The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.2.10 @ 7:07AM

The Tea Party, who I support, did not make it OK to oppose the President, the Congress and their agenda to remake this country.

The Constitution does that and Thank God we have it.

Stephanie| 7.2.10 @ 11:10AM

Amen.

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 1:02PM

Yes, it’s the Constitution that makes "it OK to oppose this president, this Congress."

The “Tea Party” is nothing more than a rebranding of the Republican Party. Yes, it’s the SAME people supporting the SAME tried politicians offering the SAME failed ideas responsible for “an economy in shambles, one of its largest environmental messes growing roughly as rapidly as the national debt, two hot wars simmering…”

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 1:09PM

" The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic "

Janet Goss| 7.2.10 @ 3:15PM

Tim,

There are quite a lot of Libertarians that are Tea Party members also.

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 3:55PM

Janet , you are right . There are Libertarians ,as well .

We are a Motley Crew Of Rebels and We like it that way.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Remember In November.

Aaron Cohn| 7.2.10 @ 7:51PM

Absolutely untrue here in Texas. Our local tea party is essentially a conservative offshoot of the republican party. They support the local republican candidate even though he did prison time for a violent felony, because he's seen as having the best chance of beating the democrat. The first poster is essentially correct here. Libertarians and their viewpoints are not welcome or particularly well tolerated in the tea party. I know since I'm the libertarian congressional candidate in this part of texas & a former member of the tea party. I resigned.

mwrg| 7.2.10 @ 8:31PM

I think it's fair to say that, in those areas where local politics were more shifted to the so-called Progressive left, then the Tea Parties have been by nature more "rag-tag", "rebellious", etc.

It's only natural that, in those areas in which the local political zeitgeist already resembled that of the Tea Party, that much of the same players are those from the Tea Party.

In either event, it shows the new enthusiasm for the notion of limited government.

I challenge anyone to tell me the evils the Tea Party is foisting on America. I only see a group of responsible, concerned citizenry.

Letscheck| 7.3.10 @ 2:13AM

The Truth. No one knows who or how many are associated with the Tea Party. We know that Obama very much wants to know that information. So do the liberal media.

No one will ever know how many people are Tea Party supporters or what their demographics are because they don't need to know.

Obama chose to "not see any Tea Party" when they showed up in Washington over a million strong.

He has his wish. He cannot see the Tea Party. Just glimpses here and there.

Bruce| 7.3.10 @ 11:21AM

You "resigned" from your local Tea party, Mr. Cohn? Perhaps you can explain how one "resigns" from a group that essentially has no defined leadership, no cohesive structure, and does not follow any particular party line?

If you left the loose group of Constitutionalists referred to generally as Tea party groups, it is because your personal agenda did not conform to the masses. Rarely does for Libertarians, I think - certainly those known as "Paulbots."

Charles Martel| 7.5.10 @ 7:33PM

Ironic, really, since the Tea Parties here in Houston overflow with libertarians.

The 15th Congressional District is an obvious Democrat gerrymander. Created after the 1900 Census, the seat has since then been held by only SIX people, all of them Democrats. The current incumbent, Ruben Hinojosa, first elected in 1996, won re-election in 2008 with 65.7% of the vote -- against the same Republican he'll be facing this November, so that "best chance" to which you refer would appear to lie somewhere between slim and none. (The Republican, Eddie Zamora. got 32% last time, leaving some 2.3% "other": good luck with that Libertarian bid, Mr. Cohn. By the way, whining probably won't help.)

+++

Jeffrey| 7.8.10 @ 5:02PM

Aaron,
Which Republican candidate are you referring to? I try to follow Texas politics and haven't heard of any convicted felons running for Congress. Actually, if felons can't vote, I thought they were barred from running for office too.

I'm in San Antonio & my experience with the TEA Party supporters is that are mostly people that were essentially apolitical and suffering until the various TEA Party groups gave them a microphone to scream into.

Clinton nee Publius| 7.2.10 @ 1:47PM

Begging your pardon, but which failed policies would those be that you are referring to?

All of the social welfare policies of our country were falsely promoted by the Democratic Party.

Social Security is a failure. The President who proposed it was Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress passed it. None of the original promises of the program were kept by the sponsoring party. That would mean it is a failure. Today it is bankrupt and that means it is an even bigger failure.

Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Public Housing were proposed by Johnson and passed by a Democratic Congress. We were promised that Medicare and Medicaid would not cost more than $10 billion per annum at the 30-year horizon and the reality is that it cost 30 times more than that - a complete failure. Today Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt and that makes them an even bigger failure.

Public housing and welfare were pitched as an end to poverty and slums. In the first year of the benefit (1966) a little more than 13% of American households lived in poverty. Last year a little more than 13% of households were mired in poverty. That's a complete failure. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who wants to live in public housing as the current crop of public housing has become the current slums that government has bastardized and left for us to clean up.

In 1971 the Democrat Congress took over AMTRAK and we were told the subsidies would end within 5 years and AMTRAK would become self-sufficient. Today AMTRAK is broke and the subsidy is 45 times the original amount we were told we would have to pay to sustain it. I call that a failure and its current sorry state is testament to the failure of liberal policies.

In the end, only a Democratic liberal-progressive could take control of a monopoly and run it into bankruptcy.

Our policies don't fail because we know government is not the answer. Rational Choice Theory prevents the government from being successful and the laws of mathematics prevent the government from being as efficient as the private-sector in delivering any service or benefit.

The reality is that we have had to bear witness to 100 years of failed liberal-progressive policies. Not just a few failures - we're talking a track record of 100% failure - as in each and every time.

Please, don't come in here and rant unless you like the idea of having the fire beaten out of you by me each time you make a ridiculous pronouncement like this. On the other hand, go ahead and rant. You rant and I'll be happy to post the facts and wipe the floors with you. I have a feeling it's a division of labor you are used to enduring.

IndependentDem| 7.2.10 @ 2:59PM

Clear and eloquent. Thank you.

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 4:42PM

“Today it [Social Security] is bankrupt” and “today Medicare …. are bankrupt.”

Really? The main source of borrowed money to finance Reagan, Bush, and Bush deficit spending is Intra-governmental Holdings ($4.5 trillion), which is primary the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
$4.5 trillion is a long way from “bankrupt.”

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

I know, research is not an attribute of “ditto heads” or “Fox News” viewers.

Tom| 7.2.10 @ 5:16PM

Really. They are bankrupt. Intra-governmental holdings consists of debt instruments such as Treasuries. They are future promises to pay, not cash. Current cash flow is from tax receipts. When the current cash flow does not meet the maturing future promises to pay, you are bankrupt. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are technically bankrupt since current receipts cannot meet their demands. As a point of history, Bush haterd notwithstanding, Lyndon Johnson and his Congress were the first to set aside the fiduciary probabity of the Social Security System. Subsequent Congresses liked the idea so much, they continued it. Total current exposure: nearly $114 trillion not including interest. Funds available: current tax receipts which have declined nearly 30% since the Obama recession started.
Regards,

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 7:26PM

“Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are technically bankrupt since current receipts cannot meet their demands.”

Wrong, the securities held by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds constitute a savings account which is no different than any savings held by individuals, corporations, or foreign governments as government securities. "Since current receipts cannot meet their demands" these securities can be liquidated in the same way an individual, corporation, or foreign government might liquidate their securities during a period of negative cash flow.

“Total current exposure: nearly $114 trillion not including interest.”

Possibly true but meaningless, The Defense budget signed into law in October 2009 was $680 billion. “Total current exposure:” (over the next fifty years) $340 Trillion. Not including interest, war supplementals, and defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense.

Kipling| 7.3.10 @ 6:13AM

The last time I checked, $680 billion a year for 50 years was $34 trillion, not $340 trillion. Now, why don't you explain how Democrats and their social programs are so good and how Republicans are so bad? I'm sure that everyone who posts here is anxious to know what you think, particularly since you've shown such a keen intellect.

Moral: public education isn't very good.

John - TMF| 7.3.10 @ 7:40AM

Besides of which ol vtwin (hoping that isn't connected to my alma mater) hasn't a clue as to who is actually going to pony up the cash to buy those liquidated "Securities".

They are special Treasury Bonds sold to the Federal government by the federal government to transfer the payments from the social security administration to the general fund.

Those securities amount to a fancy IOU with the words... Social Security I owe you $114-trillion - Signed with love, your Uncle Sam.

Unfunded liability is accounting speak for "Money owed that can't be paid". [Most VTWIN type folks hear crickets chirping when they hear things like "unfunded liability" and "transgenerationational debt obligations" since there are lots of checks left in the checkbook.]

VTWIN... I'll keep it real simple.

There is NO MONEY in the Social Security "Trust fund"... not a dime. The "lockbox" is full of worthless paper.

How many bonds of every variety do you think we can sell? And from whom are we cashing these little gems out since the Government is the bond holder? Oh, Gee... the government. And where does the government get the money to cash in that bond that it owes itself? Oh?

Please, spare me. Social Security is a depleted Ponzi Scheme, and the generations that haven't retired will be left holding an empty bag.

Defense is a constitutionally mandated function. Social Security is a vote buying scheme concocted by the Democrats. The former is necessary the latter is regrettable.

r/The Mighty Fahvaag

vtwin| 7.3.10 @ 12:49PM

Question:
“And from whom are we cashing these little gems out since the Government is the bond holder? Oh, Gee... the government. And where does the government get the money to cash in that bond that it owes itself?”

Answer:
The taxpayer.

Clinton nee Publius| 7.4.10 @ 9:39AM

So, stealing the money (making it a Ponzi scheme) and then using an accounting trick to hide the scheme and have us pay for the benefit twice and still not get it is somehow a sustainable policy for a liberal like yourself?

Let me remind you of the promises made in order to pass Social Security that your party violated:

(1) Participation would be voluntary.

(2) The assessment would only apply to the first $1,400 in income.

(3) The assessment rate would always be 1%.

(4) The benefits would always be tax-exempt.

(5) The funds would be held in a separate trust account the government would not be able to use for other fiscal outlays.

Today it takes in less than it pays out in benefits and when those Special Trust Fund Bonds are monetized they will be worth just as much as your opinions and sly shading of the facts - which is to say nothing. Time to run along to the Party meeting; I hear the Internationale in the background.

vtwin| 7.4.10 @ 6:23PM

Asking taxpayers to repay loans YOUR government borrowed from Social Security or Medicare trust funds, is not “stealing.” Remember, to pay for the benefits provided by Social Security and Medicare wages are taxed 12%-13% in addition to the income tax. So, the “stealing” would be in the denying of those benefits.

"Today it takes in less than it pays out in benefits." Yes, but only this year because of the severe downturn in the economy. In fact since the inception of Social Security in 1930’s and Medicare in the 1960’s neither has added a dime to the national deficit now at $13 trillion but rather have provided a source of financing of this debt.

JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 6:21PM

Vtwin,

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Government statistics are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. By the way, did you notice who the board members were on one of those sites you posted? All members of the current administration, including two of whom, at least, had personal Income Tax issues. Nice try, but no cigar. Besides, I guess you haven't heard, Zogby conducted a poll on economics, and liberals came in last insofar as knowledge of economics is concerned. Care to guess who the most knowledgeable were? Members of the Tea Party, followed by Republicans. Nice try, but no cigar.

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 7:34PM

What do Social Security and Medicare trust funds ACCOUNTING STATEMENTS have to do with statistics?

Fyi, polls are statistics.

JmsA| 7.3.10 @ 8:18AM

vtwin,

"What do Social Security and Medicare trust funds ACCOUNTING STATEMENTS have to do with statistics? Fyi, polls are statistics."

Since you're oblivious to the obvious, I'll answer that question for you:

First, you need to visit this government site you posted: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Then focus on the very top of the page where you'll see the words "Actuarial Publications". For your information, actuarial consists of statistical analysis. Hence, statistics, not solely polling as you suggested. Let me know if you need any further help.

I bid you and everyone else a very Happy Fourth of July, as I'm off to fishing in the Sierras.

PS: This will help further illustrate my point: pohttp://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2009/index.htmllls

JimE| 7.5.10 @ 11:00PM

VTWIN,
You are a shithead.

vtwin| 7.6.10 @ 5:33PM

Though lacking eloquence and intelligence it's the best argument posted on this thread in defense of the “tea party” movement.

JmsA| 7.10.10 @ 12:00AM

Hey, witwin,

Please note the word forecast at the beginning of this editorial article from IBD. You need statistics to forecast, ok?:

The administration has delayed release of the 2010 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report, possibly to hide its gloomy [forecast] of U.S. finances. Meanwhile, clear thinkers are offering solutions.

The report, more than three months overdue, was more than a month behind last year. Mere incompetence? Or an effort to cover up, as Peter Ferrara wrote Wednesday in IBD's opinion pages, "sweeping draconian cuts to Medicare resulting from the ObamaCare legislation, which the annual report will document"?

Or maybe, as analysts at the Cato Institute have posed, to obscure potential significant payroll tax hikes on middle-income Americans brought by the Democrats' health care overhaul?

Whatever the case, when the report is released it will show, as it always does, that the entitlement regime is unsustainable.

Last year, the report moved up by one year, to 2016, the date Social Security will begin to drain its trust fund, that mythical place where decades of surplus Social Security payroll tax revenues have supposedly been stored. The trust fund will be exhausted in 2037.

The same report showed that Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than was projected in 2008.

Overall, Social Security and Medicare have accrued $107 trillion in unfunded liabilities — bills that they cannot pay because expected revenues aren't enough to meet the promised benefits. To pay Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits in 2050, Washington will have to use 67% of the dollars in the general fund. By 2080, it will need 89% of the general fund to finance those entitlements.

The answer is not to increase the payroll tax that funds Social Security (12.4%) and Medicare (2.9% for Part A, the hospital insurance portion). To do so would be to hang a millstone around the public's neck. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, "When today's college students reach retirement (about 2054), Social Security alone will require a 16.6% tax" to meet its obligations. "When Medicare Part A is included, the payroll tax burden will rise to 25.7% — more than one of every four dollars workers will earn that year."

Roll in Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D (the drug benefit), and the total tax burden for funding Social Security and Medicare would have to be 37% of payroll by 2054.

Nor would it make sense to hike income taxes. The Congressional Budget Office reckons that to fund the growing entitlements and the government's current level of activity, the bottom tax rate of 10% would have to be moved to 26%, the 25% rate would have to be hiked to 66% and the top rate would be 92% instead of 35%.

You were saying about tSocial Security and Medicare solvency? You can run but you can't hide: come November, you commicrats will have been in charge of congress for four years, and the country knows it.

PittsburghZ| 7.2.10 @ 7:24PM

I think we should pull out of the war. The war is lost. We can't win this war.

the War on Poverty!

Republicans should be screaming at the top of their lungs just how bad things have gone since the Dums took control of congress in 2006. But they don't have a pair...and won't.

1retired old buck| 7.5.10 @ 4:31PM

I pray it isn't always so.
I don't know if any or all of what you say here is accurate or true. However: If any of it is, it should serve as a Wake - up Call to All American's and a reminder to Taxpayers that Government has no answers and only Your money it's spending.

Al Adab| 7.2.10 @ 3:58PM

vtwin:

Sorry pal. Maybe in Vermont, but in the rest of what used to be America, the TEA Party is opposing Republicans, not Conservatives, who help get us into this mess.

After the 1994 Republican victory, there was a chance, but they failed. Liberty is too dear for you and your ilk to continue to posture this as a Dem. v Rep. issue. It is about Liberty v Statism

ObamaBinLyin| 7.3.10 @ 3:26AM

Whenever I hear some loony liberal state that the Tea Party is nothing more than a rebranding of the Republican Party, I know that person has absolutely no idea of what's really going on. (You've been watching too much Keith Olbermann and Rachel MadCow.)

Gary| 7.3.10 @ 8:45AM

The Republicans that you and those who believe like you want to blame for everything had plenty of help from Democrats and Democratic policies when the economy became a shambles. Government functionaries below the level of political appointment continue regardless of which party is in power. Most decision making federal workers have been around at least since the Clinton administration and therefore are Democrats. The world and nation has been around and getting messed up for much longer than ten short years. It really isn't all George Bush's fault!

dhenri2| 7.5.10 @ 2:00PM

You have NO idea, what you are talking about. The Tea Party is about a Constitutional limited government. The economy in shambles is directly due to Democratic Congresses funding social(istic) causes. Only Congress can allocate funds. Do a check (can you google?) on how many give-a-way programs were funded by Democrat parties, before you spout leftist drivel about Republicans. Also, 45% of Independants and numerous Democrats as well as Republicans, support Tea Party ideas.

Jeremiah| 7.2.10 @ 3:25PM

I am sorry to say we are not just on the cusp of the greatest crisis in our history; we are on the cusp of the greatest crisis in the history of western civilization.

In the Elena Kagan hearings, she said man has no inherent rights, just what is given by the Constitution. The founders said that fundamental rights precede the existence of the state - and that a state's very legitimacy is largely determined by how faithfully it defends those inherent rights. Any other formula is a recipe for despotism. By Kagan's standard, the only problem with, say, the holocaust, was administrative. If Germany had enacted legislation insisting on the extermination of Jews, it would have been legal (moral under left-wing formulations). Whoever grants rights can revoke them. If it is the creator, no man or state can revoke them. If it is man or the state, then liberty is dead and all that exists are power relationships. That is the logical end of Kagan's position - and there has scarcely been a peep about it.

We have been a self-renewing country, able to face monstrous challenges from without and within. But it is because of our commitment to first principles. Now we are about to confirm a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't even understand those principles, much less support them. Nor does she understand where her half-baked theories must inevitably lead.

As bad as the enfeebling of our military posture and the ravaging of our economy is, they pale next to the loss in the elite of any serious conception or devotion to the principles that have allowed us to recover from wounds. This time the damage is structural, not incidental.

Fortunately, we do have a 'proletariat', as it were, that, if it can't articulate its principles with the vigor and eloquence of the leading lights of the left, is nonetheless seriously committed to them. If we are to be rescued this time, rescue will not come from the leadership class, but from the proletarian classes.

And as Abraham Lincoln said before the Civil War, we shall not have peace until a great crisis has been reached and passed. We are close to reaching it. Pray that we shall be able to pass it.

Gerald Stephens| 7.4.10 @ 1:47PM

HUGE LIES REPEATED OFTEN

The Washington Times July 4, 2010:

“President Barack Obama, in a statement released in Washington, said the United States is particularly concerned about "the spread of restrictions on civil society, the growing use of law to curb rather than enhance freedom and widespread corruption that is undermining the faith of citizens in their governments."

"Some of the countries engaging in these behaviors still claim to be democracies," Clinton said at an international conference on the promotion of democracy and human rights. "Democracies don't fear their own people. They recognize that citizens must be free to come together, to advocate and agitate."

Confused about what these two actually believe? Obama, through use of his stooges in the Federal Communications Commission, is hell bent on creating regulations intended to give him the sole power to shut down the Internet at will. He and his Democrat anti-free speech goons in congress are at this moment conspiring to pass the Disclosure Act that if enacted will nullify the recent the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010). It overturned the commission’s regulations banning free speech of certain classes of citizen.

Do any of the above tactics appear familiar? How about passages from Obama’s bible, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky 1971, and Hillary Clinton’s Political Science Thesis, 1969.

If not try this:
"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky
Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy.... Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.... 'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'... Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing."
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
"Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe,
www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Prior to the 2008 election there were very serious voices screaming out loud and clear that both candidates Obama and Clinton represented a very dangerous political sub-class seeking control through the use of camouflaged huge lies repeated often, CHANGE.

The mood of the country is one of anger and disbelief. The economy is in tatters, unemployment close to a real figure of around 17 %, crippling budget deficits strangling capital investment, and lunatics in control of the Senate and House of Representatives with the threat of Kagan being confirmed as a member of the Supreme Court.

There are only two solutions: first, the November election, second, civil unrest potentially rising to revolution. Only a fool would suggest the second could never happen in America. It did once and can again. The colonists were every bit as sophisticated as the citizen of today in knowing the wages of war. The condition of tyranny was of such provocation that revolution became the only resolution.

Pecos Pete| 7.2.10 @ 7:18AM

Over the course of the next year the United States could experience some of the most interesting events in our history.

A lame duck Congress that might do real damage. Huge tax increases coming in January. Housing remaining in the tank. Unemployment at 10% and higher. Regulation tacked on top of regulation as the bureaucrats begin to smell the end of the Obama Administration. Unemployment benefits dry up. Tent cities. Car sales decline. Public employee unions go on strike. Endless wars. Maybe some new wars. Kagan on the Supreme Court. Open borders. States declare bankruptcy. It is a dismal outlook.

How is that Hope and Change working for you?

Ned| 7.2.10 @ 10:52AM

Ah, but the ECONOMY! The economy is doing GREAT under Barry O'Bullshit, isn't it! Why just yesterday - Oh! Look over there! Isn't that a squirrel?

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 1:32PM

No the economy is not doing “GREAT.” But, “Businesses added a net total of 83,000 workers, the sixth straight month of private-sector job gains,” that’s better than the 750,000 a month job loss rate Obama inherited from Bush.

http://www.google.com/hostedne.....wD9GN1ML81

Clinton nee Publius| 7.2.10 @ 1:49PM

You seem to forget that Bush created more jobs in the month after 9/11 than Obama has created in his entire tenure and that Bush holds the modern record for job creation - 52 straight months.

Have a nice day, comrade.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 1:51PM

Yeaahh, baaby!

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 2:18PM

“Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record” -- wall street journal

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics.....on-record/

Robert| 7.3.10 @ 1:21AM

Job creation stats from the fed for the last 16 years. From Randall Hoven; Source: St. Louis Fed/FRED. Hoven's Index for June 30, 2010

Changes in number of jobs: In last six months
(Nov. 2009 to May 2010): 873,000

In Bush's eight years (Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009): +1,080,000
In Obama's 17 months: -2,979,000
When Republicans controlled House and Senate,
Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2001: +16,107,000
When Congress/Senate were split,
Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2003: -2,203,000
When Republicans controlled House and Senate,
Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2007: +6,801,000
When Democrats controlled House and Senate,
Jan. 2007 to present (May): -6,497,000 Since December 2007
(peak): -7,381,000

Source: St. Louis Fed/FRED. (Also see Senate website for party control.) Graph of the Day Archive.

Clinton nee Publius| 7.4.10 @ 9:41AM

Funny how the guy's numbers don't jive with the numbers from the Census Bureau.

Nice try, but once again; you lose. It's a division of labor you are used to I have a feeling. But, you keep posting here and I will keep enjoying busting you up in a public forum.

Janet Goss| 7.2.10 @ 3:18PM

He did not just inherit it from Bush- Democrats have had control since 2006. I don't here that mentioned much by Obama.

JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 6:39PM

Thank you, Janet. There's nothing as beautiful as the truth simply stated.

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 4:31PM

This Ain't Nuttin' To Brag On ?

" WASHINGTON — A weak June jobs report offered the latest evidence that the economic recovery is slowing.

Employers cut 125,000 jobs last month, the most since October, the Labor Department said Friday. The loss was driven by the end of 225,000 temporary census jobs. Businesses added a net total of 83,000 workers, the sixth straight month of private-sector job gains but not enough to speed up the recovery.

Unemployment dropped to 9.5 percent — the lowest level since July 2009 — from 9.7 percent. But the reason for the decline was more than 650,000 people gave up on their job searches and left the labor force. People who are no longer looking for work aren't counted as unemployed.

The latest figures suggest businesses are still slow to hire amid a weak economic recovery. Many economists were hoping to see more private-sector job growth, which would fuel the economy by boosting consumers' ability to spend.

"It could have been worse, but it wasn't good," said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting firm. "It's adding to the evidence that growth has slowed."

People left the work force "because they think there's nothing out there," he added."

Gazinya| 7.4.10 @ 11:31AM

I wonder how many of the reported 83,000 jobs that were added were people who replaced the people who have retired? Remember that there are literally millions of people who are now or are planning on retiring or died while waiting for The Obama to take his boot off of our Constitution.

JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 6:24PM

Ned,

Great, funny post. You even got vtwin to admit the obvious, before he/she defaulted to Bush bashing.

vtwin| 7.3.10 @ 1:00AM

Sorry, more Bush bashing.

"Since 1982, the Siena Research Institute has polled presidential scholars on whom they view to be best and worst presidents in American history, based on a variety of issues from “integrity” to economic stewardship. This year’s poll of 238 scholars found that President Franklin Roosevelt was once again ranked on top, joined by Presidents Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt to complete the top five. However, President George W. Bush did not fare well since the last poll was conducted in 2002. He dropped 16 places to 39th, making him the worst president since Warren Harding died in office in 1923, and one of the bottom five of all time, according to the experts."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/07.....t-history/

Bruce| 7.3.10 @ 11:32AM

Let's see ... you go from quoting MSM outlets, to Google, to a group of "scholars" (perhaps some of the same scholars who proclaimed Global Warming was real) as sources for your arguments. Nice try, maroon.

Are you really such a masochist that you keep coming back for more of being slapped around?

Kipling| 7.4.10 @ 4:05AM

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. It's not that vtwin enjoys being beaten like an enemy combatant. It's that vtwin is so limited intellectually and so commited to a leftist view of the world that she can keep arguing long after the point where the argument has been lost and still not feel the sort of personal embarrassment that would cause a rational person to stop and ask herself whether there is any point in continuing. In other words, Bruce, I think it's not masochism but stupidity coupled with partisan fervor that accounts for vtwin's purblind persistence.

The former quality explains her willingness to advance the unblushing argument that Social Security isn't broke because American taxpayers can be induced to pay for the same benefits twice. The latter quality helps explain why she would cite a poll of the opinions of "presidential scholars" on the relative greatness of U.S. presidents.

Thoroughly jejune.

Clinton nee Publius| 7.4.10 @ 9:48AM

Citing another Soros organization to change the subject again? What's the matter, a discussion about the failure of your life's work being realized right in front of your eyes too painful to swallow?

I've often asked myself what is progressive about progressives? They haven't had a single policy success in 100 years. Not a single policy has worked - ever. What is progressive and intellectual about a movement that never learns anything new from what they have already failed to accomplish?

Answer: progressives aren't about sustainable policy they are for sustainable political power at the sole cost and expense of everyone else and the 100 million people murdered in the last 100 years by liberal-progressives are the testament to what progressives are willing to do so they can keep stealing from us to sustain their amoral existence.

But hey, you keep posting and I'll keep making sure everyone is reminded of these facts.

See you again soon, Comrade. Kiss, kiss.

Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 3:57PM

ObamaBoy Blame Games are fizzling seventeen months into Obama's Failing Presidency.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

We Can See November 2nd From Our Tea Party Houses .

Timothy L. Pennell| 7.2.10 @ 7:24AM

I'm afraid that I don't share your enthusiasm. We have a Muslim President who HATES this Country. He said that he would "Bring Us Together". Yet, if you're BLACK, you get a Pass. If you're BLACK, you have nothing to fear from this Black President OR his Black Attorney General.
He was gonna make our ALLIES love us again. But he shows more Compassion for our ENEMIES (His fellow Muslims in the Middle East, and his fellow Marxists, south of the border) than he does to our Traditional Allies. You know...The WHITE COUNTRIES.
We have a Commander In Chief who began his Political Career in the living room, of a couple who used to KILL Police Officers, BLOW UP Recruiting Stations, and BOMB the Pentagon. We have a Leader, who sat at the feet of a WHITE HATING, JEW HATING, AMERICA HATING. piece of GARBAGE (Jeremiah Wright), attended LOUIS FARRAKHAN Rallies, and snorted his COKE in between Classes with the MARXIST PROFESSORS that he :sought out".
He has filled his Administration with Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Maoists, and fellow Haters of this Country.
He has CONTEMPT for our Founding Fathers, our History, and our Declaration Of Independence and Constitution. (Which he would GLADLY put a match to, if he could.)
So, you'll pardon me if I don't have the same 'optimism' that you do.
I really believe that the MAYANS were on to something. I don't believe in COINCIDENCE. 2012? The 'Domestic Enemy'? The BEAST?
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a 'MOUTH' to speak HAUGHTY and BLASPHEMOUS words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for 42 Months." Revelations 13-5.
Like I said. I don't believe in COINCIDENCE.

Louise in MO| 7.2.10 @ 8:16PM

The "Revelation 13:5" post is 100@ on target. I don't believe in coincidence either!

canuckistani| 7.5.10 @ 12:06PM

Get back into your aging parents' basement, dummy.
Grab your shotgun and a jug o'wine as you wait for the black helicopters to land on your parents' front lawn....if they can get around the burned out '72 Chevelle abandoned on it.
Obama got elected because whitey blew it, period.
All of the excrement you spew was put out to the masses before during and after the primary election cycle, and he still succeeded.
Obama's success is owed almost exclusively to Ryan's ex-wife in Illinois and Bush's spectacular failures leading up to the election.
True democrats know that the founding fathers were slave owners, atheists, traitors and oath breakers to the british crown, and got lucky the empire did not effect a more serious defense, mostly due to the madness of King George. Seems very much like the perfect storm that existed enabling Obama's ascent.
To not see the parallels is intellectually dishonest.
And to wrap yourself in religious rhetoric and the constitution only speaks to the "asleep at the switch" analogy given to people that should have known better.

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 7:26AM

Thank you so much for this article, Andrew!

We are truly at an important point in our nation's, and the world's history.

The threats to our freedom seem to be overwhelming at times, and only we can do the difficult tasks ahead of us, if we are to survive, and continue to have a nation worthy of our grandchildren.

My kids are grown, and sometimes still have yet to realize how fortunate they are to be an American. It's easy to take something for granted, when it seems to have always been there.

Most people don't think about what the world was like before our founding fathers devised the most incredible document since the Holy Bible:

The United States Constitution!

As much time as I have spent, constantly annoying my kids about this fact, they say, "Yeah dad, whatever!"

So imagine the thought processes of someone who's parents don't teach them how lucky they are, and depend on government run education to do the job for them.

This is the responsibility we face.

There are many fine people who post here, that love our country as much as I do, and it warms my heart to know I'm not alone.

But it's not enough! We must do our part to promote our views, even at the risk of roiling the politically correct while doing so.

As tyranny seems to surround us, and ignorance elects people like "President" Anti-Christ, it's easy to think all is lost.

Thanks to AmSpec's generosity, allowing us to comment on the daily events that seem to portend a decline of our greatness, I have become friendly with some amazing patriots, and together, I hope we can make a difference, and stave off those who would seek to alter the components that make us a great country.

I make sure everyone in my circle of friends, aquaintences, and the others who pass through my daily existence, know that I am unabashed in my pride for, and love of America.

It aint cool to be patriotic, and that's a damn shame!

But if the few of us who are, courageously demonstrate our patriotism, even when it is to our disadvantage to do so, we may have an impact on someone who takes it for granted, or never really gave it a thought.

It's possible to recruit patriots one at a time!

On this forum, we come across what are called trolls, who belittle our beliefs, because they like tweaking us, or because of ignorance, or evil. Most of them are hopeless, but I'd like to think that occasionally, one of us writes something that changes their thinking, and "BAM!" we have one more patriot.

There is not one hour goes by in my life, that I don't thank God for allowing me to be born in the greatest bastion of human freedom the world has ever known!

I would lay down my life for America without a moment's notice, knowing in my heart God is with me, and knowing HE believes in our nation's greatness.

I don't know the future of this grand experiment, but I swear before my Lord, it will not perish because of something I did, or didn't do, to keep it strong.

God bless The United States of America, and God bless the fine men and women I have met on this forum, who believe the same way!

Happy Birthday, Uncle Sam!

Big J| 7.2.10 @ 8:14AM

Well said, Northern Rebel.

I prefer your method of dealing with the issues facing our great nation over Timothy's (above).

For most of 2009, I was paralyzed with fear. As a business owner, I had strong reason to believe that the election of Barry and the Democrat majorities in Congress were going to destroy my business, most others, and ultimately, this great nation.

I snapped out of it, and you would not believe how my business boomed! The way I see it, you can either lay down, roll over and wait for the end, or fight against the continued assault on our freedoms.

Ours is a much easier task than our brave men and women in uniform face over seas. Generally, we don't have to face IED's, bullets or civilian - shielded terrorists (with your hands tied behind your back).

The least we can do to honor these heroes and those that came before them is to carry the torch of freedom here at home.

Thank you again for your uplifting message on this most wonderful holiday weekend.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:20AM

I love you, NR. Your words made me cry. (In a good way), because they were so wonderful. Thank you so much.
God bless you, Patriot!

Rebecca| 7.2.10 @ 8:06AM

I am not sure we still have what it takes. Today we do not allow the best and brightest to advance, nor do we celebrate individual achievement. We celebrate celebrity.

Multiculturalism and political correctness have gradually produced a culture and politics that celebrate the benefits of collectivism rather than the superiority of individualism. I cannot remember the last time an individual made an important discovery or invention. Big Companies have teams of engineers, chemists, scientists that produce new products after being reviewed by teams of lawyers and government regulators. Freedom allows innovation, regulation dulls innovation. Private property rights encourage a strong defense, and they have been under attack, whether by outright confiscation, or regulatory restrictions (salt bans, smoking bans for private property owning businesses). Who wants to fight a war, only to return to half your property value, and be told you cannot salt the food or smoke in your own business?

We are currently run by committee, and generally committees produce sub-par decisions. No one wants to take responsibility, or suffer the consequences of making a decision, only rewards and praise. The president and WS are representative of this method of operating.

The tea parties are groups of alarmed citizens that are basically sending a message to politicians that they are pulling rank, and it has taken over a year for the message to even be taken somewhat serious.

I don't know, but America's rebuild won't depend on the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots (moderates and moochers).

It is the individual, the Christies, Jindals, Haleys, tea partiers, girl who sailed the ocean, who collectively will be the bullwork of an American rebuild.

Mike D.| 7.2.10 @ 8:15AM

I see two halfs of this country that are not going to be reconciled in any way, shape or form. Marxist/Statist leftists have been laying the foundation for the fall and control of this country for decades and are not going to go down without a fight. There is not going to be any "oh well, they(constitutionalists)on to us now, I guess we'll just stand back and watch everything we worked for for decades get rolled back" and call it a day moments. What is going on now is a fight to the death between tyranny and freedom with the winner take all. I foresee some states banding together and seceding from what is becoming a growing monster in Washington's rule. The communist president now in office has one mission and one only, the consolidation of permanent one party, one dictator style rule and thats all he directs his agenda towards. Its oil and water, two sides and they will never mix. We have a usurper and anti-American now in power.
What this congress will do between the elections this fall and the next congress with nothing to lose is going to be a frightening period of time for this country. The friction between this marxist clown in the whitehouse and states(Louisiana and Arizona for examples) are the opening cracks that will tear this country to pieces down the road.

Bruce| 7.3.10 @ 11:37AM

Well said, Mike - I agree completely.

Happy 234th Birthday, America. With Gods blessing we will celebrate a 235th.

NavyBrat| 7.2.10 @ 8:19AM

I believe that this country DOES have another 230 plus birthdays in her. Unlike Greece & Rome, we will save our Republic. I look to the words of Aristotle, Demosthenes, & Cicero, in addition to the words of our Founders, for guidance.

"To the size of the state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for none of these retain their facility when they are too large."...Aristotle

"The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another -- and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men -- three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless."...Aristotle

"There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust."...Demosthenes

"The recovery of freedom is so splendid a thing that we must not shun even death when seeking to recover it."...Cicero

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."...Cicero

"The more laws, the less justice."...Cicero

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."...Thomas Jefferson

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."...John Adams

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:42AM

Great collection of quotes. What a great spirit you possess, NavyBrat, you're a wonderful Patriot. May the good Lord bless you always.

Paul| 7.2.10 @ 3:19PM

Outstanding, NavyBrat, thanks so much.

Petronius| 7.2.10 @ 10:04AM

The despots inside the beltway cannot be defeated politically. Right now they are licking their chops anticipating ruining the lives of all who want to live by and for ourselves without hindrance from them. The parasitic lowlife who elected them are getting impatient waiting for their "fix"; our wealth which will be redistributed to them when they eliminate us. (As a 19 year old Liberal this was the primary goal of that movement.) Having abandoned that mentality too late, I and the rest of the productive populace will pay all in dearest coin to the uncivilized mob of losers who believe the only way they can be prosperous is by taking.
Happy birthday U.S.A. it is our last. Just as the RINO republicans lack any backbone to spank the spoiled Demobrats and put an end to their dependency by forcing them to grow up, those who have everything to lose are too passive for any armed revolt for that same purpose. There will be no housecleaning come November. The Liberals will retain all power and continue to strangle the economy. And all of us outside the upper tiers of Their government will slowly starve together.

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 10:08AM

Big J:

thank you for your kind words.

I share many of the feelings Timothy has, minus the bigotry. While us WASP's seem to be a victim of "Gettingevenwithemism", I think the vast majority of black Americans are just good people with a better tan.

Maobama is not a muslim, although he does have more empathy for the enemies of our country, than the citizens he purports to represent. He obviously has no respect for our Constitution, having called it an bill of "negative rights."

He wants a government that is empowered to be able to do things for (TO) us, and our Constitution was clearly set up to protect us from leaders like him. He sees it as an obstacle in the way of his agenda, and he is correct!

Timothy shares the bitterness I have, and he is correct about much of what he says.

But I'm not going to go as far as saying this is a black-white issue, because Many black Americans are just as uncomfortable with'President" Anti-Christ, as I am. Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams come to mind, as great black patriots, and intellectually stellar Constitutional conservatives. There are many more.

Maobama is not thinking in terms of black-white issues insamuch as it can be used to further his ultimate aim:

communism.

He wants government power over the serfs just as much as Stalin, he just knows he has to be more subtle, lest he awaken the sleeping giant that is the American people.

Alas, a sleeping giant we are! We nodded off, and allowed this evil little man to assume power, thinking how great a country we are to elect a black man, and how it would heal our greatest national wound: slavery. instead of healing the wound, he uses it to devide us further. Just listen to last night's speech on illegal immigration. He used up a whole deck of race cards.

It didn't occur to anyone that none of his ancestor's have any connection to American slavery, he just has dark skin, so that should be enough to show everyone what nice people guilty liberals are.

My last name is Mitchell, I am of scotch-irish and english heritage, (and a little french, but I deny it in public) and I'll bet you I have more black American blood in my roots, than this Questionable American. (I'm not a kook, but I still haven't seen any proof he was born in this country, and he hasn't rushed to show us many of the personal records President's have routinely made public.)

Whether or not he was born in Hawaii, it is painfully obvious he is not qualified to be the most powerful man in the world, and it's also obvious that he is just a puppet.

The leader of the free world is apparently George Soros, who is neither American, or human. He is the epitome of evil, and that's who we are really fighting to save America from. While he retains any influence on the human race, nobody will be free for long.

All this being said, I believe as I said in my previous post, that we can recruit patriots one at a time, like we save souls one at a time.

I've been posting here for awhile, and one of my reoccuring themes, is that one of the things that makes us a great country, is that people can get on with their life, and prosper without giving a thought to politics. Try that in Venezuela!

However, as a result we have millions of fine Americans, who live their lives as a conservatives, that have no idea what's going on in politics, and don't realize how much it affects their daily lives.

These are the people Constitutional conservatives need to reach out to.

We outnumber socialist-progressive-liberal-communists (whatever they call themselves this week) 3-1, and all we have to do is become a fisher of men in our daily lives. It's called leading by example.

But it is not enough to be a good American, and adhere to the values that make us a great nation. We must talk about our beliefs to people who share our views, but are ignorant of the political machine that is trying to roll over their freedom.

It is an obligation, and a responsibility to help them become aware that there are evil men and women, who's agenda is to usurp their freedoms.

A famous expression states that you never talk politics, and religion at the bar. If we don't start irritating the ones we care about, who have no interest in politics, they'll end up like the proverbial frog in the pot of water.

Get to work my fellow patriots! One soul at a time!

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:40AM

Amen, NR, Amen.

LadyPatriot| 7.2.10 @ 7:30PM

WOW. Happy 4th ! God, please continue to bless the USA

Stan Redmond| 7.2.10 @ 10:10AM

"The United States is a self-correcting country. An enterprising people, we fix our own problems."

The federal government, democrats especially, have made it near impossible to fix our own problems anymore. Welfare, entitlements, regulations, all of it, designed to empower the government and eliminate liberty. We aren't even "allowed" by the government to skim oil off the gulf coast beacause of some idiotic functionary bureaucrat's wet dream regulation.

The next patriots will be the state legislators and governors like Jan Brewer who fight DC fire with State fire. Granted it's fighting more government with another government but the LAW ABIDING individual and the organization he wishes to join have been rendered impotent when it comes to changing the government. Interacting with DC has even been made illegal.
1st amendment = dead; McCain Feingold, DISCLOSE Act
2nd amendment = dead; No federal CCW, gun bans and registration
3rd Amendment = on life support
4th amendment = dead; property confiscation, BP shakedown, Kelo vs Conn., endless government regulations
5th amendment = dead; Kelo vs Conn. Congressional shakedowns, IRS!!!
6th amendment = dead; President Obama proclaims guilt and innocence daily
7th amendment = dead; see number 6
8th amendment = dead; mandatory sentencing in minor offenses; Waco invasion of Davidians
9th and 10th amendment = Death by homocide!!! One need look no further then the HUGE power grab by our tyrant in chief

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:45AM

I agree with you, Stan Redmond. We need to keep fighting. Just because the boot is on our necks and bearing down~ we're no quitters!
Excelsior!
God bless America!

Bilwick| 7.2.10 @ 10:26AM

It's a question I've asked every Fourth since the Bicentennial: On the Fourth, what can "liberals" (i.e., State-fellators) possibly celebrating. One State-fellator told me he was celebrating the birth of American democracy, which would eventually lead to the election of Obama and the institution of ObamaCare. I'm not making that up. To this guy, what was great about the classical-liberal heritage that got the country started was that it set up an engine which could later be used to erradicate the last vestiges of classical-liberalism in America. Weird.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.10 @ 10:49AM

Rebel,
simply splendid.

Mr. Cline,
I will have two hotdogs, thank you.

As you read these comments over the weekend, I hope you will note and reflect upon the two sides of the coin presented here.
On the one side,
...anger...fear...even despair.
On the other side,
...courage, bravery, a search for "how-tos", and most important, an icy resolve.

Folks, please, don't trade your guns for soup.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.10 @ 10:52AM

Folks, sorry

For those of you who have not gone to my web-site yet, I hope you will.
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com
God bless

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.10 @ 10:47AM

Bruce,
Great site! I especially appreciated you including Beck's video. I had missed that show.
I will be visiting often.
Ken

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:50AM

Good to see you here again, Big J, and glad to hear you are faring better. I really know what you mean about not giving up. Me and my husband are there now and each day I have to say to myself I must continue. When I do that I can only say that God in His mercy always comes through. When I decide to fight, and work, He provides.
God bless.

J.C.Eaton| 7.2.10 @ 10:56AM

NR, Bigotry? What did he SAY that wasn't truthful? Best,

Doctor Right| 7.2.10 @ 11:08AM

Despite all the gloom and anxiety circulating today in pro-freedom, pro-American, anti-statist circles, I remain fairly optimistic about our future.

Sure...We have problems to overcome. Of this, there can be no doubt.

Our Great Nation was conceived in struggle. To gain our freedom, we humble colonists had to fight-off the most powerful nation in the world, with the world's biggest Navy...But we did it (with a little help from our friends in France and Prussia...Let's give credit where credit is due!), and we endured, and we grew.

However, four score and seven years later, in 1860, the situation was grim. Our nation was literally ripped-apart. 5 years and 600,000 lives later, we managed to put ourselves together again as a whole nation.

In 1917, less than 50 years after this dreadful Civil War, a united country sent our bravest men, from the north, south, east, and west, overseas to help our allies in a great and terrible conflict. Some mat question the wisdom of this war for our nation - I certainly do. But the bottom line is that we went as ONE NATION. And together, we were victorious.

On December 8th, 1941, things certainly looked bad. But once again, we rallied, and pulled ourselves together. In less than 4 years, we defeated two might enemies on two different oceans, and emerged, perhaps reluctantly, as the most powerful nation on the earth.

For the next 50 years, we faced-off against a large, powerful enemy with the ability to destroy us in the blink of an eye...But the willpower of a great and humble man from Illinois helped guide us to a final victory there, as well.

There have been many other times when our will has been tested - the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of our President, the Vietnam war, the struggle for Civil Rights - and we have ALWAYS emerged a stronger, better nation.

And we will again. We're a stubborn people. Perhaps some of us need to experience socialism up-close-and-personal before they reject it. Well, if they get their wish, most of them WILL ultimately reject it.

We have work to do, no doubt. And it's not going to be easy.

But in the grand scheme of things, Obama will be naught but a pimple on the ass of history.

America is stronger than the little jug-eared thug from Chicago.

We'll be fine.

Bruce| 7.3.10 @ 11:47AM

Doc - while I agree with the premise of your argument, I think it is beginning to be clear to many of us that there is no longer a ONE America. America is divided unlike any time in it's history save the Civil War - or as my southern buddies like to call it, the "War of Northern Aggression."

My fear is it will take another civil war to straighten out the situation we find ourselves in. The biggest plus as I see it is ... WE have all the guns.

Nancy from NC| 7.2.10 @ 11:36AM

What wonderful inspiring posts here today from a number of patriots and thinkers. Thanks to all of you.

I decided to get involved and am a precinct captain in my small town. I'm not a dyed in the wool Republican, but I am a dyed in the wool Conservative, and I'm working to get some conservatives elected, especially to the NC Assembly. I have contacted a number of people that say they are not happy with the direction our country is headed. I set up a meeting to discuss the strategy to get out the vote. Four people showed up. It was so disheartening. So many excuses and reasons.

Therefore, I have concluded that the problem is our own...our apathy and failure to do our civic duty has been the ruin of our Nation. Ours requires due diligence as a government of and for the people requires daily participation by the people. But there are so many more "important" things...golf, American Idol, movies, etc. And then there are those that say they are disgusted with all politicians, and don't think there is any way to make changes. It's just too difficult to get out and talk to other people, and ask them to help us save our Country. While the people slept, the servant became the master.

I get encouraged when I read your great people, but in my small town (which is a military community and therefore has a dog in the fight) seems to be too apathetic to make the sacrifices that are necessary.

Louis Jenkins| 7.2.10 @ 11:52AM

Nancy:

What is your number? I may give you a call next week if you decide to give it to me. I'm going out of town for a few days.

Nancy in NC| 7.2.10 @ 12:03PM

I'm a little nervous about posting my phone number here, so I hope you won't be offended if I ask why you would call. Where do you live?

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 11:45AM

J.C. Eaton:

The factual inaccuracy, was that Maobama is a muslim. That is not true. He is a marxist who hates what America stands for.

It is the underlying tone of his post that I'm not comfortable.

I'm sick of being blamed for slavery, when none of my ancestors owned slaves.

On the other hand, I'm not going to resent the vast majority of black Americans, for the few poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, because the black Americans I know, are just as disgusted with them, as I am.

My friend Timothy is 99% right in that post, except for the bitterness he seems to display towards people, who despite their skin color being darker, probably share almost all of his values.

I hope I'm mistaken, and if I am, my apologies to Tim.

Louis Jenkins| 7.2.10 @ 11:50AM

So are we going to lay down and take it, or are we going to stand up like patriots? I cannot fathom the future-if we have 234 more years left in this nation. I cannot fight like a one armed boxer. Far better to stand up come what may. If your are not with us then you are against us. Nobody gives a "damn" about apathety. Time to get moving.

Nancy in NC| 7.2.10 @ 12:15PM

Louis,

Did you get it?

Nancy in NC| 7.2.10 @ 12:06PM

Louis,

My work phone number is (252)447-7654.

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 1:14PM

I think you should have followed your first instincts about providing personnel contact information. So may I suggest contacting American Spectator (editor@spectator.org ) about removing it?

Nancy in NC| 7.2.10 @ 12:25PM

It's very disturbing when we hear about the Admas guy that quit the DOJ because of the situation of the New Black Panthers. It does give a little credence to Tim's post. It's very scary when the administration will give a pass to any crime committed by someone just because they are black.

Nancy in NC| 7.2.10 @ 12:27PM

It's very disturbing when we hear about the Admas guy that quit the DOJ because of the situation of the New Black Panthers. It does give a little credence to Tim's post. It's very scary when the administration will give a pass to any crime committed by someone just because they are black.

Petronius| 7.2.10 @ 6:25PM

As if quitting was his idea. What the Black Panthers are waiting for is marshal law and disarming the populace, which they will be deputized to carry out. When South Africa surrendered, the black population invaded white neighborhoods and business districts, terrorized the residents and took everything they wanted.
Anglican Primate and Nobel Peace Prize winner , Bishop Desmond Tutu was quoted in the Spectator of London about the marauding and looting. The reply ex cathedra; "They're lucky that's all that's happening To Them."
When the same happens here, Fr. Pfleger will declaim it "social justice".

canuckistani| 7.5.10 @ 12:30PM

You are comparing SA to the circumstances here?
What's next, loose approximations of political infidels to Stalin and Hitler? Oops, too late. Your lack of nuance and "absolute-ism" is childish.

Obama, love him or hate him, was elected fair and square. If Hillary was elected, what would be different? Would conservatives have slandered the office of President any less for her than for Obama? Would the job picture in the country been any better? Would the draw down and execution of the wars been any different? Would foreign policy been different? I don't see her resigning due to Obama's positions.
Having a black in the oval is a gift for morons like you. He is the Jackie Robinson of politics, not the best, but there had to be the first....and he is being being vilified and adored equally as Robinson was - not because of his record, but because he was black.
If Obama is lucky enough to be judged on his record, the rhetoric spewed on this site would be tempered and reason would be introduced for the first time.
The willful disengagement by writers here is a disgraceful gift to our founders - who debated, fought with blood and treasure and, believe it or not, dissented without killing eachother.

Ed| 7.2.10 @ 12:35PM

What conservatives, libertarians, and tea party people need to do is keep our eye on the ball. Very few of us agree on everything, but we all can agree on cutting government spending, government debt, government domination of businesses, and excess government regulation.

On this July 4th, let's all fly the American flag and the Gadsden (Don't Tread on Me) flag.

"It's the socialism, stupid".

Movement Con| 7.2.10 @ 4:03PM

Ed,

I fly the Fort Moultrie LIBERTY flag along with the Betsy Ross II. Just above the new Arizona flag I got. Do we stand with AZ?

Clinton nee Publius| 7.2.10 @ 2:00PM

The reality is that the country is not likely to be able to survive another few years. I don't say this because I hate America, I say this because we have already overstayed the average lifespan for democracies that history says we should sustain.

Why is this?

Historically, we have structured the relationship of the stakeholders in the economy the way every other country has - our government is an insider. This means it can only get its money by stealing some from us. Stealing money is a limited resource activity; sooner or later you get caught or people contrive circumstances to prevent the theft from continuing.

On the other hand, democracies are structurally constrained from placing limitations on government spending. Sooner or later, corruption ensures that government leaders will vote themselves gifts from the treasury of continuing scales until the country goes broke. When the country's economy fails, the democracy falls and is replaced with economic feudalism (socialism, fascism, etc.) and a tyrannical system of ruling (monarchy, communism, etc.).

This means there is only the question of when the country will die, not if it will die. The Stimulus Bill passed last year demonstrates that most liberals in Congress believe that day of reckoning is fast approaching as most of the money has been spent on favored sons and themselves. The whole "shovel-ready projects" pitch is an obvious scam - there were no jobs created, just continuing job losses. This is the actual reality and the laws of mathematics only work one way.

There are two (2) alternatives awaiting us: we can accept the coming fall of our government and the rise of a dictator that will likely occur during the current Administration's tenure; or, we can adopt the only measure that will ensure that we have a source of funding that is just as unlimited as our spending.

There is only one set of means that will do this.

There is only one macroeconomic system of market organization and fiscal policy appropriation that will allow this to happen and it isn't socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism or feudalism.

That method is the investment-income model of fiscal revenue generation and that macroeconomic system is Lovellian Economics.

You heard it here first.

Happy Fourth!

"Shauna| 7.2.10 @ 2:54PM

We do accept and tolerate racism still. Although of a different type. The Black Panthers and Reverend Wright are every bit as intolerably racist as the KKK ever was.
They are institutionally favored by our current government. The right of Blacks to hate whites is an article of faith in this country.
And the villifying of those who want to preserve the traditional form of marriage is institutionally supported hate against Christians.

Hate is as strong in 2010 as it has ever been. It is only the oppressors who have changed not the hate.

This country is on the wrong track. It may never return.

rjh| 7.2.10 @ 3:05PM

Although I am trying to remain optimistic, I fear for the future of a country with a large enough percentage of the population that would install the likes of an obama in the White House. I think obama is merely the symptom of the overall problem in this country. Please save the "he fooled everyone" comeback. Anyone so easily "fooled" by such an empty suit is intellectually deficient.

noneof your business| 7.2.10 @ 3:59PM

All(most) of you are nucking futs. You raise the spectre of Obama (the secret Muslim, not born in America, etc..) having a secret Nazi agenda to impose socialism on America. Get an education! Your rants suggest deep-seated attitudes that are far more sinisterially totalitarian (notwithstanding the uneducated, not knowing what the heck you are talking about, calls to freedom) than anything being proposed or enacted by the current administration. It is folks like you that will guarantee the end of the American dream.

Cheers!

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 5:36PM

I'm laughing so hard but in between roars I will just say to you dear person that there is nothing secret about Obama's Socializing of this country. He's doing it openly.
May God have mercy and continue to bless America.

JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 6:32PM

noneof your business,

You came up with that all by yourself, huh? Your post is clear and ample evidence of the nonsense that put the current demagogue in the White House and the commicrats in power.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 9:35PM

Don't worry about this bunch. They're pissed that Obama won, and can't wait for the uppity black man to get his comeuppance. They're obsessed with homosexuality and socialism, so much so that when they say they love America, they clearly don't see the hypocrisy when they hate so many Americans.
Trouble is they are vehemently against what they so desperately want to control - the Government. In so doing, they will control neither the government nor their own passions. They will fizzle out just like the tea baggers.

I just find it sad they are so invested in Obama failing, since it means we all fail to some extent. Even tho I disliked Bush, I didn't want him to fail - but I did want him to disappear (until I realized that meant Cheney would be President - God help us).

They are really scared little kids that are afraid of the future, have little hope in their life, and can only dream of change. But, as good Christians, we forgive them, and they are Americans, most of them, anyway. So Happy Fourth of July - don't forget to fly your Flag!

Bruce| 7.3.10 @ 11:53AM

Right, Purpledouche - we're so concerned about "uppity black men" that most of us would vote for an Allen West in a heartbeat. But then your covert racists of the left would call Col West an "Uncle Tom", wouldn't you. Oh wait - many of you have!

Pound sand, idiot.

Joe Doakes| 7.2.10 @ 4:06PM

Obamas Brain on any given day:

Communism or Socialism, Communism or Socialism, Communism or Socialism, Communism or Socialism, Communism or Socialism . . . .

suibne| 7.2.10 @ 4:15PM

FREE ARIZONA FREE WALL STREET. FREE ISRAEL. FREE VENEZUELA. FREE CUBA. FREE IRAN. FREE IRAQ.

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 4:53PM

noneofyour business:

If you haven't skated back to the puffington post, after your drive-by comment that diplays your untarnished blissful ignorance, know this:

We are laughing at the fool that you are!

Thanks for the entertainment. Your impersonation as the court jester, probably isn't an impersonation.

Nice try.

GregA| 7.2.10 @ 4:57PM

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 5:38PM

Amen. Are we women allowed on the frontline with you good men?

Al Adab| 7.2.10 @ 6:35PM

I'd be proud (and safe) to stand beside you Margie.

GregA| 7.2.10 @ 6:39PM

Sure, c'mon sister! Just aim low; they're riding ponies.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:27PM

Al Adab & GregA,

Why thank you kind sirs, I am honored and humbled at having the opportunity to serve beside you both. I won't let you down. My resolve shall overcome my fear, and I am heartened by the prospect of dying (if that is what it will take) for my beloved country. Now, being from the Northeast, I own not horse nor weapon, though I know that the ballot box awaits me, and I it.
Onward!

rjh| 7.2.10 @ 5:21PM

I think "noneofyourbusiness" has just validated my comment.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 6:29PM

Good thing you and Northern Rebel have each other to play with in here, along with the rest of the bunch of rednecks inhabiting this pile. You are clearly not fit to be allowed outside to encounter the real world.

Cheers!

JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 6:35PM

noneofyourbusiness,

Careful now. That "redneck" remark could be misconstrued as racist--though, 0f course, not by the current hypocrites in the White House, DOJ, or the good reverend Wright, whom I believe you might have just channeled, etc. Cheers back to you.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 7:49PM

I will depend on the wisdom of that immortal sage, Dilbert:

"Never argue with idiots.
They just drag you down to their own level
and then beat you with experience."

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 8:59PM

Gee Plastic Sage !

" If you're going to be dumb, you've got to be tough." - William Dempsey Wendt

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 5:34PM

rjh:

Both of your posts are spot on!

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 6:30PM

Good thing you and rjh have each other to play with in here, along with the rest of the bunch of rednecks inhabiting this pile. You are clearly not fit to be allowed outside to encounter the real world.

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 7:07PM

" A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. "

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 7:45PM

What the heck does this have to do with anything in this thread?

I am staking out a truly libertarian position here, based on logical and intellectual consistency, and you respond with total non-sequiters.

The Republicans are as bogus as Democrats in the paens they compose to freedom. Neither are true friends of freedom.

Cheers!

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 8:40PM

Libertarian? Really? LOL. I've had some experience chatting with Libertarians in here and they sure don't sound anything like you.

And BTW~ if it's true that the Republicans are as bogus as the Democrats, why is it that they run as Republicans in order to get elected? Hmm. Must be something decent about that party. Perhaps its platform of smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, a strong Military Defense, Pro-life, pro-free market Capitalism to name a few.

Conservatives desire to see our party restored, not destroyed.

JimBeam| 7.3.10 @ 7:49AM

How do you reconcile smaller government, lower taxes, and individual freedom with strong military defense (that costs taxpayer money) and criminalizing abortion?

The problem with the Republican Party is that their platform sounds great on the campaign trail, but is contradictory and incoherent when put into practice.

Margie| 7.3.10 @ 8:58AM

What is incoherent is the Libertarian platform. I've read it. It's why their candidates must run as Republicans in order to get elected.

aware| 7.3.10 @ 6:09AM

You're as "libertarian" as Obanal is American.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 6:12PM

Thanks, Andrew Cline, for trying to infuse this site with a deep breath and some common sense, but alas, as you can see from the comments of the regulars, there's little point in trying to do so.

Our glorious Republic endures! I have often marvelled at the brilliance of the system these amazing young (for the most part) men created. The brilliance of a design that provides for ordered Liberty, with a system of checks and balances so beautifully constructed that it allows for need change while providing built-in checks on the passions of the moment. As the electorate moves inexorably from right to left, other institutions in place provide a break on impulsive change. To the fervant on either end, things seem to move either too quickly to the left or right, or are being thwarted by one branch or the other. But Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton and the others -- though they differed radically among themselves on fundamental world-viewpoints -- constructed a system that has endured, and will endure for many generations to come.

This July Fourth I will raise a glass to their brilliancy, and enjoy life, cherish the liberty I have, and go and pursue some happiness. God Bless our Founders and the United States of America!

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 6:20PM

RCV,

Too bad 50,000,000 Americans won't be able to "enjoy life" this weekend, thanks to stinking liberals forcing abortion-on-demand upon this once free country.

Think about that this weekend.

JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 6:37PM

Nick,

Hear, Hear! God Bless the USA and all those unfortunate souls.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 9:02PM

Thanks JmsA!

Happy Independence Day to you and your family.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 7:00PM

I think the above post aptly reflects my earlier comment about all the pseudo-freedom lovers on here who are unknowingly the cariers of neo-totalitarian beliefs (aka. "useful idiots"). You don't know what you are talking about, simply spewing recycled rhetoric from a bunch of demagogues. If you truly loved freedom, you would recognize that the issue is not one of "stinking liberals forcing abortion-on-demand upon this once free country" but one of governments denying women the freedom to do with their bodies what they like. For all you conservatives who bemoan the intrusin of government into your lives, what, pray tell, do you call government trying to restrict a woman's freedom in this regard. For those who prattle on endlessly about limited government and violations of the constitution, where, tell me, does the constitution give government the right to limit the right to an abortion? There is a word for argumentation like this. Rights, for you, are only what you think they should be. There is a word for this too (hint in case you didn't get the suggestion the first time: it is not a good one). The lack of intellectual consistency is astonishing (there is also a word for this, several even). If so-called conservatives believe in limited government, original intent, etc... then you have to accept the "good" (what you agree with) with the "bad" (what you do not agree with). This is the true price of freedom (for all, not just for you! :-) ).

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 7:14PM

Rasmussen Poll :
" The number who Strongly Disapprove of the president’s performance inched up a point to 42% in June. At the same time, the number who Strongly Approve fell another point to 26%.

Those figures generate a full month Presidential Approval Index rating of -16, down two points from the month before. That follows a three point drop in May and represents the lowest full-month Approval Index rating yet recorded for President Obama."

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 7:43PM

What the heck does this have to do with anything in this thread?

I am staking out a truly libertarian position here, based on logical and intellectual consistency, and you respond with total non-sequiters.

The Republicans are as bogus as Democrats in the paens they compose to freedom. Neither are true friends of freedom.

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 8:48PM

You're as Bogus as Joe Bite Me.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 9:24PM

So now you want your leaders to govern by the poll? You people can't make up your mind.

Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 4:01PM

Democrats Live by Polls and Die by Polls.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

4 Months to November 2nd.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 8:25PM

Noneofyourbusiness,

As most libertarians, you see things that are not there.

Where did I ague that the "constitution [gave] government the right to limit the right to an abortion."? I'm assuming you meant the U.S. Constitution, as your writting is not clear.

If Roe is repealed, the people of the several states will get to decide for themselve, through their legislatures, whether or not to allow abortion. I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.

However, I do support the Human Life Amendment. We were all created at conception and went through the same levels of development. Abortion kills a human being. I would help people in other states ban abortion, until the U.S. Constitution was amended.

Also, there has never been an abosolute right to do what you want with your body. But, again, abortion involves 3 lives. The mother, father,and the unborn baby (fetus in Latin.) The baby has the right to live. Abortion is intrinsicly evil.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 7:52PM

Nick - Roe v. Wade did not "force abortion-on-demand upon this once-free country." As the Court noted in its opinion, at common law the aborting of an "unquickened fetus" (generally first trimester) was not a criminal offense, and "at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect."

I fully recognize and appreciate that many, many sincere people have religious view on when life begins that differ, and they feel passionately about those views. The Court was called on to decide if governmental restrictions not present at the time of the Constitution violated the rights of privacy retained by people, and specifically women, under the Ninth Amendment. That was their job.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 8:19PM

Finally another voice of reason

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 8:59PM

RCV,

Roe v. Wade, and the companion decision Doe v. Bolton, took away the right of the states to legislate abortion restrictions, through all three tri-mesters of development. Thus, forcing abortion-on-demand on all the United States.

The real life "Jane Roe" and "Mary Doe" (Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano, respectively) have both filed affidavits stating that the lawyers who argued before SCOTUS, to strike down state laws against abortion, were lying about the facts of their situations and committed fraud.

This is not about religion or theology, directly. It is about science.

My religion teaches that it is intrinsicly evil to ever kill an innocent human being and that it can never be justified.

Science shows, all of us, that human life begins at the moment of conception. We were all created at conception. We all went through the same levels of development.

There is no argument, from a scientific standpoint, that an abortion kills an innocent human being.

Now, do you want to argue, philosophically, that it is okay to kill innocent human beings, RCV?

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 11:34PM

Nick, as you well know, theologians have long argued over when the soul enters an embryo and thereby becomes a human being, a debate that has largely paralleled the secular debate over when an embryo "quickens". Plato contended that the soul did not enter a fetus until the moment of birth. The Pythagoreans, including Hypocrites, believed this occurred at conceptions. Aristotle's position was that it occurred sometime between those two points. Thomas Acquinas and Augustine of Hippo -- and the Church at the time -- agreed, fixing the time when the soul and embryo united at sometime around 40 days. Popes dithered over the issue for centuries. Jewish theologians framed the debate on the distinction between a "formed" and an "unformed" embryo. Islamic theologians, I am told, believe the embryo acquires its soul sometime between 40 and 120 days after conception.

Science doesn't answer the question, as you blithely assert. Sperms are living cells, as are eggs. They are not "human life" though they have the potential to develop into such under the right conditions. You may choose to believe that the moment the egg and sperm combine, that combination is "human life" equivalent in all respects to a human being who has been born, but that is not a view shared by everyone else, either historically or presently.

So in answer to your question, I would never argue that it is "okay to kill innocent human beings." The question is, at what point does that combination of cells become a "human being": when it is two cells big? When it has divided into 4? 16? When it is distinquishable from a frog embryo? When limbs begin to develop? A heart? A brain? When it can live on its own? You have apparently answered that question for yourself, or accepted the Church's current answer. Not everyone agrees.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 11:50PM

The answer lies within your conscience. Which God gave to every single human being. He gave us all tender ones to begin with. But sin ruins them. just imagine telling a child, say 12 or 13 yrs. old that you have a baby growing inside of you. (if you're a woman). Then imagine telling them you're going to kill it because it's just not what you want, for whatever reason. They will react with sheer horror. Just the way any adult with a conscience still left, would.

No wonder Jesus said about children, "To such belongs the Kingdom of God." Mt. 19:14.

And, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Mt. 18:3.

John II| 7.3.10 @ 12:08AM

That's my own excuse for acting like a kid most of the time, Marge. If I were a sure-enough Kagan-like adult, I would never find it in my heart to see so clearly that the Obama/Kagan thing is so transparently preposterous.

The word "preposterous" is Latin, by the way: it means "backasswards."

Margie| 7.3.10 @ 12:47AM

Hi John II,

No, you would definitely not be able to see it so clearly, and that makes it just one more thing to be thankful to God for. And besides that, if did happen to be a Kagan-like adult, I couldn't like you very much, either and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Why, it would be preposterous!

SPERMSnEGGS| 7.3.10 @ 8:52AM

RCVsez: "Sperms are living cells, as are eggs. They are not "human life" though they have the potential to develop into such under the right conditions."

Taken separately I agree: a seed of human male sperm and the ovum of a human female do not constitute a human life. But once the seed and the egg begin growing together how can anyone be certain of what is or is not a human individual? This strikes me as an especially important question since the entire genetic map for the individuality of each newly formed person is complete at the moment of conception. The double helix of the chromosome-structure takes shape when the seed penetrates the egg. Some things happen faster than the speed of light. Whoosh!

Nick| 7.3.10 @ 2:28PM

RCV,

Again, you are bringing theology into a scientific discussion. Terms such as "quickening" and "ensoulment" have nothing to do with when biological human life begins. Science can never answer this question.

Although Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and other Doctors of the Church, theorized about when, exactly, the soul entered the body, they never condoned abortion, or claimed life did not begin at conception. Nor did the Church.

Now, lets turn away from theology and back to the physical world. Science does answer the question, for all of us. At the moment a sperm enters the ovum, the 23 chromosomes from the father combine with the 23 chromosomes from the mother, completing fertilization, and a new human being is conceived.

This is a distinct, unique person with his or her own unique DNA profile. It immediately begins to grow and consume nutrition. What else is it, if it is not human life? All of us began this way.

You are correct, RCV, that the question has always been at what point does biological human life begin. Science shows us when, as I just explained.

The burden of proof is on you. According to you, when precisely does life begin? On which day, at what hour? And not some arbitrary date, like the second trimester. Give scientific reasons for the exact moment at which human life begins.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 8:51PM

RCV,

I sorta liked you up until this point. Not that it matters one iota to you, and I doubt that it does. How you could possibly make a dig at the regular poster's comments in this thread is beyond me. I guess you really are a just another Liberal.

Nick| 7.2.10 @ 9:03PM

Margie,

Happy Independence Day to you and Victor!

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:16PM

Thanks Nick, and the same to you from the both of us!

"For freedom Christ has set us free." Gal. 5:1.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 9:23PM

And, of course to you, that's a bad thing ... even tho without us, you wouldn't exist.

Margie| 7.2.10 @ 10:41PM

I can love my fellow man as decently as the next person, and the good Book says we should "make love your aim." 1 Cor. 14:1. But I don't have to like some of them. :^)

John II| 7.3.10 @ 12:14AM

As usual, you've got it exactly backasswards, Purp. Without the Natural Law that you deny, you don't have any grounds--any relatively ultimate grounds, so to speak--on which to take exception to anything whatever, including conservative notions of ordered liberty.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 11:43PM

Margie - I don't recall you wondering how people who post at TAS continually refer to anyone who disagrees with them as "trolls", "fags", "communists", "scum". Does that not bother you? It does me. Or is it only OK to do that to people who disagree with you?

To answer your question, it does matter to me that you "sorta liked me" just as I did and do you. But you consider those with liberal views as incomprehensible or worse. Are you surprised that I don't find the views of many of the regular posters here to be illogical? Does that mean I dislike them as human beings? No, not at all. Many of my very closest friends are very, very conservative Republicans. I love them dearly and sincerely, but think many of their ideas to be, well, as off as you do mine.

RCV| 7.2.10 @ 11:45PM

sorry for the garbling of words like "illogical" instead of "logical".

Margie| 7.3.10 @ 12:05AM

Oh, RCV.. I still do kinda like you, but I didn't like what you said about the regular's posts, I think it was just plain wrong, and I reacted accordingly. I've been at the receiving end of horrible name calling too, and have partaken in same. But I'm choosing to turn away from it, as it makes me a very unhappy person.

I don't think others should refer to you by those names and I'll say it right here.

Now, how can people with opposing views have civil discourse? I say you have to say what you think, but it doesn't have to be insulting or nasty.

Having said that, of course I DO really think that Liberals are nuts. :^) I think some Liberals are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

I look forward to more chats.

RCV| 7.3.10 @ 12:13AM

Thanks, Margie. I feel better already. As you know, we liberals are beset with guilt and want to be loved by everyone.

Have a glorious Fourth, and I mean that. Raise a glass to Madison and Jefferson, Franklin and Washington, Tom Paine and Sam Adams, and all those amazing folks who gave us the country we love.

Margie| 7.3.10 @ 12:52AM

Well we all want to be liked. Remember the verse, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." Gen. 4:7.

Boy do I understand that one. How about you?

Happy Independence Day & God bless.

Thom| 7.2.10 @ 6:40PM

I don’t share the optimism most have expressed here. Rome fell well after the fatal blows that set its failure in motion. We have institutionalized the instruments of our failure in the Constitution via both direct violations of the central tenets of the Constitutional limitations on government power and reach and high Court rulings the make much of the founding documents “dead letters”. We have institutionalized a “class” society built around those who pay the tax burden and those who benefit and are dependent on such. Karl Marx would understand since two of his favorite mechanism are central to the current trajectory we are on. On our present course I suspect we have less than 23 years of life left was what most of us would recognize today.

I wrote what follows to 5 of the supreme beings of the Court back in April that I thought had read the founding documents. My only such communication to the Court in my 58 years on this planet. I’ve heard nothing back and don’t expect to. The age of reason is rapidity passing from view and why I’ll make it a rule to not engage in crystal ball stuff some outcomes are consistent throughout time and quiet reliable as predictors of future events. I’ve made my last attempt with conversation with an out of control central government.

Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

I’m a simple man. Matters of the law as practiced today are simply way above my pay grade and ability to comprehend all the nuances and complexities. I’m just a serf in the scheme of things it seems.

Way back in 1970 my 12th grade government teacher told my class that the 14th amendment “incorporated” the first ten amendments of the Federal Bill of Rights into each State Constitution. Made perfect sense to me but I kind of knew at 18 years old that a couple of those Amendments would kind of be difficult to “incorporate” but you know I wanted to get a passing grade and get out of High School more than I wanted to make an “academic” point about the 9th and 10th amendments not needing to be “incorporated” into the “several states” constitutions. As time has passed and I’ve learned that a lot that teacher taught me in 1970 is pure fiction, I kind of regret not stepping up to the plate and taking the time to make that “academic” point.

While not being a legal scholar, a graduate of the Harvard Law School or equivalent, I do know something about the founding of this Nation and fidelity before the law in principle. I also know that while it is the business of “lawyers” to worship complexity in order to confuse the central tenet of the matter at hand, pad the account or simply to confuse a jury, the founding documents and the thrust of their purpose, including the Declaration of Independence was to communicate a simple set of principles that the common man, including completely illiterate ones could grasp and embrace. It took over a decade to hammer out and get ratified what fits on three pieces of paper today. If a picture is equal to a 1000 words, a principle is worth at least a million today. A thousand times the founding documents get passed into Federal law without those voting on it having even read what they vote “yes” on and few seem to grasp the crime of that? Lack of accountability has always been an enduring weakness of Democracies. Indeed, I’ve read 300 page manifestos of bovine excrement issued by the Court that I could have shrunk down to simply this, “the camel’s nose is already under the tent, the rest of the camel can’t be any worse”. The first Court ruling on Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) that took away some of my political speech freedoms fit nicely in 17 words. I’ve even heard a man that claims to be a graduate of Harvard Law School, a Constitutional scholar tell a bold faced lie about a recent ruling that restored some of my political speech freedom and all that resulted from that was some “lip” movements in response. It is a good thing the business of the Constitution is not mine because there would have been some “lip” movement when an elected official stands up and lies through his teeth in front of tens of millions of citizens but hey, that’s just me. Pay not mind to the man behind the curtain. Edmund Burke would probably understand.

I’m still waiting for the 2nd Amendment to be enacted in Washington DC and not simply be a privilege to “keep” what government deems acceptable for just those that live there with the time and funds to pursue their “right”. Any Justice that thinks the “right to keep and bear arms” is actually in effect there I will gladly meet on my side of the Potomac and hand you one unregistered round of pistol ammo and see how that works for your “right to keep and bear arms” when you present yourself to the local authorities in Washington DC. I vaguely remember reading something somewhere about having no rights in practical terms if you regionalize them. I think the last time I heard something issued from the Court that has some clear and concise connection to the Bill of Rights involved some portion of the 1st Amendment and a “stripper”. Of course that was more than offset by making the “taking” clause protections null and void. I sure hope my City government does not think my grossly inflated property value, that they assess me with is worth more to someone else with a subprime rate who will put a bigger house on it and pay more in taxes (for a while) than I can afford. I can assure you that I can’t afford a $1000.00 an hour Harvard Law School graduate and the decade it takes to bring cases before the Court, any court. That unfortunately is just one of the fallouts of complexity worship before the Law vs. the elegant principles of the law being the rule rather than the exception. I can handle the simple stuff like “thou shall not steal”, “thou shall not bear false witness”, you know the kind of stuff that has no “standing” before the Court.

If I had to make a prediction and as a rule I’m not a betting person, what is thought of as a constitutional republican form of government will be gone by the time I pass from this place. The “several states” have been rendered mostly impotent as a check and balance and serve mostly the function of being minor league recruiters for Federal office and jobs. I often refer to state governments as little more than whores and pimps for Federal income tax monies and mandates. I think I could make a compelling case that the “several states” function is redundant and little more than window dressings for the fiction that we are still a “republic” with three equal branches of government in federation with the “several states” that form the bedrock of what the Founders had intended. Again, I don’t have a Harvard Law School degree and pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.

I could also make the case that how the 16th amendment was implemented stands in conflict with equality under the law and it has laid the groundwork for the polarized society we have today that sees “rights” or what are enumerated liberties as a zero sum game that requires the “taking” of one citizens “rights” to reward another for a vote in return. That the word “right” or a liberty to act in one’s own best interest is considered equivalent today to the word “entitlement” or an outcome delivered by the “government” would make the Founder’s sacrifices seem in vain since that turns the whole point of the Bill of Rights on its head. Indeed, if the Founders wanted to institutionalize the concept of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” it seems they would have clearly stated that given the “liberal” use of Biblical phrases like, “Congress shall make no laws”, “the right of the People….shall not be infringed”. To me and others that pay the bulk of the heavily skewed tax burden, being an Ant in a sea of hungry Grasshoppers voids the whole purpose of the franchise right. Voting someone’s else’s pocket book is a pretty low level base behavior of humanity that stands a bit in conflict with all the laws about “stealing” at all levels of civil government. The Founders clearly wanted to avoid the pitfalls of MOB rule and tendency of Democracies to commit fiscal suicide and that gives weight to what Benjamin Franklin spoke to that we have a “republic” if we can keep it. I think I could make the point that we are well on our way to a centralized form of government that will make two of the existing branches redundant and useless outside of being jobs programs for people who vote their own self interest in staying government employees. I was one for 20 years, I know the drill well. A man I admire often makes the point that “words mean things”. Only were that true with regard to the Court and the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

On balance I think the Court is going to get one last chance to restore balance to the Federal system of government we have. One last chance. The political system is broken and corrupted by the skewed impact of the 16th amendment and numerous “entitlement” laws and rulings from the Court. I have certified copies of the Founding documents, amendments and a deaf, dumb and blind man could sense that the Elephant in the room bears little resemblance to what we have today for the enumerated government power, scope and reach into “We the People” s lives. I could make the point that the central tenet of the Bill of Rights and the spirit of the Declaration of Independence is in gross conflict with its self because the concept of “entitlements” is trumping the concept of “liberties”. Words do indeed mean things in a civilized society and when they don’t the void that creates will be filled by some form of power, typically not the kind most sane people want in their lives but that’s where we are very close to. Such things take on a life of their own and tend to be infamous in nature.

I’ve been writing this for nearly a decade in one form or another but it never seemed to be the right time to present it. The right time has arrived and an assumption about what that catalyst is would be the obvious current event one. Given I’m not a Harvard Law School graduate or even a lawyer and that seems to be the prerequisite for speaking to anyone on the Court, I present this simply as one of the Ant citizens in the shrinking private sector of what may become a form of government that is both fiscally and morally bankrupt. John Adams would understand the latter point but I’m not sure about Harvard Law School graduates. Such a combination has never resulted in anything resembling what is sought in the Declaration of Independence. The lights go out here and most of the rest of the world will follow in time into some form of anarchy.

If I had one wish it would be that the Supreme Court stop looking at the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a cafeteria plan that can be sliced, diced and changed in part but not whole by rulings that make the enumerated amendment process null and void. A “house divided… will not stand” I once read by a man that oversaw the killing of what would be nearly 6,000,000 citizens adjusted to today’s population to put that into perspective. Every time I hear the phrase, “settled law” or “precedent” I remember how settled the law on slavery turned out to be, the human cost and the damage that did to Federalism as a whole. Every time I hear a “lawyer” use the phrase, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” as justification for turning a “right” into a “privilege” I have a reflex to take a ball bat to his head and then ask him to show me in the Constitution where it says I can’t take a ball bat to his head to make the point that liberty is not free of malicious consequence with sane people but licensing a right mocks the whole concept of a “right”.

Statistically speaking, none of this will likely matter to me in 20 years but I plan to leave this life the way I came into it, a free man who chooses to be an American. It would be convenient to that task if the Supreme Court found 9 certified copies of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers and grasp the global concept that “lawyers” did not create this “republican” form of government and it was not “voted” into being by parliamentarian slights of hands in the middle of the night. Those of us who have borne the cost and made the sacrifices to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic would really like to not have to start over……….. but…………………………….I know something of the founding of this “republic” that a awful lot of people calling themselves “Americans” don’t seem to grasp about the “cost” of that. There are no God given, Creator given inalienable “rights” if “government” steals from one citizen and gives to another in payment for their “vote”. There is a term for that even Harvard Law School graduates know. How political campaigns are financed is not the source of the “corruption” but symptoms and residue of where the true source of corruption is embedded in the Constitution via amendments that stand in conflict with the rest of the Constitution.

The collective impact of numerous obfuscations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by both Congress and the Supreme Court over the last 100 years has produced a two class society of tax payers and tax consumers. Their differences cannot be reconciled by a corrupt political system built upon that. Karl Marx would understand that since that was his purpose in supporting the progressive income tax system. What does that leave as a course of action when the thrust of the Constitutional protections have been rendered moot? Hubert Humphrey spoke to this over 4 decades ago in noting that politics had pit groups of citizens against other groups of citizens and left no room for the individual. Yeah, Paul would know something about that too. Terrible things happen when the meaning of the words in law has no practical or persistent value to the common man. I could make that point without a law degree and I suspect Luther Martin would agree with much of what’ve I’ve said if he were around to comment.

Tens years in the making and less than four pages. Who would have thought such a thing was possible.

I appreciate your time; this comes from the heart and the school of Hard Knocks.

nonoeofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 7:10PM

Not quite sure what these eschatological, and scatter-brained, ramblings have as their point. They seem quite all over the map, logically and politically. At one point railing against the power of special corporate interests (lefty sounding) and then becoming -- like most of the looking in the mirror kooks in here -- seeming to take the ultra-libertarian position of an absolute and unlimited right to buy/own guns of any kind.

In any event, dude, you sound really down. I would say: don't take life so seriously -- the condition isn't permanent. :-)

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 7:20PM

" Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

The latest national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows voters trust Republicans more by a 48% to 39% margin on the economy, an issue that has consistently been the most important among voters for several years.

Republicans have held the advantage on the economy since May of last year. "

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 7:44PM

What the heck does this have to do with anything in this thread?

I am staking out a truly libertarian position here, based on logical and intellectual consistency, and you respond with total non-sequiters.

The Republicans are as bogus as Democrats in the paens they compose to freedom. Neither are true friends of freedom.

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 8:42PM

Ya Ain't A Very Good Salesman , Pseudo-Intellect.

Bruce| 7.3.10 @ 12:00PM

Oh! Look who learned how to copy/paste!

Duuuuude ..., what are you, 18?

Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 4:04PM

How 'bout I Cut & Paste Your Face , Liberal NancyBoy.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 6:24PM

Tim, how about growing up and stop talking like a junior high schooler. Really.

Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 9:39PM

Worry 'bout your own Pseudo-Intellect ObamaBoy Bold Blathering , LawBoy.

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 9:20PM

Perhaps, but consider your source - always outside the mainstream of polling - always, and I mean, always leaning to the right.

But I have a question - what will Republicans do when they regain power? I never hear that - only what they are against.

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 9:40PM

Do your homework .

The Fordham University Study named Rasmussen tied ith Pew for first place in accuracy of the 23 polling organizations for The 2008 Presidential Election.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 10:25PM

One election does not a pollster make. There are serious questions about Rasmussen (although not as many as with Research 2000).

For a thoughtful analysis of the `house bias`that Rasmussen appears to have, see:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com.....s-not.html

Cheers!

Thom| 7.2.10 @ 8:48PM

Nonoeofyourbusiness, in a way you make one of the central points I’m making by what you call rambling. The Founding documents are relatively clear and concise with regard to scope and enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights is written using biblical language which was meant to not leave wiggle room on the precise meanings imparted. The verb, “shall” like it appears in the Ten Commandments is not a “suggestion” subject to interpretation and changing standards of use of language over time.

I make several what you call rambling references, all of which are directed at the application of the law in deferent to the enumerated powers and individual rights found in the Founding documents. The sound bite/texting version of what I wrote would problem sound like this, “the Constitution as a guiding light for the Republic is dead, long live the King”. Even that might not fit in some people’s text box sized brain capacity.

Try reading the Courts rulings from start to finish before you make claims about ramblings. I read the original 300 page CFR ruling from start to finish and it was everything I claimed it to be, complete and utter BS. It was and is a complete violation of the enumerated powers and violates the clear text of the 1st Amendment. The Court over several decades has enabled the violations of the Constitution to become “institutionalized” into layer upon layer of laws that no one can comprehend and the end result of the clear opposite of what the Founders intended, a central government that plays one group off against another to both gain power and enrich itself. Someone that understood the founding of the Republic would see breath of examples I’m making and how they all tie back to Court not doing its mandated Constitutional duty to protect the Constitution from the other two branches of Government. I think clear thinking people know how this ends if we continue down this path. Badly.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 9:48PM

Hi Thom,

Your frustrations are understandable.

The world is going to hell in a handbasket.

The SCOTUS is really irrelevant in all this, and its decisions are peripheral to the apocalypse that is impending. The court isn`t responsible for the mess America is in. Blame 44 presidents and 111 Congresses for that (especially all of those in the last 40 years or so).

Stock up on guns and ammo now!

Cheers!

Thom| 7.2.10 @ 10:55PM

noneofyourbusiness the constitutional duty of the SCOTUS is singley to protect the constitution which includes the Bill of Rights. When you turn a blind eye to what the Executive and Congressional branches due for decades and create laws and rights from the "bench" the Court is clearly at fault. That was the central point of my ramblings since the Court has enabled or legalized every violation of the Founding documents to date. The structure of the enumerated form of government had friction between branches built in and what the Court has done all my adult life is applie grease to make it easier for the other two branches to violate the enumerated limitations on government power. In effect, we have one branch of government with three departments operating or nearly so in concert toward a single goal of a centralized government rules by MOB.

When you legalize robing half the population to support the other half this is the usual result that we face today. I don't see either half the population voting to surrender to the other half thus here we are today hoping for a miracle in November. As for preparations, I took care of that in '94 when it became obvious the Constitution was a "dead letter".

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 9:18PM

You sound seriously disturbed - not nuts, but depressed. Don't be. You live in the greatest civilization and country the world has ever produced. We have the highest standard of living, and we aren't going down - the rest of the world is just catching up. Socialism, Facism, Corporatism, Founding Fathers, it's all a bunch of rhetoric and has little meaning in reality. Take heart, the American people are strong, right, left and center, regardless of our arguments and partisanship. That partisanship has been with us forever. We are an impatient people, which is understandable, since everyone here has the wanderlust gene - everyone came from somewhere else (well, except Native Americans) and we don't put up with much for long. So don't worry so much, be happy. The pendulum swings back and forth, but the clock will not break!

Thom| 7.2.10 @ 10:40PM

Greece, Rome, Egypt etc were all great civilizations of their times and lasted for a lot longer than we are going to on this path. Every attempt at Democracy prior to us committed fiscal suicide or devolved into just MOB rule and anarchy. What usually follows anarchy is some form of blazing tyranny. Our experiment tried to balance the natural tendencies of Democracies to self destruct and the need to allow for varied and different expressions of liberty. The checks and balances have been buried under buildings of laws at all levels of government and practice bears little resemblance to what you actually find in the Founding documents. This divided house will not continue like this and I see no way you can undo nearly 100 years of continued obfuscation of what is clearly written in the founding documents and still expect this “republic” to proper before the flood of unfunded mandates buries us all in fiscal ruin.

John II| 7.2.10 @ 11:54PM

"Native Americans" came from Asia, Purp, starting about 25,000 years ago, when the land-bridge was still intact. So that completes your argument about wanderlust, with idiot qualifications.

And that's the last time you can expect to get any intellectual support from me. As to your "bunch of rhetoric" and "reality" distinction, feel free to shove it.

Purpleguy| 7.6.10 @ 2:04PM

Your support is neither desired nor required, so that sugar plum you can keep.

Yes, and if you want to keep going back in time, WE all came from Africa circa 2,000,000 yrs ago one way or the other. I was speaking of the more recent modern era say 1000-2000 AD.

Now if you want to be more positive about the country you supposedly love, then be more positive.

Gerald Stephens| 7.2.10 @ 8:00PM

THOM

It often amazed me how patient's would wait until they could not wait any longer to seek a remedy.

While the national infestation is severe, the patient is now aware that the condition is a matter of life or death, and will seek treatment and receive a partial cure in November. Beyond, they must work at staying well. Maybe we will meet at the polls.

Thom| 7.2.10 @ 8:58PM

Gerald, that's the nature of humanity. It takes a lot of socialization to keep any “collective” of people from seeking the lowest common denominator among them. This plays out at every level of society where a principled life style is not rewarded and destructive ones discouraged. We’ve embedded in our laws at every level rewards for seeking the lowest common denominator. We are all guilty to some extent of some of this but once institutionalized into law it becomes custom, practice and tradition and most people simply don’t like to change or give up a “good” thing particularly when it is “free”. The illusion of “free” is coming due and like all the rest of the Nations that have embraced Marx’s grand scheme there will be pain and suffering when the music stops playing….. A lot of people aren’t going to find a seat waiting for them when the lie of their life is stripped bare. The Court bares a lot of the blame for the mess we are in and I think the ones I sent my letter to get my drift.

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 11:28PM

I recommend decaf.

Purpleguy| 7.6.10 @ 2:06PM

You are more free than you think. Obviously, you disagree with government when it does something you don't like - but you are more free than any other country on earth - at least any civilized society. You could be more free in Somalia - but good luck with that.

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 8:10PM

N.biz:

You are about as libertarian, as Hillary is sexy.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 8:20PM

I will depend on the wisdom of that immortal sage, Dilbert:

"Never argue with idiots.
They just drag you down to their own level
and then beat you with experience."

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 8:46PM

Get Bent .
"I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man ". - unknown

Northern Rebel| 7.2.10 @ 8:23PM

P.S. NoBiz:

Don't call me a republican, pal! I am a Constitutional conservative. I believe in the words forged on the greatest document created since the bible.

I am a libertarian, with moral guardrails.

Perhaps if you spent a little more time debating issues in the arena of ideas, instead of name calling, we could engage in intelligent conversation.

Instead you provoke and attack, then expect respect from people who have seen no track record of credibility from any of your posts.

You might be a bright fella with a point of view that's interesting, or outside the box. But there is no evidence of that. There is just someone who is confrontational, and condescending, from my point of view.

Show us some respect, throw out something besides arrogance, and we may stop assuming you are just another troll from the Daily Koz.

Everybody deserves a shot, but you aint earned it yet.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 8:59PM

I think my screen name accurately reflects my views of who I am. Yours also speaks volumes about you. You haven't responded inteligently to anything said above. If you call yourself a libertarian, based on the comments you have made above, you are a LINO (Libertarian In Name Only). Ba ba boom.

G'night
and
Cheers!

Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 9:10PM

If America can keep the Corporatists like Joe Barton, John Boner at bay, yes, she's got a lotta life in her. And, socialism is not the opposite of Corporatism - Democracy is.

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 9:20PM

Duuuuhhhh !

" Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body. One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism , involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy . In contemporary usage, "corporatism" is often used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations based on the inaccurate interpretation of "corporat" in corporatism as referring to business corporations. "

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 9:39PM

Thank you to Wikipedia for Tim`s insightful comment

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 9:47PM

Ha ,Ha,Ha !

Look what limped back in.

If you can source a dispute of the definition do it, mouth .

Otherwise , shut your uninformed Pie Hole .

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 9:52PM

Thank you so much for your interest. You must be a fan. I will have to try this again when I am down and out. Better than a movie.

The content was so obviously above your intellect that it was quite apparent the top hit on a Google search would turn it up.

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 10:00PM

That's your , " noneof.... can't back up his mouth capitulation . "

Withdraw with your life , Sir Limpalot.

Ha ,Ha , Ha !

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 9:54PM

Uh Oh , another agreeing source !

" In the last half of the 19th century people of the working class in Europe were beginning to show interest in the ideas of socialism and syndicalism. Some members of the intelligentsia, particularly the Catholic intelligentsia, decided to formulate an alternative to socialism which would emphasize social justice without the radical solution of the abolition of private property. The result was called Corporatism. The name had nothing to do with the notion of a business corporation except that both words are derived from the Latin word for body, corpus.

The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."

Under corporatism the labor force and management in an industry belong to an industrial organization. The representatives of labor and management settle wage issues through collective negotiation. While this was the theory in practice the corporatist states were largely ruled according to the dictates of the supreme leader. "

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 10:14PM

Hey Dimbulb,

This is a riot! Should have tried it a long time ago.

Suck it up, dude. You got outed for a shallow sham.

I wasn`t disputing the desription of corporatism (who am I to argue with WikipediaÉ). I was simply pointing to the complete lack of thoughtfulness in your post (and I don`t know here the heck it came from either, other than from the previous post that was of no relevance to this thread either).

If I actually needed to look for a definition of corporatism (which I don`t), I could go find it myself. Apparently you did. Shallow. I thought the posts on here should reflect ones own thoughts. Maybe you would like to copy and post the Declaration of Independence too, and claim it as your won.

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 10:22PM

Ya haven't said anything Deep so far .all evening.

You're just another Troll Bore .

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 10:27PM

Look in the mirror dude. Like you are one to talk. At least I can think (and speak, and write) FOR MYSELF.

Cheers!

Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 10:30PM

No ya can't ! Your a Bus callin' a Lemon Pie Yellow , Punk .

Ya wrote Bullcrapper's Nothin' s all evening .

Go Home .

valwayne| 7.2.10 @ 10:24PM

We've never seen the level of arrogance, corrupt spending and debt, or left wing ideological blindness in our entire history. Obama and the Democrats have taken us down the road to hell. We need massive political change in Nov. A vote for any Democrat is a vote to continue the plunge into economic chaos. Otherwise so much damage will be done we won't recover for generations!!!

vtwin| 7.2.10 @ 11:45PM

“The plunge into economic chaos” is why democrats control both the house and senate, and Barack Obama is in the White House.

Jfields11| 7.3.10 @ 1:53AM

Given that the democrats have full control of the governement....why are they unable to solve any problems (jobs, national debt, energy, immigration, healthcare costs, oil spill, Iran, Afganistan) and why are they still looking back to how aweful the situation they "inherited" was. "this is a deep hole"...blah blah blah.....Get over it and get to work or step aside.
Bush inherited the busting of the tech bubble and and 911......you may not agree with his responses and his legacy as President but at least he was a leader not a Cry Baby like we have now.

Mama Business| 7.2.10 @ 10:27PM

Noneofyour !

Come up out of the basement and go to bed.

noneofyourbusiness| 7.2.10 @ 10:31PM

Glad to see I have another fan. Welcome to the conversation. I understand from dimbulb that what you are doing is called `trolling`. Caught anything yet.

Cheers!

Vince| 7.2.10 @ 10:37PM

Noney Princess .

Listen up .

You are definitely a boring troll.

Nate| 7.3.10 @ 12:13AM

Does the United States have 234 more birthdays in her?

No, of course not. Because Beck and Limbaugh have already said it, and Gingrich too. Obama is going to destroy the country.

I doubt we have ONE birthday left in us!

Yes, this time next year it'll all be gone. All of it. We'll either be a heap of rubble and ash, or just one big FEMA camp run by Maoist storm troopers.

And Michelle Bachmann? They're coming for YOU first!

Letscheck| 7.3.10 @ 4:13AM

Nonsense, because we will break down Obama and his party and take this country back.

I don't think anyone will want to be a "Progressive" after watching this debacle.

glenn| 7.3.10 @ 1:19AM

I am curious when the Social security trust fund liquidates its securities, just like any corp. individual or foreign govt does, where does the money come from to pay off these securities ? I will tell you It comes from the Govt issuing new securities to someone else. In other words it is borrowing from someone else. and why is it borrowing from someone else to pay money back to the trust fund? because the govt is broke. There is no magic pot of gold ,sitting in a bank somewhere ,to pay for all the money borrowed from the trust fund over the years. If you can indeed find this bank account please let Washington know so they can spend that too and buy us a little time before they jack our taxes thru the roof to pay for all these unfunded entitlements. Finally if you are going to show a link make it to a site that shows trillions in cash not a list of "securities" the govt owes itself.

dude| 7.3.10 @ 2:12AM

It would be pretty difficult for a Tea Party member to support a democrat. So many times the choice would be between a damaged republican (i.e. conservative) versus someone who supports Pelosi/Reed and and ever growing, never ending government expansion.

It will be interesting to see where the public unions wind up as the taxpayers see a more and more elitist caste system. The government sector voting themselves more and more benefits at the taxpayers expense.

Letscheck| 7.3.10 @ 4:10AM

The Truth. No one knows who or how many are associated with the Tea Party. We know that Obama very much wants to know that information. So do the liberal media.

No one will ever know how many people are Tea Party supporters or what their demographics are because they don't need to know.

Obama chose to "not see any Tea Party" when they showed up in Washington over a million strong.

He has his wish. He cannot see the Tea Party. Just glimpses here and there.

John W| 7.3.10 @ 4:33AM

You neglect to mention that while the US fought WWII, the public debt as a percentage of GDP was roughly twice what it is now, and in 1944-45, the top rate of income tax was 94%.
Furthermore, in the postwar years, US industrial capacity didn't have to compete with European and Asian industry, which had been devastated by 6 years of war.

John W| 7.3.10 @ 4:50AM

"The United States is a self-correcting country. An enterprising people, we fix our own problems. We don't gaze across the Atlantic or Pacific and hope to be helped up."
Shall we talk about two of the greatest expressions of US power: the nuclear and space programs?

Mimi| 7.3.10 @ 10:28AM

John,.....The usurper is tinkering with those programs in a negative way. The thought that all the damage he has done , could be purposeful is so scary. Every-day I look for proof that this is not the case..... but sure enough he's destroying something else. I don't want to believe the MAN is up to no good, that it is ignorance, inability, lack of historical truths, immaturity, and .... Just a kid way over his head and enduring gigantic stress....or as some have been bold enough to proclaim : We are now looking at the enemy from within....far more dangerous than any foreign threat we have ever experienced, more treacherous, more perilous. We all know for sure.... something IS not right. The posts on Andrew Clines article are many.. and Patriotic !! HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA....Love and God Bless to all..MIMI

John W| 7.3.10 @ 7:55PM

That's nice, but what do your paranoid, incoherent ramblings have to do with anything I said? I was merely pointing out that the author is being rather disingenuous. To claim that the victory of World War Two was a triumph of libertarianism is simply preposterous at any level you care to examine.

Margie| 7.4.10 @ 11:31AM

God bless you, Mimi, you're awesome! Happy Independence Day, too!

toadold| 7.3.10 @ 8:28AM

The question has been asked, "Will Obama learn or change course?"
In my opinion the answer is no, because if he was capable he would have done so in 2009, but he and his keep on plowing along the same course.

Northern Rebel| 7.3.10 @ 9:02AM

NoBiz:

I extended the opportunity hand of honorable discourse, you chose to slap it away. No more attempts will be made, nor will your deliberate confrontational spewing, be acknowledged.

CHEERS!

Northern Rebel| 7.3.10 @ 9:23AM

As we approach our nation's birthday, I wonder how many people think of it just as an excuse to party, or don the red, white, and blue, like it's a ceremony, as if it's Easter, so they go to church that one time a year.

We are at a critical junction in our nation's future, and apathy may be our biggest enemy. Every 4th, every Memorial Day, and every Veteran's Day, I take a walk through a cemetary, noting the flags that signify someone who served or died, in order that I may enjoy a hot dog, and a beer, and not have to worry about brown shirted jackboot thugs kicking in my door, and taking me away from my loved ones, because they don't like what I post here.

Something called internet neutrality is making it into the talking points of the democrat-socialist-liberal-progressive-communist's (whatever their calling themselves this week) speeches, in the kingdom of DC.

"President" Anti-Christ has been talking about using unmanned drones within our borders, supposedly to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, and my feet are already sliding down that slippery slope.

We must listen to what these people are saying, because If you do, they'll tell you who they are.

Maobama said during the presidential campaign, that he intended to "fundamentally transform" our country, and it is obvious to anyone paying attention, that he meant what he said.

George Orwell was far ahead of his time. I don't think even he imagined how true the ringing of his words are now echoing throughout America.

Folks, we must do our part to educate those who aren't paying attention. It is a responsibility not to be taken lightly.

We must take back our nation, "one soul at a time."

Have a wonderful holiday weekend, patriots, and don't shirk from the chance to be fisher's of men.

Margie| 7.3.10 @ 12:52PM

The good folks at The Patriot Depot have a new bumper sicker. It says, "Does my American flag offend you? Call 1-800-LEAVE THE USA!"

http://www.patriotdepot.com/flag800.aspx

Nick| 7.3.10 @ 2:31PM

RCV,

This is a re-post of my response to your comment, from our exchange above:

Again, you are bringing theology into a scientific discussion. Terms such as "quickening" and "ensoulment" have nothing to do with when biological human life begins. Science can never answer this question.

Although Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and other Doctors of the Church, theorized about when, exactly, the soul entered the body, they never condoned abortion, or claimed life did not begin at conception. Nor did the Church.

Now, lets turn away from theology and back to the physical world. Science does answer the question, for all of us. At the moment a sperm enters the ovum, the 23 chromosomes from the father combine with the 23 chromosomes from the mother, completing fertilization, and a new human being is conceived.

This is a distinct, unique person with his or her own unique DNA profile. It immediately begins to grow and consume nutrition. What else is it, if it is not human life? All of us began this way.

You are correct, RCV, that the question has always been at what point does biological human life begin. Science shows us when, as I just explained.

The burden of proof is on you. According to you, when precisely does life begin? On which day, at what hour? And not some arbitrary date, like the second trimester. Give scientific reasons for the exact moment at which human life begins.

Mimi| 7.3.10 @ 6:46PM

MIMI'S MATH.... When life begins. I walked around for 72 months with a human being inside of my body . I felt them grow. I watched them be born... all human even the 8th who was born in the front seat of a Dodge , at 2am on the way to the hospital. I watched them become more and more human for...(I did the math) 4,644 months. I don't want to brag... it would take 20 pages...But lots of good human-kind went on and goes on. Yep....I am proudly PRO-LIFE. My proof!!!

Nick| 7.3.10 @ 7:07PM

Mimi,

My sister is pregnant with their eighth child.

My baby sister almost had their third in the car on the way to the hospital!

Mimi| 7.3.10 @ 7:49PM

Nick....Horray for them...Know they will walk with angels...Looking back it was easy! Morals was 1st and safety. After that the routine and JOY,JOY JOY . It seemed the Good Lord always provided....We were so blessed! Prayers to your sister. Love your posts NICK...Happy 4th.

Thom| 7.3.10 @ 7:36PM

Being neither “depressed” or “nuts” as some might think about the future of this “republic” I am never the less a very sober realists about our future.
Nothing short of a veto proof Congress after the November elections can reverse anything that has been passed to that date by this regime or start to undo nearly 100 years of damage done via the “progressive” movement. That which is still working in our “republican” form of government works against the very miracle many have put false hopes in. No single election cycle can change enough in government to make a practical impact. This is by design. I’m not a “hope” and “change” kind of person.
Bill Clinton’s presence in government still did damage after the 1994 elections right to the day he left office. King Obama will get to pick another Supreme Court Judge with almost certainty before his first chance to leave office on Jan 20th, 2013. A lot of negative things will likely happen between now and then, some of which are beyond most of our control as individuals and a nation.
To put the matter in perspective I make the follow prediction and I’m not in the crystal ball business. Those who know me know I can’t be enticed to buy even a lotto ticket……
If the Executive Branch, Congress, all 50 Governors and their legislatures disappeared tomorrow and weren’t replaced or heard from again for a least a decade, this Nation will still continue on its fiscal suicide pack and fall within this decade. No new laws or taxes are needed for this to happen. We’ve been on this slide into oblivion since 1913 and have programmed in most of the mechanism for our own destruction between 1935 and 1965. The “government bureaucracy” will continue to expand and consume all the wealth of this nation simply because it is the “law”. This is not a self fulfilling prophesy I’m describing here but merely the predictable outcome of not making fundamental changes in the relationship “government” has to “we the People”. The social contract forged 234 years ago has no resemblance to what we have today. Too many people mix our apparent prosperity with what was birthed in the late 16th century. They are not one in the same.
Government is not an investment mechanism. Government lives off of transfer payments from one citizen to another. Programs like Social Security were front end loaded with unfunded debt and while paying a mere $13,000 annual payout to each recipient today, it is not sustainable because we don’t have hundreds of millions of additional workers to pay future commitments. There are no funds to pay an additional 40,000,000 baby boomers their “earned welfare” for up to half as long as most worked during their lives. Medicare, Medicaid, King ObamaCare are just outright welfare or subsidized payments for pre paid medical insurance. Like everything government “subsidizes” the price becomes skewed out of reality. Public Education at the K-12 levels is a government monopoly and has totally unrealistic cost for the outcome it provides. Same for subsidized higher education. There are no market forces at work in the Education business in this country with the resultant run away labor/benefit costs and diminished education value provided. There is no accountability either. The situation is mostly the same for the Health Care industry since “government” mandated that the health care is a right and payment is optional. That plus subsidized healthcare has skewed the real cost of health care off the chart and put it beyond most people’s means. All this via government intervention in what should be a free market system that provide many levels of products and services at different price points. None of that exist in government schooling, health care and its welfare systems.
At the end of the day boy and girls someone has to pay for all this “free” and “subsidized” stuff. There is no money to pay our current indulgences let along the future stuff coming on line. Slowing down the rush for the cliff isn’t going to save us. It has never been stopped in my adult life time for even a moment. There has to be a fundamental change in the relationship government has to the governed or we are toast not too distance down the path we are on. Toast comes in many different degrees of “burnt”. This is going to happen with the current mechanism embedded in every level of government. This is going to happen with 3% paying 50% of the income tax burden, 50% paying 97% of the income tax burden and 46% of those that file income tax forms paying nothing at all.
Wishful thinking is not going to save this “republic”. Whatever the outcome of the November elections will be just a start in the right direction if enough “good men” can be found to step up to the plate but it will take a sustained effort covering several election cycles to make meaningful progress in the right direction. The “enemy” always gets a vote in these matters and far too many people just don’t want to accept who the real enemy of this “republic” is.
By all means enjoy the 4th of July celebrations. I plan to fully enjoy one the newly found enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. Make every effort between now and the November elections to be the “fisher of men” but be under no illusion that political miracles are in the works. Good men (and women) must have the courage of their convictions and be willing to speak truth to tyranny. If the King can stand before millions of citizens and tell a bald face lie on TV and no one stands up and calls him a liar, I would suggest we have a very steep climb out of this hole. If you aren’t willing to embrace the truth don’t be surprised at all by all the like minded friends you find in your hiding place when this “republic” goes Tango Uniform.
It is programmed in our “laws” and without fundamental change the end results are that much in question. Just when is about all left to chance and even that is becoming more predictable by the month.

Tenn Slim| 7.4.10 @ 9:39AM

Opine
We, the USA Electorate, WILL prevail. We WILL be here 234 years from now, G.. willing.
end
Semper Fi

Bruce| 7.4.10 @ 12:04PM

Interesting things going on here at AS. We continue to see posts mysteriously disappear - yet the plague of "pingbacks" continue unabated and more intrusive than ever.

Does anyone actually moderate this horse and pony show? Or do posts only get attention when certain people complain to the mucky-mucks? Inquiring minds want to know.

Northern Rebel| 7.4.10 @ 1:31PM

RCV or Nick, whoever this applies to:

Using science to decide the moment life begins, is like using a toaster to tell what time it is.

A toaster and a clock are related by their electrical components, yet perform completely different tasks.

God and science are related the same way. They both perform two related, yet distinctly different tasks. We can use science to learn more about God's works, like we can use a clock to time our toast. The difference is God's toaster is timed by Him. We can only observe, and gaze upon the wonder of His influence on the bread of life.

Even I'm laughing at this ridiculous analogy! ;o)

However, it makes sense. if you've had a couple of bourbon's, and a fine cigar!

I'll tell you folks my abortion story, and why abortion is an abomination, worse than slavery:

Before my wife and I got married, she was my sister's best friend. She was pregnant with her second child, and the first pregnancy was rough.

The doctor's gave her no chance, and urged her to abort the baby. Notice I didn't say, "terminate the pregnancy." The doctors said kill the baby, or you will both die!

Everyone urged my future wife, to abort, including the father. My wife refused. She said she would rather die, than kill her child, born or unborn.

My wife is the toughest human I have ever known.

Only my sister and I, supported her decision. Everyone else said she was a fool, stupid , blah, blah. The doctors know best, they said. They use MEDICAL SCIENCE, after all!

Today as we celebrate the 234th birthday of the greatest bastion of human freedom ever created with God's hand, and the founding father's help, I'm going to have a beer, and a hot dog, and celebrate it with a beautiful 25 yr old girl, who calls me dad.

I'm also going to celebrate it with a stunningly gorgeous 5 year old knockout, who calls me Papa.

If my wife had put her faith in SCIENCE, instead of GOD, these two wonderful humans would not be in our lives!

So don't give me this fuckin' science lecture pal, I'm on God's team!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMERICA!

Margie| 7.4.10 @ 3:31PM

NR! Yikes. With ALL due respect I am pretty sure you misunderstood Nick's post. He said Science can't answer the question about the spiritual, as to "when the spirit enters the womb of a woman with child."

But as to BIOLOGICAL life, it is a scientific fact that when the sperm and the egg meet and produce, it is producing a physical human life, and that they can't argue with that, though they try!

So, I don't think there's an argument there!
Hope that helps you guys. Don't want to see 2 Patriots at war with each other!

Happy Independence Day!

Ecc. 11:5~ "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything."

He also said

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 12:51AM

Thanks for the defense, Margie!

Appreciate it!

Margie| 7.4.10 @ 3:36PM

My post came out odd, the verse in Ecc. 11:5~ please put that right under my first paragraph.

It's odd but some of the posts at the end of this thread have underlining in all of the sentences, like as if they're hyperlinks. Oh well.

Margie| 7.4.10 @ 3:43PM

NR,

Oh, dummy me. I just realized you could have been talking to RCV when you said about the science lecture... and not Nick. Ah well there I go again.. sticking my nose.. sorry!

Mimi| 7.4.10 @ 4:28PM

NR...Your post made me CRY....with JOY. God Bless you and your "GIRLS'....Happy 4th.!

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 12:29AM

Mimi,

Thanks for your post above. I also think your comments are great.

Happy Independence Day to you and your family.

RCV| 7.4.10 @ 3:11PM

Indeed, Happy Birthday America. And congratulations to you, your kids and to your fine wife, who sounds like a wonderful person. I'm very glad she made the decision she did (it's the only one my wife and I could make as well) and that it turned out so well for everyone. I'm grateful she lived in this great country, where she had the freedom to make that choice for herself, rather than in China or Saudi Arabia or El Salvador, where male government officials unaffected by the decision would make it for her.

Margie| 7.4.10 @ 4:00PM

RCV,

I re read our posts, above. As to the name calling issue, I say that using words like scum and nasty words like that wrong and in the heat of the moment they do get spoken.. I also think it isn't wrong to say that someone's a Communist if they believe in Communism! As far as troll is concerned, well it sure does get bandied about, but usually toward those who act unreasonably. At AmSpec, most of us here are conservative and don't appreciate the Liberal mindset, and so if they go about presenting lies, as Liberals usually do, (no offense), then you'd certainly be tagged with that name.

So~ name "calling" isn't always wrong. If the name is correct. I truly believe that Obama and his pals are of the Communist mindset. At least Socialists, and they make no bones about it. So, if it's one thing I will not stop doing, is calling an ace an ace.

Just wanted to make that clear. So~ may the Communists fail miserably, and may they go to their eternal destination in shame, (unless they repent).

Happy Independence Day!

RCV| 7.4.10 @ 8:24PM

We Obamaites join you, Margie, in your curse of communists and their failed creed. May true discernment come to you as well. Happy Independence Day!

Margie| 7.5.10 @ 10:59AM

You don't even have to have discernment, but just simple common sense to see the following:

If Obama isn't Communistic in both theory and practice then ask yourself these questions:

Does he believe in a free market economy?
Or does he believe in government controlling the economy?

Does he believe in the laws of economics?
Or does he believe he can change them whenever he wants?

Does he believe in allowing businesses to grow?
Or does he believe in burdening them with onerous taxation?

Does he believe in people keeping the fruits of their labors?
Or does he believe that the fruits of their labors belong to the State?

Does he believe that the Constitution means what it says?
Or does he believe that it is obsolete?

Inquiring (and discerning) minds want to know.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 6:39PM

I can't answer for anyone but me, but here's my answers, and I think the Presidents would be similar, though more articulate:
1. I believe in a free market economy, but certainly not unrestrained by reasonable regulation. Like Teddy Roosevelt, I believe government has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens, guard against monopolistic and oligoposlitstic combinations, and enact rules and regulations to prevent fraud and misfeasance in corporate operations.

2. The laws of economics operate whether one believes in them or not, and no one believes you can "change" them.

3. All of us want businesses, especially small businesses, to grow. But all of us must share in the costs of operating government through taxation.

4. The fruits of people's labors belong to themselves, including working people. We all have obligations to our community that have to paid in the form of taxation. A tax system should be fair and progressive.

5. The Constitution most assuredly means what it says. ALL of it. Including the basic guarantees of rights against the State's criminal processes, which the Founders spent most of the Bill of Rights focusing on. It is not obsolete. It is the most ingenious and balanced document of government ever devised. When it has become so, we have amended it, just as the Founders wisely provided.

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 12:33AM

RCV,

Aren't you going to tell me when, exactly, biological human life begins?

I've laid out my case. I'm dying to read yours. Again, the burden of proof is on you, RCV.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 1:00AM

Nick - I wish I could give you a simple answer but I can't, because I'm not sure you and I are addressing the same question. There are legal, religious and scientific aspects to the question. Is an unborn human fetus a "person" within the meaning of the law? No, at least not entirely. It's obviously not entitled to representation, to sue, etc., until the moment it is born and is viable. I's right to have the state intervene on its behalf vis-a-vis the human being who is carrying it depends on its stage of development. The opinion of the Court in Roe, I think, does an accurate job of reviewing the historic evaluation of those interests. On the religious aspects, I've reviewed those in a prior post.

Nor is the scientific question easy to answer either. Do I think a sperm and an egg which have just combined are a "human being"? No. It certainly has the potential to develop into one, but at that point it still hasn't even attached itself to the uterine walls, without which it cannot survive and develop. Surely, to me at least, an egg and a sperm which combined in a petrie dish is not at that moment "human life" as I understand it, because without massive intervention -- i.e. implantation into a human being or extraordinary measures not yet developed -- it has no potential to develop into a person. An undiffentiated mass of cells, even with the combined DNA of a male and female human, is not itself, again to me, anyway, "human life". As those cells begin to differentiate, they begin to acquire charateristics of human life, and if things go well, those cells will develop into a human being. Some of those masses of cells, of course, even though they have human DNA, can NEVER develop into human life, and they don't. Many miscarriages end before anything resembling human life has developed, and sometimes after something that clearly is not human life has developed.

That's the best I can do, Nick, at least in the abstract. In the concrete, I can tell you this as I did before. My wife and I, once we have been aware that a potential human life has begun as a result of our actions would have the greatest of difficulty not doing everything we can to being that potential to realization. I know you've shared your own experience, which we haven't had to face since both our children have been born without the question ever coming up. What would I do if faced with the choice you posited -- having to choose between my wife's life and that of a potential life not yet developed? I honestly can't say I really know if it came to that - I can't imagine life without my wife.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 1:14AM

...whoops, I obviously was referring to NR's experience, not yours, Nick.

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 11:42AM

RCV,

That sure is a lot of typing to, essentially, duck my question, in my opinion.

Science doesn't depend on your beliefs, or mine. Science does not deal with the abstract, it deals with facts. Legal questions do not enter the equation, either.

Just as there is a point of death, there is a point of creation, a point at which life begins. As Steven Wright said, "Everyone dies instantly. You're alive....you're alive....you're alive....you're dead." In the same way, we become alive instantly. You're not created....you're not created....you ARE created. When does this happen?

Using words like "differentiate" and "develope" are just ways to avoid saying that the "mass of cells" or "fetus" (unborn baby in Latin), is GROWING and alive.

Also, it is not a mass of undifferentiated cells. As I stated before, at the moment of conception, the 23 chromosomes of the father combine with the mother's, creating a new human being with 46 chromosomes and his/her own unique DNA. He/she is distinct from the mother at the moment of conception.

If you are going to argue that biological human life doen NOT begin at conception, then you have to tell me when, exactly, human life does begin. It has to begin sometime, right?

Again, the burden of proof is on you, just tell me when, RCV.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 11:51AM

Nick - I've genuinely tried to answer your question as best I can. That's the best I can do.

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 12:47PM

RCV,

So, you won't define when you think biological human life begins. You do realize that you are conceding that abortion kills innocent human beings. And not just abortions that you may object to, like late-term abortions.

If you don't know when human life begins, then how do you when it is okay for the mother to have the "right to chose" to kill her unborn baby? Why is it okay to make this choice one day, and wrong the next?

As I stated previously, SCOTUS forced abortion-on-demand on all the states, 37 years ago, through all 9 months of pregnancy. You may think you are taking the moderate view by not agreeing with 2nd and 3rd tri-mester abortions. Or by having the view that you would never encourage someone to have one, but you would never force your beliefs on someone else. (I don't remember you stating where you stand exactly, RCV.)

But, if you are going to be "pro-choice," you have to justify why it is okay for the mother to end an innocent human life before a certain date, and why it must be prohibited after a certain date.

These are questions of life and death. I assume people have thought long and hard about the morals and ethics involved, when they take a position on whether or not abortion should be allowed.

I frequently find my assumptions are wrong.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 6:49PM

I have made quite clear that I do not believe that an embryo, certainly one that is not viable, is a "human being." I am what you call "pro-choice". I do not want nameless male bureaucrats telling women that they must terminate their pregnancy for societal reasons, as in China, or telling them they may not terminate their pregnancy no matter what the woman and her doctor agree is best for her health, or what some mullah or bishop thinks based on religious precepts, as in Saudi Arabia and El Salvador. I believe the Court in Roe got the analysis right. My wife and I have our own moral and ethical views about our responsibilities to a potential human life which we are responsible for creating, at least absent a direct and immediate threat to her life. We don't, however, believe we can impose those moral views on other human beings and control their bodies.

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 8:07PM

RCV,

But, you still will not explain when the "embryo" becomes a viable human being. This is a rather important point, don't you think? How do you decide if an abortion is killing a "viable" human being?

And, again, you are introducing non-relevant facts into the debate. Why does it matter to which gender the bureaucrat belongs? Or the profession of people who are against abortion? Science is science. All that matters is whether, or not, an innocent human life is being destroyed during an abortion.

By the way, are you against state medical boards and state licensing of doctors? They are filled with males telling women how they can, and cannot, be treated, medically.

There is never a medical reason to have an abortion, ever. It is not a medical procedure. Abortionists are not doctors. They are not healing, they are destroying.

I have heard many doctors say they would never perform an abortion, no matter what. Do you think these doctors would open themselves up to a malpractice suit, if an abortion was, in fact, ever medically necessary?

You appear to have a belief, i.e. human life does not begin at conception, of which you have no proof. Nor, can you come close to explaining when human life DOES begin. However, science does not depend on beliefs, RCV, just the facts.

Northern Rebel| 7.4.10 @ 5:51PM

My heart is still warm from your comments Mimi, as well as you, Margie.

I'm also humbled and impressed at your last post RCV. You just might have hope after all!

Though we may not agree about everything, one of the great things about the land we are fortunate to inhabit, is that nobody will come knocking on your door, and take you away, because we don't see eye to eye.

I hope this continues, though their are forces at work to change that characteristic of our nation.

Thank you again ladies, and a special happy holiday to you and yours, RCV!

RCV| 7.4.10 @ 8:22PM

...and to you and yours as well, kind sir

Northern Rebel| 7.4.10 @ 11:58PM

It's 11.39PM, and America's birthday is about to end, and so am I. at least until morning.

However, there is something I want to say.

Today I dressed in blue jeans, white sneakers, and a shirt with the words written upon it:

PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN

It's not that I'm not proud, but I don't know if proud is the proper word. I'm honored to be an American, but I didn't do anything to earn that distinction. I was lucky to be born here, instead of El Salvador.

So I have always felt an obligation to live up to the status that God chose to give me:

I am an American!

How many millions of people would love to be able to say this? We see people fleeing from from the paradise that communist Cuba is supposed to be, drowning in the gulf, literally dying in a failed effort to say the words I wrote above:

I am an American!

Whatever our political persuasions, we have an obligation to live up to these words, and do something to earn the right to say:

I am an American!

I don't feel like I've contributed enough to say I'm proud to be an American, yet. I'm fortunate to be an American, and every day I wake up, I try to find a way to earn the right to say, I'm proud to be an American!

If we all feel the way I feel, there is a chance for this nation to survive.

Being a patriotic American, is like being married. A successful marriage involves commitment, and hard work, and you're not always happy with the results.

One of my funny expressions I use to make people laugh, is,
"It's not easy being me, but it's worth it!"

It's not always easy to be an American patriot, but it's worth it, and I would rather die, than to be anything else.

God Bless America, and good night fellow patriots.

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 12:48AM

Northern Rebel,

Happy Independence Day to you and your family.

And, Praise the Lord that your wife ignored those "doctors." I pray that all new mothers wouldn't listen to any "doctor" who would advise her to kill her unborn baby.

I hope you just misunderstood my argument with RCV. I was trying to have a purely scientific discussion about when human life begins, and RCV kept bringing theology into the debate.

I was not trying to deny that God isn't responsible for both the physical creation of the body and the creation of the soul. He most certainly is.

But, science can only measure one side of human creation, the physical. And that happens at the moment of conception. This was my point. I hope that clears things up.

God Bless!

Northern Rebel| 7.5.10 @ 8:41AM

Nick:

I absolutely DID misunderstand your argument with RCV, and Margie made sure I became aware of that fact.

I get a little riled, when people start to dissect the specific moment of conception, because I interpret that as a means to justify killing a human being.

OK, should we kill it now , or later? Let's consult a book!

Nick, I have been on this forum for awhile, and I've read your posts, and I believe you to be a good man, and an American patriot.

So I'll caution you, seeing as I'm probably the older guy, DON'T FALL INTO THESE LIBERAL TRAPS!

Debating the exact moment of conception plays into the hands of those seeking to justify murdering a living human being for their own convenience.

I'll add a painful addendum to to my flowery story, about my daughter, and my grandgirl.

My daughter got pregnant again, and they told her the same thing they told my wife, when she was incubating in her belly.

I advised her to "terminate the pregnancy", because I couldn't imagine losing her, and having her daughter grow up, without her mom.

I wonder if I'm doomed to go to hell.

These are the toughest desicions placed before us mere mortals. I just wish the 50 million dead kids since Roe vs Wade, had parents and grandparents, that thought about the consequences of their actions as much as I agonized over mine.

God bless you Nick.

Nick| 7.5.10 @ 11:52AM

Northern Rebel,

I'm sorry you were in that situation twice.

But, remember, there is no sin so great, that God will not forgive us. It is believing we are beyond God's forgiveness, that leads to hell. Satan wants all of us to believe we are unforgiveable, so that we will continue to reject God.

Don't listen to the prince of lies.
God Bless!

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.10 @ 11:31AM

Thank you, everyone, for your comments.

As I understand it, about 1/3rd of the Colonists were willing to fight for independence and personal liberty.

Due to the 2nd Ammendment, hmmm the ratios seem to be about the same today....and I'm not talking about crappy little Saturday night Specials.

I await the "catalyst" dropped into the solution, and wonder what it might be. I am hoping it is the result of November 2.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 1:33PM

I don't wish a civil war on anyone, and hope you don't too, Ken.

Northern Rebel| 7.5.10 @ 4:03PM

Like Ken, I hope the sleeping giant has finally awakened. Nixon's election was the result of what he called the "silent majority."

As black as Nixon's legacy has become, he was elected because normal Americans genuinely feared the alternative, which was the continuation of Johnson's "great society" type of spending.

The vast majority of Americans are not "liberal-socialist-progressive-communists"(whatever their calling themselves this week) I too, pray that my faith in the American people pays off, Nov 2.

RCV:

I think Old Tex was referring to the revolution, not the Civil War.

I hope neither is nesessary, but many of us will not stand idly by, and watch the United States of America be destroyed from within.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 7:48PM

If you're talking about taking up arms against our country, which has procedures for you to have your voice heard via the ballot box, you're talking about civil war because those of us who believe in this Constitutional democracy aren't going to let people who lose at the ballot box take over by arms or take any part of our nation with them. That's part of what we have an army and police force for.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.10 @ 5:37PM

Rebel, thanks.
RCV
Do you have a short term memory problem?
Just last week I reminded everyone that I may be one of the few on this forum that has ever been caught in a shooting civil war...Indonesia...Yemen.

Nasty nasty...brother against brother.

Nope! If November 2nd can't turn things around, I am going to be calling for a national sit-down strike...and starve the bastards out...in the dark and cold without oil and gas...from Texas/La/Ok.

...at which point???

What will the communists, (pardon the shorthand), then do?

...put 25 million of us in gas chambers? Rots of Ruck with that, suckers.
As Bruce has pointed out...we got the guns, and in self defense mode ...our military...at least colonels down...and the overwhelming majority of millions of veterans...will be on our side.

RCV
When it comes down to the nut-cutting...and it looks like it will... you might want to think about which side you are on....in advance.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 7:31PM

I'm on the side of the United States of America, the country I love and for which I would, if necessary give my life. I have every confidence that our men and women in uniform, both in the armed forces and the police, will stand with their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you're one of those enemies, Old Ken, God help you.

RCV| 7.5.10 @ 7:34PM

...and by the way, Ken, you have every right to strike and refuse to give your labor any time you want. You could even organize a union.

Northern Rebel| 7.5.10 @ 11:55PM

Just for the record, I did not imply any notion of taking up arms against the federal government.

What I said was clearly stated:

There are patriots who will not stand idly by, as our country and Constitution is destroyed from within.

There is no doubt in my mind, that is exactly what "President" Anti-Christ, with the help from George Soros, and the political Liberal-socialist-progressive-communists (whatever they are calling themselves this week) are attempting to do. The Constitutional conservative American people will not allow this to happen.

There are amendments that were put there specifically to prevent this, and we will abide by all of them, in order to save our nation.

That is all I said.

RCV| 7.6.10 @ 12:34AM

I'm glad to hear it, NR. Our system of government is designed with checks and balances and they work; sometimes very slowly, as in the case of those post-Confederate states who undermined the Constitutional guarantees afforded newly-freed American citizens. It took a long time, but the judicial branch, the legislative branch and the sovereign People eventually righted the wrong. Those of us who worked for the election of President Obama did so to effect the very policy changes you decry: health care reform, tax reform, financial regulatory reform. The American people elected him on that platform. I understand many of the people on this site are upset with those policies; those of us who elected him are not. If enough people change their minds and you can convince them that you have better solutions, you will prevail. I don't think that's going to happen.

I expect that in the November eletions, the GOP will make the usual gains that the party out of power makes in an off-year election. They will narrow the gap in the House and Senate, but will not gain control of either. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Ironically, it is the Tea Party movement that has scuttled the slim chance they had of gaining control of a house of Congress. The movement has split the GOP and will result in the loss of Florida, just as it did in the upstate NY election last fall.

I've lived through many elections, NR, when candidates and causes I passionately worked for lost. I was miserable through the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes (though I have come to have greater respect for Reagan's foreign policy accomplishments over the years). But the Republic endures, and will continue to do so. It will cycle through liberal and conservative periods, but the basic Constitutional breaks the Founders wisely put in place will ensure that it will bet righted eventually.

I too will abide by our Constitution, and by the election results when the American people speak. I feel privileged every day to live in this great country under this amazing system. So should all of us.

Northern Rebel| 7.6.10 @ 2:15AM

RCV:

My respect for you grows with each one of you posts. It is refreshing to be able to discuss issues with someone that has different views, and not have it turn into spitting and spewing.

I disagree with your assertion that the tea party folks are undermining the conservative cause. I think that's what the Olberman's, and Matthews contingent are spinning, but NOBODY WATCHES THEIR SHOWS!

If we are splitting the republican party, I'm happy, because I'll happily take a step back, to purge the Flimsy Graham's and the doddering old fools like John McCain. They do not represent anyone but their own blind ambitions, and evil is as evil does. (NorthernGump?)

I don't know your complete political philosophy, but I believe in the Constitution, as it was written, not what Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg wishes it was.

As this forum rolls along, I'm sure everyone here will learn more about you. We are a tight knit group, Ken, Al Adab, Margie, Nick, Ret. Marine, and myself, (forgive me for anyone I missed) have been going at it for years here, and we've seen people come and go, so it will be cool to see what ya got!

best wishes RCV, I'm now counting you as a person who loves America.

RCV| 7.6.10 @ 11:20AM

I've genuinely enjoyed my discussions with you, Nick and Margie as well, all of whom I respect though we obviously disagree on many issues. Be well and take care.

Carlos| 7.6.10 @ 2:46AM

Obama's Re-Election Promise

Whereas Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," Obama has come up with his own twist and promises, if he's re-elected, "a chick in every car and some pot in every garage"!

Nick| 7.6.10 @ 12:30PM

RCV,

My question about state medical boards and licensing of doctors was not rhetorical. Nor was the one about malpractice and doctors not performing abortions.

I would like to know if you have any answers to these queries?

By the way, "viability" is just as arbitrary a dividng line as was 2nd tri-mester. The date at which a baby will survive outside the womb has changed dramatically in the 37 years since Roe was decided.

The only thing that changed was medical technology, not whether or not the baby was human life. Technology will only get better in the future, as babies at 18, 17, 15 weeks will live.

Will it still be okay with you, RCV, to kill those babies?

RCV| 7.6.10 @ 5:00PM

Of course I support licensing of doctors and state regulatory overview to supervise their competence. My reference to males making decisions about a woman carrying a baby was simply an observation about a biological fact: pregnancy is one state that is gender-specific. In my view, there is something particularly inappropriate about a state bureaucrat who is a male making decisions for a woman about what she must do with her body. Any pregnancy poses risks. I'm not a doctor and can't assess those risks to the woman, who is without question a person, a human being with constitutional rights against unjustified state intrusion.

On the issue of viability and the state's interest in protecting the developing embryo, I think Roe got it right: The state's interest in intervening on behalf of the embryo increases as the independent viability of the embryo approaches. As state legislatures -- who are in a far better position than I to evaluate the state of medical technology -- assess the respective weight of the interests at stake, judges will review those state measures and assess whether they meet the balancing of interests laid out in Roe.

I would indeed be a happy day for me when we live in a society where abortion is not only unnecessary but unthinkable. I mean that sincerely.

Northern Rebel| 7.6.10 @ 2:57PM

Go get'em Nick!

Nick| 7.6.10 @ 6:41PM

RCV,

Your statements are full of contradictions.

State medical boards, consisting of all males, can prohibit a female doctor from "treating" a female patient, with breast cancer, with concoctions and "holistic" treatments. State medical boards define what are proper medical practices and ethical conduct. Why is this okay with you, but not okay in the case of abortion?

Roe did not allow for the "independent viability" of the embryo to increase. It chose the completely arbitrary time period of the 2nd and 3rd tri-mesters as to when states could limit abortions. (This stipulation was annihilated by the companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, with its "health exception." This allows abortion, for any reason, through all 9 months of pregnancy, i.e. abortion-on-demand.) Babies that were not "viable" in 1973, are able to live on their own in 2010.

Why is it okay for MALE judges to review "state measures" and decide if "they meet the balancing of interests laid out in Roe?" Also, you are, in effect, stating that it is okay with you that "viable" babies are killed, until the courts sort it out. I thought you claimed that you were against the killing of innocent human beings? Do you see the contradiction?

Lastly, you state: "I[t] [sic] would indeed be a happy day for me when we live in a society where abortion is not only unnecessary but unthinkable. I mean that sincerely."

I believe you. But, if a women's "right" to choose does not violate any moral or ethical standards, why should it be "unthinkable?" It sounds to me like you know that abortion is wrong, RCV.

Nick| 7.6.10 @ 6:50PM

Oh, I forgot one more question, RCV.

You are a lawyer. Wouldn't a doctor open himself up for a major malpractice lawsuit if he refused to perform an abortion, if one was "medically" necessary?

If a doctor refused to perform an appendectomy for a patient that was suffering from appendicitis, wouldn't he be sued for medical malpractice?

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 12:14AM

Nick: yes, if an abortion was medically necessary, and the patient wanted it, refusal could open the MD up to a charge of malpractice. I'm not a JD, I'm an MD.

RCV| 7.6.10 @ 8:38PM

I'm a lawyer, but my specialties are First Amendment defense and corporate defense. I know nothing about medical malpractice - that was John Edwards' specialty.

victor| 7.7.10 @ 12:12AM

RCV:
"but my specialties are First Amendment defense"

Oh, perhaps you can point me to the section of the First Amendment that allows Congress to abridge the Freedom of Speech, eh?
You know, as in McCain Feingold?
Or is that the part of the Constitution that is "living and breathing"?
Or is it as obsolete as your president believes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCNK7v3J6w

RCV| 7.7.10 @ 11:56AM

No section in the First Amendment allows Congress to abridge Freedom of Speech.

My problems with the Court's resolution of McCain Feingold is their elevation of the rights of corporate entities. Corporations are pure creations of the state. They are fictional entities created by state law to promote economic investment. They have no rights to vote (thank God) or run for office. The human beings who own and work for corporations have, of course, the unfettered right to speak unencumbered by governmental regulation or restraint. But I see nothing unconstitutional about the state (which a small "s" enacting regulations that prohibit spending of corporate assets on political campaigns. If I were Congress, I would simply pass a law that required prior approval by shareholders of a corporation (and, for that matter, by members of a union) before corporate or untion assets could be spent on a specific campaign. I believe that law would pass constitutional muster.

Nick| 7.7.10 @ 12:35AM

RCV,

They didn't teach tort liability at your law school?

Why didn't you give a reason as to why you think abortion should be "unthinkable?"

Anyway, hope I made you think.

RCV| 7.7.10 @ 12:05PM

They did indeed teach Torts at Stanford. That doesn't make me a medical malpractice expert though. My view of Constitutional Law, however, leads me to conclude that no doctor should be compelled to perform an abortion if it is contrary to his religious scruples. The balancing of interests to me makes that a pretty easy call.

I would like abortion to be "unthinkable" for the reasons I gave before, Nick. My wife and I believe that one has a responsibility of nurturing a potential human life that you have created through your voluntary actions. "Inconvenience" to me is an inadequate excuse to avoid that responsibility.

But I do not believe that everything I think is immoral should be illegal. I think adultery is immoral; I think treating people with disrespect because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is immoral; I think advocacy of war and violence when not absolutely necessary is immoral; I think amassing huge amounts of resources without sharing them with others in need is immoral. I am not in favor of making any of these things illegal.

Occam's Tool| 1.25.12 @ 12:15AM

As you said, RCV, you have no clue on medical malpractice. ;)