The American Spectator

Oldefarte| 1.23.10 @ 11:06AM

If his nomination is rejected, it would represent a more drastic implosion to this country that did the voters' election of THE CHOSEN ONE in their anger over Bush and the longevity of the war on terror in the middle east. Bernanke is wrongfully being blamed for the cridit/housing crisis, when is stupid and asinine [since the cause of same goes back to liberal Democrats' passing of the Credit Recovery Act in 1977 and also their running interference for Fannie/Freddie so that same could provide welfaric loans to the indigent constituents of Democrats]. The low interest rates that Bernanke instituted were intended for credit worthy businesses and individuals to obtain in order to stimulate the economy; but instead, Liberal Democrats facilitated the granting of same to uncredit-worthy mortgagees to purchase 'AFFORDABLE HOMES' [and now the American taxpayers are have to 'afford' these forclosed upon loans, in addition to their own personal ones]. If Bernanke is rejected, a VAN JONES TYPE will replace him and this country will sink further into the cesspool!!!!

Sean| 1.23.10 @ 12:52PM

Sure let's keep nominating incompetent people that are wrong over and over. Why not find someone that is actually competent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5sDKwMP6Pc

MacAoidh| 1.25.10 @ 11:08AM

No brief for Bernanke here, but the real concern is over who Obama might tap to replace him. He can always find somebody worse; maybe we'll get Penny Pritzker or Jim Johnston as Fed Chair next.

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 12:14PM

Brown was a great victory for Republicans.

The Citizens United case may just be the issue that the left has been waiting for to galvanize its base.

Republicans could well be put in a position of having to defend the insupportable and heartless lie that a corporation is a person.

Well, a corporation is NOT a person, and in fact, Chief Justice Roberts was wrong when he said it was.

While the individuals who make up a corporation AS INDIVIDUALS have all the rights of individuals, the legal fiction called a corporation does not.

The fact that the government has erroneously granted privilege and favors to corporations they call "rights" does not make them "rights."

The Founding Fathers never dreamed of such an idea, and they were obsessed with the very issue at stake in this decision: the corruption of government by money. Indeed, this was one of the few issues on which the Founding Fathers agreed with one another!

The Constitution does NOT grant personhood to corporations and NO SCOTUS decision has ever adequately laid out reasoning why they should be able to claim personhood.

So enjoy Brown, folks. My ardent hope is that Citizens United will unite actual citizens -- on the right and the left -- to demand a return of their basic rights as citizens and to end the privilege granted corporations that is corrupting our Republic.

Margie| 1.23.10 @ 1:36PM

Hmm. LR, are Unions a "person" or an "individual?"

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 4:05PM

Unions are not persons or individuals. They're unions.

Similarly, corporations are NOT persons, they're corporations.

A mule is not squirrel. I don't care how many Supreme Court justices say otherwise.

A corporation is a legal fiction granted some limited protections enjoyed by persons.

But a corporation is not a citizen.

It cannot vote, hold office, or be drafted into service of a country. A corporation has some free speech protection, but does NOT have the kind of blanket protection enjoyed by actual persons.

JohnD| 1.23.10 @ 2:16PM

LR, you are flat out wrong, on several counts:

First, a corporation is a "legal" person, separate and distinct from its incorporator, shareholders, directors, and officers. The term "Corporation" comes from the latin "corpus" meaning body/person. The idea, in Medieval times was to create a "legal" person (corpus) that would be able to undertake tasks and enterprises that would not be subject to death or disease and would continue beyond a normal human life span. This was essential to build infrastructure or undertake long-term enterprises. It was a brilliant concept.

Secondly, corporation law is a function of State law, not federal or Constitutional law. Corporation laws are different from State to State, allowing one to shop and pick the State law that best serves their needs.

Where Constitutional law comes in, is that if a Corporation, duly formed under the laws of any U.S. State is a "legal" person, then it must have Constitutional rights like a real person. To deny the corporation its Constitutional rights as a "legal" person, is to deny its shareholders, directors, officers, etc. their Constitutional rights as real persons.

In practice, this is essential; denying a corporation its right to fund advocacy ads to oppose harmful policies is to protect the rights of its shareholders (real persons), who have free speech rights.

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 4:13PM

The decision by SCOTUS overturned a century of standing law passed by elected representatives of the people -- including dozens of STATE laws.

It was the most activist and rash decision by the Supreme Court in decades, and surely one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.

It was intellectually shabby and deeply flawed.

The notion that the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers was to imbrue corporate entities with the rights of men is simply false.

Corporate personhood as a legal concept wormed its way into precedent in the late nineteenth century. It has NEVER been considered as an absolute status of personhood recognized by the Supreme Court until this week.

This decision overturned THREE prior decisions by the courts as well as laws dating back to 1907. It was the least conservative decision of the court in modern times.

Now you have a situation in which corporations owned by people in China or Saudi Arabia are accorded equal standing under the law to you or me.

It's insane.

Exxon Mobile spent 1 million dollars in the last election. With this decision, they'll be able to dip into a war chest funded by the 30 billion in profits they made last year.

You think that will serve the public good?

You'd have to be insane to think that millions and millions of dollars flooding Washington is what is needed.

What have the Tea Party rallies been about? I thought it was about demanding that the government listen to the people?

You people are always prattling on about your great gaseous love of the Founding Fathers. I don't think you know or understanding anything about them. Go read Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. THIS is precisely what they were afraid of.

Well, thanks to SCOTUS, you have a country whose government will be DEAF to the people.

Here's your "Constitutional Republic," America. It turns out, Coke really is it!

JohnD| 1.23.10 @ 11:06PM

LR writes: "Exxon Mobile spent 1 million dollars in the last election. With this decision, they'll be able to dip into a war chest funded by the 30 billion in profits they made last year.

You think that will serve the public good? "

Uh, YES! If it allows them to get access to the vast oceans of oil put out of reach by the Interior Department and it results in cheap energy (and thereby cheaper products, cheaper food, cheaper utility bills, etc.) then it will definitely serve the public good, raise our standard of living, and increase our productivity. You can plow more acres in an hour with a Massey-Ferguson combine than you can with an ox.

And if it means more oil is domestically produced instead of purchased from hostile foreign governments (Saudi's, Venezuela, etc.) and it lessens our dependency on foreign energy sources in politically volatile countries (Nigeria) then we have stable prices, and keep more dollars here, which will help the value of the dollar vs. world currencies and, again, raise our standard of living.

Indiana Alex| 1.25.10 @ 9:16AM

How much did MoveOn.org spend? Or George Soros?

PEBird| 1.23.10 @ 8:56PM

Corporate law was developed to limit liability to individuals tasked with running an enterprise. The organization is therefore responsible for liabilities generated from its activities (a company can be sued, but the officers are generally protected - assuming no criminal activity).

Because speech is protected in this country, corporate officers do not need liability protection from what their corporation might "say". Corporate law is irrelevant with respect to speech, corporations do not need their rights to speech protected because all members of the public have their rights protected.

Instead, the corporation can be used as a conduit to channel speech. If each citizen had unlimited access to the government budget for their personal speech - that would be equivalent to letting corporate officers unlimited access to their corporate budgets for their own personal speech.

I am not saying that corporate (or union, or other organizational) speech should be outlawed, but it is NOT unconstitutional for the government to regulate it.

MacAoidh| 1.25.10 @ 11:15AM

How dare you call yourself "liberal," when nothing about your philosophy indicates the pursuit or promotion of liberty at all.

Corporations are treated as persons under the law, and have been for some time. Part of that treatment means they are afforded the right to free speech. McCain-Feingold was an unconstitutional assault on that freedom, and as such Citizens United was a victory for the First Amendment.

Of course, we understand your kind has little use for the First Amendment, as seen in Rahm The Ballerina's quote that "it's overrated." But you have the right to dream on that this decision, supported by a majority of Americans, will be the magic potion which reconstitutes lefties like yourself the nation over and wards off the evil Republican surge this fall.

As for the rest of your comment, it's a predictable morass of left-wing crap.

Freeborne| 1.23.10 @ 5:12PM

Taxation without representation was sighted as one of the reasons for our Revolutionary War. Should we compromise our principles by reaping the benefits of a corporation while at the same time giving 'him/her/it' no voice in the matter? Our election process should be a battlefield of ideas where all interests (yes, including the 'special' ones) are heard. The founders feared ignorant complacent populations not corporations.

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 5:47PM

Freeborne --

Your comment has a kind of touching quaintness to it, so I'm going to go easy on you.

You seem to underestimate the intelligence and wisdom of our revolutionary ancestors. I assure you, Sir, the Founding Fathers were intelligent enough to make a distinction between the Sons of Liberty -- for whom they wanted freedom of speech and association -- and the East India Tea Company!

Nothing could be further from the Spirit of '76 than the increasing conglomeration of power and capital in international corporations -- which now you say should enjoy the same freedoms as you yourself!

But think about this: in exchange for your freedom, you must be -- if of a certain age -- to give UP your freedom to defend your country, if called upon to do so.

Are you saying that the Congress should be able to impress a corporation and draft it into the Army?

How exactly would that work?

Should a corporation be able to vote? Hold office? Raise a militia? What exactly are the rights of this being that you've suddenly conjured into existence?

You clearly have thought this through and believe that a corporation is a human being: but if you prick it, it will not bleed! A corporation deserves some legal protection, but it does NOT deserve the freedom of unlimited ability to purchase a privileged voice in our government.

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 5:23PM

Conservatives make strong and persuasive arguments about the dangers of government "picking winners" in the market place AND the dangers of excessive regulations.

By permitting unlimited spending on the parts of corporations, this decision

1) Helps large corporations who go to Congress for one reason and one reason only: to GAIN tax payer dollars in the form of subsidies;

2) Helps the largest corporations who work in FAVOR of excessive regulation as a way to destroy smaller businesses who might compete against them in the market.

Businessmen, when they go to government, are trying to do ONE THING: they're trying to DESTROY competition.

Besides the terrible corrupting power of this decision on our political system, it may very well corrupt and increase the "moral hazards" of our economic system.

Think, folks! One man, one vote. That's what we're about! People did not die in combat for the civil rights of Bank of America!

Freeborne| 1.23.10 @ 6:40PM

Liberal Reader
I am interested in your listed points of argument. I've read your response but I can't see anything 'new' that will come from this SCOTUS decision (other than the obvious point that corporations whom don't own media outlets will also be able to state their case.) Unions and General Electric Corp. (sole subsidiary of MSNBC) have been 'buying' this administration's favors with shocking regularity. American's waking up has been the result. I don't fear the voice of rich corporations. I fear the silent ignorance of my neighbor. I value your input on this topic but while I agree with many of your premises I don't arrive at the same conclusion. Censorship doesn't provide for a well informed populous. It provides for a one sided argument where arrogant men declare "The Debate is Over."

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 8:30PM

Preventing the corruption of Congress and wholesale legalized bribery of law makers is NOT censorship.

ANY individual member or shareholder or CEO of a corporation has every right to engage in any political speech he wishes.

Let the CEOs of Bank of America scrawl slogans on cardboard signs and stand out in the cold like the rest of us when we wish to petition our government. Let them write letters to the editor.

But why give a corporation -- which is NOT a person and is NOT a human being and is NOT a citizen -- a special place at the table?

By what right does AIG have special, privileged rights of petitioning the government for yet MORE tax dollars?

Are you people insane?

You spend 98% of your energy complaining about the waste of tax dollars, but here you are faced with an utter scandal of corruption -- the whoring of the United States Congress -- and you cheer it on!

What about the current state of affairs in DC makes you think that UNLIMITED corporate spending on politicians will make the government more sensitive to the will of the people????

Freeborne| 1.23.10 @ 8:46PM

No, preventing SOME corporations from having a voice while EXEMPTING other corporations i.e. General Electric (through MSNBC, NBC, and CBS) is censorship. Citizens United brought a valid case before the SCOTUS and actually won. If you are suspicious of the rehearsal you might want to consider again that they were overturning one hundred years of 'accepted' precedent. (as a general rule, I recommend that you rethink all the legislation and Supreme Court decisions that occurred around the turn of the 19th century as they relate to Liberty.)

PEBird| 1.23.10 @ 9:06PM

Note that media corporations (not newspapers, but those that use public franchises, such as air wave frequencies, satellites, public access) ARE regulated by the FCC. In the "old" days, companies that were using the public frequencies (TV) and wanted to broadcast political speech had to offer time for competing opinions (how quaint) - called the Fairness Doctrine. Advertisements could be stopped if they were proven to not deliver what they promised (there goes the Bowflex commercials).

The argument that some corporations have speech and others do not is specious. Media corporations are regulated already. By your argument, all corporations should have their speech regulated - which is what the Supreme Court case was about, not abolishing corporate speech.

Freeborne| 1.23.10 @ 10:38PM

My point, for what it is worth, is simple. Free speech is a natural right and wherever the government seeks to 'regulate' it American's should be watchful. I've scanned through the opinions and dissents of the judges and I agree, on principle, with their decision.

BHG| 1.23.10 @ 6:52PM

As a matter of fact, citizens have died for the civil rights of infividuals, big corporations, small corporations, and non-profits.
Those that are angriest about the decision "forget" who it wasthat brought the action. It was a little, non-profit, Citizens United. It , like other non-profits and small coporations can't compete with the corporations that own the MSM . Nor can they afford lobbyists or hefty contributions to PACs.
Let's not pretend that big businessmen such as Warren Buffet, George Soros, Mort Zuckerman , Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, Bill Gates et al didn't influence the election! Any limitations on tort lawyers? Unions?
The vast majority of corporations are Mom-and-Pops. Shouldn't they have a voice? Or do you haveto be listed on the NASDAQ to be able to afford a lobbyist?
From this White House asking people to report "rumors" about the health care "reform" to last night's threat by Kucinich on O'Reilly to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, not forgetting the threat to sic the IRS on the USCCB for opposing the healthcare bill, all Americans have a right to be worried about our civil rights.

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 8:06PM

BHG --

The "little group" the brought the action seems to have a legitimate case. But you're missing the point.

SCOTUS -- Roberts especially -- sought out this case to overturn standing legislation going back for 100 years.

Their decision COULD have narrowly decided this case. They deliberately made a sweeping decision, even choosing to rehear the case -- which is very unusual for the Supremes.

This was an extremely activist decision. It showed none of the "judicial humility" that Roberts promised the Senate he would show.

Liberal Reader| 1.23.10 @ 10:11PM

What do media corporations have to do with this?

Look, folks.

You're defending an indefensible position.

SCOTUS did not just decide on the narrow facts of the Citizens United case. They could have, but they didn't.

SCOTUS deliberately and unnecessarily widened the scope of their decision to rashly overthrow laws that were passed by duly elected, duly constituted legislatures.

If their decision had merely found nothing wrong with the video about Clinton, I would have cheered. Clearly the law needed work; clearly campaign finance is a complicated issue that needed more study and debate.

But to license gigantic corporations -- foreign and domestic -- to purchase Congress (as they did in the 19th century) is a disgrace to American jurisprudence.

Now answer me this:

If these corporations are PERSONS, as conservatives are now insisting, what about FOREIGN owned corporations.

Are they aliens? Illegal aliens? Legal aliens? Immigrants?

If they are persons, are they human?

If not, how can you have a person that is not a human being? Are all human beings persons?

You're extending these "persons" rights. How many rights? All rights? Can they run for office? Can they be imprisoned for breaking the law? Explain how all this works to me, please. Dazzle me with your acumen.

Freeborne| 1.23.10 @ 10:41PM

My point, for what it is worth, is simple. Free speech is a natural right and wherever the government seeks to 'regulate' it American's should be watchful. I've scanned through the opinions and dissents of the judges and I agree, on principle, with their decision.

Liberal Reader| 1.24.10 @ 12:12PM

The free speech of any member of a corporate entity as an individual hasn't been enfringed upon.

The laws that SCOTUS overturned merely sought to regulate the extent to which corporations AS ENTITIES could "speak."

Answer me this: why can't a member of a corporation -- seeking to forward it's interests, which as we said ALWAYS are the destruction of competition -- engage in speech the way YOU do? Why should he have a SPECIAL set of options available to him? Why should he have PRIVILEGED access to Congress?

Again, if the CEO of Exxon wants to stand out in the cold with a cardboard sign -- like you Tea Partiers do -- I say: more power to him. But I do NOT think his company's 26 billion dollars in profit last year should be the source of unregulated spending when he goes to Washington to purchase government favors.

Nor -- by the way -- do I think Ethanol companies be able to purchase favors that disadvantage Exxon.

Let men speak as men! For heaven's sake! What is so difficult about all men being created equal for you to understand, for when Jefferson wrote those words, he was not thinking of the East India Tea Company as having anything like the rights (or duties) as the Sons of Liberty!!!

Margie| 1.23.10 @ 10:46PM

I will end by saying that... "a Union isn't a person. It is a Union." (Per Liberal Reader). Therefore if a corporation isn't a person, but a corporation, it ought to have the same rights as a Union does. By that definition. Right Liberal Reader?
Isn't that the bottom line..hmm?
After all, that IS the decision the Supremes came to, is it not?

Tom Degan| 1.24.10 @ 6:43AM

Are corporations really persons?

Do corporations think?

Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: "It")

Has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

Has a corporation ever written a novel that inspired millions?

Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

Should corporations kiss on the first date?

Our lives - yours and mine - have more worth than any corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision on Thursday is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling - it's an insult to our humanity.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 12:55PM

Corporations are made up of "people." Unions are made up of "people." The Supreme Court ruling leveled the playing field (to use a much loved Leftist phrase).
Freedom of Speech has been restored and the Left can't stand it.
Finally!

Truth to Power| 1.24.10 @ 1:35PM

I think Margie has it exactly right. There was an attempt to silence groups of people pooling their money to stand up to the corruption of government. This corruption takes the form of shaking down corporations for money, or shutting up the National Rifle Association at important times near elections as two examples. The effect of letting this law be is to let the government, and favored corporations dominate the isolated individual. It is natural that trolls like the Little Reader try to pose it a class warfare way but what I observe is the problem is our over large government not corporations. Obama and his left base (20%) got a nice advantage out of this condition. They play the bash the corporation one minute and then give them our money the next. This has worked in Mexico and Europe but meets resistance here. It is over. Proto-fascists like the Little Reader need to get over that.

Liberal Reader| 1.24.10 @ 3:58PM

Corporations "pool" their money together to "stand up to government corruption"?

What planet do you LIVE on?????

When a corporation goes to Washington DC to spend money, it goes there for one reason and one reason only: to create market conditions favorable to it and unfavorable to its competitors.

If it thinks a regulatory regime will disadvantage its competitors, it works for that regulatory regime.

If it thinks it can win a subsidy (a disadvantaging of its competitors), it will work for that subsidy.

Where in any of this is there a fight against "government corruption."

Hells bells, man! It IS government corruption.

No law that I know of prevents individuals -- no matter WHAT they own or for WHOM they work -- petitioning their government AS individuals, and that is at it should be.

Truth to Power| 1.24.10 @ 11:27PM

I pooled my money with others when I joined the NRA. The Little Reader has tried to shut me up with this law. This is one way the law was used.

Corporations get shook down by all kinds of politicians. The Little Reader needs to understand I see him like a mobster trying to get protection money not as any kind of savior. In the whole world clowns like the Little Reader have only helped enrich the political class. This is why they don't make it illegal for corporations to give contributions, they just don't want to hear from them. This is the fascist two step. Keep people quiet and shake down corporations. The Little Reader is one slimy tool.

Liberal Reader| 1.24.10 @ 4:18PM

Exactly which people are corporations "made up" of? The CEOs? The shareholders? Who is the "person" of the corporation?

The Fortune 100 controls over 20 trillion dollars in wealth. Comparing corporate influence on DC to union influence is like comparing murder to shoplifting.

BUT, this ruling does prevent Congress from reigning in some of the abuses in which unions have engaged. For years unions have skirted right up against the edge of the law when it comes to campaign financing, and there would indeed have been room for some legislative clarity on those matters. SCOTUS has made that clarity impossible to achieve with this ruling. But again, the influence of corporate spending under this ruling dwarfs that of unions entirely.

This ruling is the abomination of desecrations set up in a place it should not be.

Oldefarte| 1.24.10 @ 2:18PM

ALERT: Even though most of you bloggers are probably already aware of this, I've just read elsewhere an eidtorial [in the American Thinker] concerning the US Department of Justice establishing a group of government paid [anomonous] bloggers that write [comment] favorable opinions at various media 'comment sections' concerning the current administration's policies/programs,etc. So be very suspicious of any/all such bloggers appearing here at the AS that may be US Department of Justice employees disguised as ordinary public citizens!!!!!

Nargie| 1.24.10 @ 3:50PM

Rightee-O (as Felix the Cat used to say), Olde Farte!
And just think. We do the work opposing of these freakazoids for free! It is our duty, and honor! :^) Meanwhile they get paid! The Government corruption continues!

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 3:52PM

*Oops. Who was that masked lady? Why, it was me!

Spinny| 1.24.10 @ 4:05PM

Oldefarte is definitely onto something with his comments regarding a rumored policy of having Government employees attempt to come into various blogs, political websites, etc. for the express purpose of trying to alter the discussion or engage in Obama propaganda. It is based on an extremely pernicious paper written by Cass Sunstein. It is on line and can be read from this site:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa.....id=1084585

Sunstein recommends a policy of what he calls "cognitive infiltration" to try to influence thinking of people in websites or blogs who might disagree with the Government. He uses the "smoke screen" of Conspiracy Theorists, Hate Groups, etc as the intended targets.....but thats a canard....the intended targets of "cognitive infiltration" are much broader...basically anyone who doesnt support this corrupt administration led by the Lyin' Hawaiian"

Liberal Reader| 1.24.10 @ 4:20PM

This is absurd paranoia.

Spinny| 1.24.10 @ 6:14PM

And Take a look at this LR,

http://www.cleveland.com/open/.....rse_r.html

Truth to Power| 1.24.10 @ 11:32PM

The Little Reader is just irritated that somebody gets paid for what he does for free.

Spinny| 1.24.10 @ 4:57PM

Oh really? Well, I suggest you go to the website where Mr. Sunstein's paper is published. You may read the abstract as well as down load the entire paper free of charge. And ask yourself this...what the hell is a law professor doing writing papers about "cognitive infiltration"??? (not my term - HIS). If you take the time to read his paper you will also find a very orwellian and disturbing analysis of people who shave views and opinions at odds with Mr. Sunstein. And, as I am sure you are aware LR, Mr. Sunstein is now a "Czar" in charge of regulating internet content. I plan on making this paper very very public.

Call it paranoid, but I don't happen to like pointy-headed, weird, egg-head law prof. weaseling their way into jobs in the U.S. Government giving them some kind of unconstitutional influence (if not out right control) over internet content. ESPECIALLY, those who write papers recommending policies like "cognitive infiltration". Read the paper and then post in here.....but you won't.

Spinny| 1.24.10 @ 5:07PM

Oh, LR, one more thing....I attended the University of Chicago while Mr. Sunstein was on the faculty. I attended several of his lectures (and talks). He is a very strange, very odd man. Other data points including - very screwed up marriage, a daughter that is a complete HEAD CASE who needs lots of psychiatric help (she attends U of C Lab School where I know faculty). And Sunstein himself is absolutely enthralled with himself. He is a classic, arrogant, know-it-all-ish academic who relishes power.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 5:17PM

Spinny,
Please do come in here more often and post!
I actually think they've been already doing this for some time.. if you get a load of some of the posters' continual nonsense!

Spinny| 1.24.10 @ 6:05PM

Thank you for your kind words Margie...and, yes, I suspect you are right. Have you read the news stories about this "Ellie Light"? That is the name that has been appearing on the same letter to the editor defending Pres. Obama but with different addresses attached to it depending on where the published newspaper is?? Its all very weird. And then you read things about Cognitive Infiltration. Most unsettling.

james wilson| 1.25.10 @ 10:52AM

It makes no sense whatever for Obama or this Congress to appoint someone who is competent. Bernanke will be confirmed.