected to be issued in early 2009; this may push that back a little. But the Construction and Operating License isn't going to be issued to 2011 or so anyway, so there needn't be any delay in the start of construction.

Jim Hussein Smith| 11.11.08 @ 5:05PM

John Smith –

Your reasoning to impeach Bush and Cheney are humorous at best, ludicrous on average, and leftist mantra at worst.

1. Sorry, this wasn’t an illegal war, it was signed into law by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. You don’t remember the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)? It’s ok to feel silly if you don’t. As for UN permission to throw a war, President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton set the precedence to ignore the UN when it comes to warfare by invading Kosovo.

2. I can understand your squeamishness over the treatment of prisoners, I too demanded that they be treated by the strict confines of the Geneva Convention – which allocated each prisoner one blindfold and one bullet in the head. Or noose if you so prefer.

3. Your weak argument #3 is worthless, the US Constitution does not address prisoners of war. We would have to defer to agreements such as the Geneva Convention which calls for the death penalty for partisans attacking uniformed soldiers.

4. If, as you hysterically claim civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances were intentionally targeted, that would be a court martial for the officer that ordered such a raid. It wasn’t like we bombed the Chinese Embassy on direct orders from President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is it?

5. & 6. The US Constitution does not address wires, telephones, email, or “signing statements”

7. Of course there were dishonest things going on in the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections, as were in the 2008 elections, but you can’t hold a Republican president responsible for the obstructionist and illegal actions of the Democrats.

8. If you’re talking about Valerie Plame you’re as daft in reality as you appear on paper. Keep in mind that Valerie was not an undercover operative at that period of time, it was a Democrat who blew her ‘cover’ (if there ever was one) it was her husband who was supposedly “working on sensitive WMD proliferation” at the presidents request and her husband LIED about his findings.

9. There’s nothing illegal about promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Abraham Lincoln proved that (but I can see from your letter you have a public school education when it comes to history.

10. The only negligence that was gross when dealing with Hurricane Katrina was not demanding that Ray Naggin be shot for intentionally risking the lives of his citizens for purely political reasons. If you want to impeach Bush for ignoring 09/11/01 warnings, you have to imprison William Jefferson Blythe Clinton for ignoring warnings about 2/26/93, 06/25/96, 08/07/98, and 10/12/00. And you’re still drinking the Global Warming Kool-Aid?

You’re nearly an entertaining person, John, but that last bit about air pollution and Global Warming tipped us all off that it’s well past time for your medications

Chris| 11.11.08 @ 10:33PM

Sorry Tom Paine, you did not convince me. Does that make me a bigot as well?

DJ in Korea| 11.12.08 @ 2:04AM

OK, let me add a few items to this. I'm an Air Force reservist who got called up after 9/11. I worked in some areas where I was privvy to some interesting information. I'd love to be able to tell you a lot of the things I saw "behind the curtain," but anyone who has ever played a card game knows you "don't tip your hand." The reason a lot of things are not told to the American public is we don't want the bad guys to know what we know or even what we DO NOT know. It's called keeping secrets and "giving the baddies enough rope to hang themselves." The media has proved itself repeatedly as not being able to keep its collective mouth shut, so why give the baddies any help?

Next, CO2 as a pollutant? Every time I hear that I just want to hurl. Global warming? Yes, it's IS happening and HAS happened since 10,000 years ago, since the LAST ICE AGE ENDED! Anthropogenic Climate Change? Hogwash, monkey muffins, El Toro Ca-ca, etc. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s statement of purpose is to PROVE that man is causing the climate to warm/cool. Carbon trading is no better than the air credits we endured a few decades back. Remember those? A small "Mom & Pop Shop," who had a negligible impact on air quality, could sell their air credits to "Mega-Corp," who was belching out tons of (actual!) pollutants. However, CO2 trading is actually the buying and selling of bolts of the cloth used to make "The Emperor's New Clothes." I saw a usful term for such Socialist Environmental Extremists. The author referred to them as "watermelons," "green" on the outside, "red" on the inside.

We are still fighting wealth distribution proponents. They are no longer called "Socialists." They are now "Progressives." Who doesn't want "progress?" I don't. Things are progressively getting worse. I used to think that Earned Income Credit was a good thing. Then I started looking at the tax structure of the USA as a whole. WTF?!?! OMG!!! Wealth redistribution!!! And our new Dear Leader wants to do more of the same?

I know this is off-topic, but how 'bout immigration control? No other country allows babies born in their country instant citizenship. The ones that did soon changed their Constitutions/Charters/etc when they saw the flood of immigrants creating "anchor babies." Why don't we make an amendment as such and I bet we'd see a serious slow down of illegal immigration. That and bring back the draft. You move here and you're between a certain age, you go into the pool.

Apathy and complacency. Those are our two enemies. Do you remember the internet story about the wild pigs and free corn? Google it up and see if a chill doesn't run down your spine after reading it. Next look up the stages of a Democracy. If the pigs/corn story didn't slap you awake, that one might. If not, then you are just one more Socialist "watermelon" that needs to move to "Eurabia."

aaron| 11.12.08 @ 8:56PM

When has UCS opposed reactors?

Ms. Know| 11.15.08 @ 8:01PM

I can't believe this is making the news, oh yes I can, because now that the liberal illuminati have gotten into office, the media will talk about.