By DAREH GREGORIAN
Last updated: 10:45 am
February 27, 2009
Ay-yi-yi, Chihuahuas! An Upper West Side woman has filed a $500,000 lawsuit charging that her downstair's yappy little dogs are driving her loco.
In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, lawyer Paulette Taylor says Theodore Henderson's two Chihuahuas "bark in a manner that is offensive, constant, continuous and incessant."
The mighty miniatures are loud enough to be heard outside of Henderson's apartment and inside hers - and she can't take it anymore.
Taylor, 62, says in the suit that the dogs have her so stressed that she can't sleep. The suit adds that Henderson "may even be guilty of inciting his Chihuahuas to bark."
Taylor has complained to Henderson and to the management of their building at 382 Central Park West for well over a year, but they've done nothing, said her lawyer, Jacqueline Bukowski.
"We're asking for a restraining order against the dogs," Bukowski said, or "some sort of soundproofing" to block the barking from coming into Taylor's apartment, which is directly above Henderson's.
Henderson could not be reached for comment. A lawyer for the building's management company, Maxwell-Kates Inc., said he had not been served with a copy of the suit and couldn't comment on it.
The suit seeks $500,000 from Henderson, Maxwell-Kates and the building's owners for Taylor's "emotional and physical distress."
Click to go to article
dareh.gregorian@nypost.com
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama will try to stop any dissent, but he'll do it indirectly - Look at thie website
I'll put the link to this site at the bottom of the page, but I need to warn people that there is a lot of gutter language.
The titles of the threads give you a flavor for the content of the website. It's really unbelievable. In their world, you're not allowed to disagree. A real dilema for these people would be if they were to succeed in stopping anything negative against Obama, but at some point in time stop agreeing with Obama when he becomes really radical, and then not be able to speak out about it.
Rees
The Obama Forum
Grassroots in Action
The Forum for Supporters of President Obama
GRASSROOTS CENTRAL ~ YES WE CAN! > OBAMA NATION WATCH ~ Keeping an eye on our enemies
OBAMA NATION WATCH ~ Keeping an eye on our enemies Use this forum to report traitors, dissenter's and others who are a danger to the Obama Nation.
Here are the titles of some of the threads:
Sticky: Websites that must be banned! (brainstorm) ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Howard
Sticky: Obama Nation Enemy #1 Rich People and Businesses ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Che Guevara
Sticky: Obama's Advisor explains the importance of making "Lists" of Rich Whiteys
Sticky: List enemy license plates here ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
BergBuilder
Report Anti-Obama Sentiment By Your Coworkers and Peers Here ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Israel Over
Please list the things you hate about white people ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
500brains
Report any Jews against Obama here on this "List"
Poll: What should happenn to people who question Lord Obama? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Its Time For A Change
Quelling Dissent
GovernmentCheese
Getting rid of the First Amendment ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
BergBuilder
fox news be the enemy ( 1 2)
Son of Sambo
Succes stories about the termination of Obama enemies
Hassan the Assasin
Beware of "Capitalists" and other anti-government types
KarlMarxFan123
Click to go to the website:
The titles of the threads give you a flavor for the content of the website. It's really unbelievable. In their world, you're not allowed to disagree. A real dilema for these people would be if they were to succeed in stopping anything negative against Obama, but at some point in time stop agreeing with Obama when he becomes really radical, and then not be able to speak out about it.
Rees
The Obama Forum
Grassroots in Action
The Forum for Supporters of President Obama
GRASSROOTS CENTRAL ~ YES WE CAN! > OBAMA NATION WATCH ~ Keeping an eye on our enemies
OBAMA NATION WATCH ~ Keeping an eye on our enemies Use this forum to report traitors, dissenter's and others who are a danger to the Obama Nation.
Here are the titles of some of the threads:
Sticky: Websites that must be banned! (brainstorm) ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Howard
Sticky: Obama Nation Enemy #1 Rich People and Businesses ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Che Guevara
Sticky: Obama's Advisor explains the importance of making "Lists" of Rich Whiteys
Sticky: List enemy license plates here ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
BergBuilder
Report Anti-Obama Sentiment By Your Coworkers and Peers Here ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Israel Over
Please list the things you hate about white people ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
500brains
Report any Jews against Obama here on this "List"
Poll: What should happenn to people who question Lord Obama? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Its Time For A Change
Quelling Dissent
GovernmentCheese
Getting rid of the First Amendment ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
BergBuilder
fox news be the enemy ( 1 2)
Son of Sambo
Succes stories about the termination of Obama enemies
Hassan the Assasin
Beware of "Capitalists" and other anti-government types
KarlMarxFan123
Click to go to the website:
A Video of The State of our Economy - actually it is a Malaysian Open Pit Mine Colllapse
The video is of poor quality, but it's really worth watching. This is an Open Pit Tin mine in Malaysia which was obviously located too close to the sea.
The 2% Illusion - Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.
from The Wall Street Journal
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."
This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.
Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
Go to the article
President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."
This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.
Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35% top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.
But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.
Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.
Mr. Obama is of course counting on an economic recovery. And he's also assuming along with the new liberal economic consensus that taxes don't matter to growth or job creation. The truth, though, is that they do. Small- and medium-sized businesses are the nation's primary employers, and lower individual tax rates have induced thousands of them to shift from filing under the corporate tax system to the individual system, often as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. The Tax Foundation calculates that merely restoring the higher, Clinton-era tax rates on the top two brackets would hit 45% to 55% of small-business income, depending on how inclusively "small business" is defined. These owners will find a way to declare less taxable income.
The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well.
On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.
Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data. And the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.
Go to the article
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
I'm not going to comment about this right now because I'm too pissed off.
Rees
The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
from ABC News
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Click to go to the article
Rees
The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
from ABC News
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Click to go to the article
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Gog, Magog, Israel and Russia
Iranian and Russian nuclear officials tested the first nuclear power plant built in Iran on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - a move likely to raise concerns among the US and its Western allies worried over Iranian nuclear ambitions.
In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the testing reflected the "Iranians are showing again that they are making progress in their nuclear race."
"This should be understood as very bad news for the whole of the international community," Palmor said, calling for "immediate and very determined steps in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power."
Gog, Magog, Israel and Russia-
from Islam & World Events
What role does Islam play in the world? Moreover, what is the outcome of Islam? These questions continue to come to mind to those who see the conflict between Islam and the West rise. One cannot help but see the conflicts all around the world, and see the role Islam plays.
For example, in Europe we see the conflict in Kosovo, in Russia there are the Chechens who are at war with Russia. In Iraq, we see the battle between Sunnis and Shiites, along with forces from the United States and Europe. India has a border with Pakistan, both nuclear countries, there are constant rumblings of war, between these nations. Israel in 2006 had a war with Hezbollah, a Shiite group in Lebanon, supported by Iran and Syria. Iran threatens to destroy the Jewish State, and wants to build a nuclear arsenal.
What is the battle of Gog and Magog?
In short, the battle Gog and Magog is war in the latter days (Last days) when a confederacy of nations attack Israel, which has been restored in the last days. These nations, which attack Israel in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39, include nations, which are Muslim and have a clear animosity to Israel. Along with these Muslims nations, a northern kingdom, called Gog and Magog, which many identify, as the land Russia, will ally itself with Muslim nations, to oppose
Israel in the last days.
This confederacy of nations comes against Israel, God, who through Ezekiel foretells the event, defeats them. This conflict establishes Israel and restores them to the land in preparation of their redemption. The conflict also reminds the world, why Israel went into captivity for the last two-thousand years.(Ezekiel 39:28).
The timing of this event, and what follows is an issue of debate by those who study Bible prophecy. The battle of Gog and Magog is a seminal event in scripture. It is the transition to the time, known as the Day of the Lord, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, the Tribulation Period. Scripture reveals the details to those who take the Bible literally.
Click to read the rest of the article
In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the testing reflected the "Iranians are showing again that they are making progress in their nuclear race."
"This should be understood as very bad news for the whole of the international community," Palmor said, calling for "immediate and very determined steps in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power."
Gog, Magog, Israel and Russia-
from Islam & World Events
What role does Islam play in the world? Moreover, what is the outcome of Islam? These questions continue to come to mind to those who see the conflict between Islam and the West rise. One cannot help but see the conflicts all around the world, and see the role Islam plays.
For example, in Europe we see the conflict in Kosovo, in Russia there are the Chechens who are at war with Russia. In Iraq, we see the battle between Sunnis and Shiites, along with forces from the United States and Europe. India has a border with Pakistan, both nuclear countries, there are constant rumblings of war, between these nations. Israel in 2006 had a war with Hezbollah, a Shiite group in Lebanon, supported by Iran and Syria. Iran threatens to destroy the Jewish State, and wants to build a nuclear arsenal.
What is the battle of Gog and Magog?
In short, the battle Gog and Magog is war in the latter days (Last days) when a confederacy of nations attack Israel, which has been restored in the last days. These nations, which attack Israel in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39, include nations, which are Muslim and have a clear animosity to Israel. Along with these Muslims nations, a northern kingdom, called Gog and Magog, which many identify, as the land Russia, will ally itself with Muslim nations, to oppose
Israel in the last days.
This confederacy of nations comes against Israel, God, who through Ezekiel foretells the event, defeats them. This conflict establishes Israel and restores them to the land in preparation of their redemption. The conflict also reminds the world, why Israel went into captivity for the last two-thousand years.(Ezekiel 39:28).
The timing of this event, and what follows is an issue of debate by those who study Bible prophecy. The battle of Gog and Magog is a seminal event in scripture. It is the transition to the time, known as the Day of the Lord, the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, the Tribulation Period. Scripture reveals the details to those who take the Bible literally.
Click to read the rest of the article
Denver archbishop warns against ‘spirit of adulation’ surrounding Obama
Toronto, Canada, Feb 23, 2009 / 09:03 pm (CNA)
from the Catholic News Agency
Canadians packed St. Basil’s Church in Toronto on Monday evening to hear Archbishop Charles Chaput speak about how Catholics should live out their faith in the public square. He warned that in the U.S., Catholics need to act on their faith and be on guard against "a spirit of adulation bordering on servility" that exists towards the Obama administration.
The public lecture by Archbishop Chaput took place on the campus of the University of Toronto at St. Basil’s Church and was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 700 people.
After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller "Render Unto Caesar," the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.
"I like clarity, and there’s a reason why," began the archbishop. "I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth -- which means candor."
The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.
"President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with."
Yet this will be "very hard for Catholics in the United States," Chaput warned.
According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a "spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer."
Looking ahead to the coming months and years, Chaput offered four "simple things" to remember.
"First," he said, "all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil."
"In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies."
In a reference to the messianic treatment the Barack Obama received from some Americans during the presidential primaries, Archbishop Chaput delivered his second point: "in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs."
Noting that Obama actually trailed in the weeks just before the election, the Denver archbishop said that this places some of today’s talk about a "new American mandate" in perspective.
"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That’s the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion. That retooling could easily happen, and it clearly will happen -- but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it."
The third point to focus on when the beliefs of Catholics are challenged is that "it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs," Chaput counseled.
"The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it," remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the "Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years."
"And now we’re harvesting the results -- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington."
American Catholics need to realize that many in the current generation haven’t just been "assimilated" into the American culture, but have in fact been "absorbed and bleached and digested by it," Archbishop Chaput asserted.
If this realization doesn’t happen, the coming generations will continue on the same path and "a real Catholic presence in American life will continue to weaken and disappear," said Chaput.
Citing the example of "unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test," he stated, "We can’t claim to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads – to a dead unborn child."
The archbishop also addressed the "abortion reduction" argument being made by some in politics.
"We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not."
"Catholic social teaching goes well beyond abortion," Chaput noted. "In America we have many urgent issues that beg for our attention, from immigration reform to health care to poverty to homelessness."
Winding his talk down, the Archbishop of Denver remarked on the misunderstanding of the word "hope."
"For Christians," he explained, "hope is a virtue, not an emotional crutch or a political slogan. Virtus, the Latin root of virtue, means strength or courage. Real hope is unsentimental. It has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers. And that’s why – at least for a Christian -- hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is ‘no, we can’t,’ instead of ‘yes, we can.’"
The full text of the archbishop's speech can be found here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=790
click to go to the article
from the Catholic News Agency
Canadians packed St. Basil’s Church in Toronto on Monday evening to hear Archbishop Charles Chaput speak about how Catholics should live out their faith in the public square. He warned that in the U.S., Catholics need to act on their faith and be on guard against "a spirit of adulation bordering on servility" that exists towards the Obama administration.
The public lecture by Archbishop Chaput took place on the campus of the University of Toronto at St. Basil’s Church and was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 700 people.
After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller "Render Unto Caesar," the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.
"I like clarity, and there’s a reason why," began the archbishop. "I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth -- which means candor."
The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.
"President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with."
Yet this will be "very hard for Catholics in the United States," Chaput warned.
According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a "spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer."
Looking ahead to the coming months and years, Chaput offered four "simple things" to remember.
"First," he said, "all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil."
"In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies."
In a reference to the messianic treatment the Barack Obama received from some Americans during the presidential primaries, Archbishop Chaput delivered his second point: "in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs."
Noting that Obama actually trailed in the weeks just before the election, the Denver archbishop said that this places some of today’s talk about a "new American mandate" in perspective.
"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That’s the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion. That retooling could easily happen, and it clearly will happen -- but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it."
The third point to focus on when the beliefs of Catholics are challenged is that "it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs," Chaput counseled.
"The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it," remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the "Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years."
"And now we’re harvesting the results -- in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington."
American Catholics need to realize that many in the current generation haven’t just been "assimilated" into the American culture, but have in fact been "absorbed and bleached and digested by it," Archbishop Chaput asserted.
If this realization doesn’t happen, the coming generations will continue on the same path and "a real Catholic presence in American life will continue to weaken and disappear," said Chaput.
Citing the example of "unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test," he stated, "We can’t claim to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads – to a dead unborn child."
The archbishop also addressed the "abortion reduction" argument being made by some in politics.
"We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not."
"Catholic social teaching goes well beyond abortion," Chaput noted. "In America we have many urgent issues that beg for our attention, from immigration reform to health care to poverty to homelessness."
Winding his talk down, the Archbishop of Denver remarked on the misunderstanding of the word "hope."
"For Christians," he explained, "hope is a virtue, not an emotional crutch or a political slogan. Virtus, the Latin root of virtue, means strength or courage. Real hope is unsentimental. It has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers. And that’s why – at least for a Christian -- hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is ‘no, we can’t,’ instead of ‘yes, we can.’"
The full text of the archbishop's speech can be found here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=790
click to go to the article
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obama Less Popular Than Bush After First Month in Office
By Noel Sheppard
February 24, 2009 - 22:51 ET
from News Busters
As Obama-loving media gush and swoon while they report the new President's popularity, an inconvenient truth emerged Tuesday that seems destined to get ignored: after one month in office, George W. Bush was more popular than the current White House occupant.
Impossible, you say?
Well, before Obama stepped in front of Congress this evening, Gallup published the following:
For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.
Almost exactly eight years ago, then newly-elected President Bush's numbers were 62 percent
approving his performance, 21 percent disapproving, and 17 percent having no opinion (scroll about 3/4 down this Polling Report link).
As such, regardless of how hard media are working to foster this view that this is the most popular president in the modern era, such is not the case.
In fact, even ABC's director of polling reported Tuesday that Obama's current numbers are actually quite average with George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and even Jimmy Carter being more popular after just a month in the White House.
I somehow doubt this will get a lot of attention from the teeming hordes of press members who worked so diligently to get him elected.
Click to go to article
February 24, 2009 - 22:51 ET
from News Busters
As Obama-loving media gush and swoon while they report the new President's popularity, an inconvenient truth emerged Tuesday that seems destined to get ignored: after one month in office, George W. Bush was more popular than the current White House occupant.
Impossible, you say?
Well, before Obama stepped in front of Congress this evening, Gallup published the following:
For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.
Almost exactly eight years ago, then newly-elected President Bush's numbers were 62 percent
approving his performance, 21 percent disapproving, and 17 percent having no opinion (scroll about 3/4 down this Polling Report link).
As such, regardless of how hard media are working to foster this view that this is the most popular president in the modern era, such is not the case.
In fact, even ABC's director of polling reported Tuesday that Obama's current numbers are actually quite average with George H. W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, and even Jimmy Carter being more popular after just a month in the White House.
I somehow doubt this will get a lot of attention from the teeming hordes of press members who worked so diligently to get him elected.
Click to go to article
Soldier defies president's orders'
Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders' - 'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'
Posted: February 23, 20099:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2009
from WorldNetDaily.Com
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her 'Defend Our Freedom Foundation', is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.
Click to read the rest of the article
Posted: February 23, 20099:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2009
from WorldNetDaily.Com
A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.
The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her 'Defend Our Freedom Foundation', is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama's birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
"As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States," wrote Scott Easterling in a "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter.
Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."
Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.
Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama's eligibility filed by members of the military mostly have included retired officers, and courts several times have ruled they don't have standing to issue their challenge.
Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy of his orders, she argued.
"Until Mr. Obama releases a 'vault copy' of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor," his statement said.
Click to read the rest of the article
What Obama Should Do - But because of his unbridled arrogance won't
What Obama Should Do - A path out of the continuing crisis.
By Conrad Black
from The National Review Online
February 24, 2009 4:00 AM
The apparent failure of the Obama administration’s first attempts to restore economic confidence gives us the opportunity to look at the whole crisis afresh.
The first thing we need to do, as we reassess the crisis, is realize the extent to which the country was horribly and unimaginably failed by its entire public- and private-sector leadership. The Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and their Congresses, discouraged savings; legislated non-commercial mortgages in the private sector (a political free ride, as both parties boasted of increasing home ownership at no cost to the taxpayers); raised the ceiling on investment-bank debt leverage on unsecured assets to 30 to one; and acquiesced while consumers piled up debt that enriched Chinese exporters of cheap goods, European and Japanese exporters of luxury goods, and the oil-exporting cartel, including Venezuela and (indirectly) Iran.
The Chinese and Japanese bought over $1 trillion of U.S. Treasury obligations to help finance a completely unsustainable U.S. current-account deficit of over 5 percent of GDP. It was a less morbid version of Lenin’s prediction that the capitalists were so greedy and stupid they would sell him the rope he would use to hang them. The U.S. was the world’s happy bovine, until it became clear that — in the words of President Bush’s customarily eloquent attempt to rally public and congressional opinion — “the sucker could go down.”
He should use FDR’s playbook and stop telling the country how terrible everything is. Half of economics is psychology and he should say that there is a serious, but manageable, problem, that fear and panic should be avoided as the country, united, works on his plan of action toward the solution that awaits. He has to inspire confidence, and to do so must seem adequately confident. Here are some ideas.
Click to read the entire article
By Conrad Black
from The National Review Online
February 24, 2009 4:00 AM
The apparent failure of the Obama administration’s first attempts to restore economic confidence gives us the opportunity to look at the whole crisis afresh.
The first thing we need to do, as we reassess the crisis, is realize the extent to which the country was horribly and unimaginably failed by its entire public- and private-sector leadership. The Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and their Congresses, discouraged savings; legislated non-commercial mortgages in the private sector (a political free ride, as both parties boasted of increasing home ownership at no cost to the taxpayers); raised the ceiling on investment-bank debt leverage on unsecured assets to 30 to one; and acquiesced while consumers piled up debt that enriched Chinese exporters of cheap goods, European and Japanese exporters of luxury goods, and the oil-exporting cartel, including Venezuela and (indirectly) Iran.
The Chinese and Japanese bought over $1 trillion of U.S. Treasury obligations to help finance a completely unsustainable U.S. current-account deficit of over 5 percent of GDP. It was a less morbid version of Lenin’s prediction that the capitalists were so greedy and stupid they would sell him the rope he would use to hang them. The U.S. was the world’s happy bovine, until it became clear that — in the words of President Bush’s customarily eloquent attempt to rally public and congressional opinion — “the sucker could go down.”
He should use FDR’s playbook and stop telling the country how terrible everything is. Half of economics is psychology and he should say that there is a serious, but manageable, problem, that fear and panic should be avoided as the country, united, works on his plan of action toward the solution that awaits. He has to inspire confidence, and to do so must seem adequately confident. Here are some ideas.
Click to read the entire article
Media Credibility, Not Ice Caps, In Meltdown
From the blogspot American Thinker
February 23, 2009
Media Credibility, Not Ice Caps, In Meltdown
By Peter C Glover
The Antarctic
Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels.
The Arctic
During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007. According to data published by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA) October 2008 saw "the fastest ever growth" of Arctic Sea ice since records began. Not good news for doomsayers like Dr Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Dr Serreze had predicted an ice-free North Pole in the summer of 2008.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center's own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached "unprecedented" levels for the month of April. The World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) went to declare 2008 the coolest since 2000. Moreover, the WMO reports that the fall in the global mean temperature since 1998 is not just affecting the polar ice caps either, it is also affecting glaciers elsewhere.
The Glaciers
In October 2008, after a particularly bitterly cold Alaskan summer, glaciologists began reporting that Alaskan glaciers, particularly those at Glacier Bay where the shrinkage had mainly been had begun advancing for the first time in years. Glaciologist Bruce Molnia of the US Geological Survey said, "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound." He adds "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying did not become snow free until early August." In short, 2008 was the first time since record began that Alaskan glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.
In late November 2008, reports from Norway showed that Alaska's glacier experience was being replicated there too. Hallgeir Elvehoy of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) reported that the magnitude of glacial growth appears to have been underway for two years. Glacier growth has also been reported from Canada and New Zealand.
The facts adduced here represent just the tip of an under-reported iceberg (no pun intended). The fact that the world's ice mass is expanding not contracting is plainly of seismic importance in the climate debate. But, in many of its parts, the Western media appears to have a stake in freezing out the truth - having sold its journalistic soul for a mess of warm-mongering alarmist pottage.
Click to read the entire article
February 23, 2009
Media Credibility, Not Ice Caps, In Meltdown
By Peter C Glover
The Antarctic
Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels.
The Arctic
During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007. According to data published by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA) October 2008 saw "the fastest ever growth" of Arctic Sea ice since records began. Not good news for doomsayers like Dr Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Dr Serreze had predicted an ice-free North Pole in the summer of 2008.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center's own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached "unprecedented" levels for the month of April. The World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) went to declare 2008 the coolest since 2000. Moreover, the WMO reports that the fall in the global mean temperature since 1998 is not just affecting the polar ice caps either, it is also affecting glaciers elsewhere.
The Glaciers
In October 2008, after a particularly bitterly cold Alaskan summer, glaciologists began reporting that Alaskan glaciers, particularly those at Glacier Bay where the shrinkage had mainly been had begun advancing for the first time in years. Glaciologist Bruce Molnia of the US Geological Survey said, "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound." He adds "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying did not become snow free until early August." In short, 2008 was the first time since record began that Alaskan glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.
In late November 2008, reports from Norway showed that Alaska's glacier experience was being replicated there too. Hallgeir Elvehoy of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) reported that the magnitude of glacial growth appears to have been underway for two years. Glacier growth has also been reported from Canada and New Zealand.
The facts adduced here represent just the tip of an under-reported iceberg (no pun intended). The fact that the world's ice mass is expanding not contracting is plainly of seismic importance in the climate debate. But, in many of its parts, the Western media appears to have a stake in freezing out the truth - having sold its journalistic soul for a mess of warm-mongering alarmist pottage.
Click to read the entire article
Obama Advisors: Nuclear Iran Wouldn't Be The End Of The World
Monday, February 23, 2009
From the blogspot Holger Awakens
Obama Advisors: Nuclear Iran Wouldn't Be The End Of The World
Good grief - if this article here at the Los Angeles Times doesn't encapsulate the dove-like nature of the Obama administration, I don't know what does. It appears that the feeling among Obama's security advisors is that it's going to be impossible to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons but hold on everyone, hold the phone....these same advisors are saying that the Iranians will be responsible with those nukes! Whew! What a relief, huh? We've all been worried about the crazy lunatic mullahs in Iran have access to nuclear weapons and now, the omnipotent advisors of President Obama are here to assure us it just won't be that bad! Here's some of the details:
If diplomacy fails, another Obama advisor wrote in the same report, the alternative "is a strategy of containment and punishment." That was the conclusion of Ashton B. Carter, Obama's reported choice as an undersecretary of Defense, who also warned: "The challenge of containing Iranian ambitions and hubris would be as large as containing its nuclear arsenal."Most (and maybe all) of Obama's advisors see the costs of attacking Iran as outweighing the benefits. If Iran gets closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, they've warned, military action won't look any more appetizing than it did under George W. Bush.
And there is some optimism among administration officials that a nuclear Iran would practice restraint. Gary Samore, Obama's top advisor on nuclear proliferation, and Bruce Riedel, who is running Obama's review of policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote last year that a nuclear-capable Iran, while undesirable, would not be the end of the world. For example, they argued, it seems unlikely that Tehran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists."If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is likely to behave like other nuclear weapons states, trying to intimidate its foes, but not recklessly using its weapons," Samore and Riedel wrote in a report for the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations. "As such, Iran will be subject to the same deterrence system that other nuclear weapons states have accommodated themselves to since 1945."
So there you have it folks...a strategy of "containment" for those nasty nukes with mullahs at the end of the big red button - the same mullahs who have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Oh, and you gotta feel a great sense of peace by this statement:
Obama might declare that a nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the U.S. homeland.
Enouraging, huh? I mean, I'm sure it is comforting to the Israeli people to hear that if 1.5 million of their people are murdered by an Iranian nuclear attack, the mighty United States under President Obama will consider that bad and might just make Iran pay for it.
Click to read the rest of the article
From the blogspot Holger Awakens
Obama Advisors: Nuclear Iran Wouldn't Be The End Of The World
Good grief - if this article here at the Los Angeles Times doesn't encapsulate the dove-like nature of the Obama administration, I don't know what does. It appears that the feeling among Obama's security advisors is that it's going to be impossible to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons but hold on everyone, hold the phone....these same advisors are saying that the Iranians will be responsible with those nukes! Whew! What a relief, huh? We've all been worried about the crazy lunatic mullahs in Iran have access to nuclear weapons and now, the omnipotent advisors of President Obama are here to assure us it just won't be that bad! Here's some of the details:
If diplomacy fails, another Obama advisor wrote in the same report, the alternative "is a strategy of containment and punishment." That was the conclusion of Ashton B. Carter, Obama's reported choice as an undersecretary of Defense, who also warned: "The challenge of containing Iranian ambitions and hubris would be as large as containing its nuclear arsenal."Most (and maybe all) of Obama's advisors see the costs of attacking Iran as outweighing the benefits. If Iran gets closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, they've warned, military action won't look any more appetizing than it did under George W. Bush.
And there is some optimism among administration officials that a nuclear Iran would practice restraint. Gary Samore, Obama's top advisor on nuclear proliferation, and Bruce Riedel, who is running Obama's review of policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote last year that a nuclear-capable Iran, while undesirable, would not be the end of the world. For example, they argued, it seems unlikely that Tehran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists."If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is likely to behave like other nuclear weapons states, trying to intimidate its foes, but not recklessly using its weapons," Samore and Riedel wrote in a report for the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations. "As such, Iran will be subject to the same deterrence system that other nuclear weapons states have accommodated themselves to since 1945."
So there you have it folks...a strategy of "containment" for those nasty nukes with mullahs at the end of the big red button - the same mullahs who have vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Oh, and you gotta feel a great sense of peace by this statement:
Obama might declare that a nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the U.S. homeland.
Enouraging, huh? I mean, I'm sure it is comforting to the Israeli people to hear that if 1.5 million of their people are murdered by an Iranian nuclear attack, the mighty United States under President Obama will consider that bad and might just make Iran pay for it.
Click to read the rest of the article
This is for real: Actor George Clooney emerged from an Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama Monday night
Clooney: W.H. to appoint Darfur envoy
By CAROL E. LEE
2/23/09 9:44 PM EST Updated: 2/23/09 10:40 PM EST
from Politico
George Clooney speaks at a news conference in front of the White House.
Actor George Clooney emerged from an Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama Monday night to say the White House will appoint an envoy to Darfur, the Sudanese region ravaged by war and famine.
“They said they would appoint a full-time, high-level envoy that would report directly to the White House,” Clooney told reporters. "This would be a huge policy step."
Of the Obama administration's commitment to Darfur, Clooney said, "It's good to hear because there was some concern that this could fall off the radar."
The White House didn’t respond immediately to a request for comment on Clooney’s remarks — which amounted to a highly unconventional, and seemingly ad-hoc way of revealing Obama’s thinking about such a key foreign policy decision.
Clooney, who has traveled to the region repeatedly, said the administration “assured me that Darfur is one of a small handful of foreign policy reviews being taken at the senior-most level.”
In separate meetings with Obama, then Vice President Joe Biden, Clooney asked them to make Darfur one of their top priorities and to appoint an envoy. "They assured me and wanted me to assure the rest of whoever it is that is listening that this is high on their agenda," Clooney said.
The actor said his visit to the White House came as the International Criminal Court is expected to indict Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir. “You have to make it known that the actions of this government are not acceptable,” he said.
Clooney, who recently visited the region with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, said of the trip, “It was enlightening in a lot of ways."
He said a U.S. envoy is a pivotal step toward turning around the situation in Darfur, but added, "It's a difficult situation. It's not going to get much better for a long time."
Asked if he discussed any other foreign policy issues with the president or vice president, Clooney laughed. "No, I'm not there as some policy nut,” he said. “I was just there to tell them what I saw and hope that there was some way that I could amplify anything that they were doing.”
Click to go to the article
By CAROL E. LEE
2/23/09 9:44 PM EST Updated: 2/23/09 10:40 PM EST
from Politico
George Clooney speaks at a news conference in front of the White House.
Actor George Clooney emerged from an Oval Office meeting with President Barack Obama Monday night to say the White House will appoint an envoy to Darfur, the Sudanese region ravaged by war and famine.
“They said they would appoint a full-time, high-level envoy that would report directly to the White House,” Clooney told reporters. "This would be a huge policy step."
Of the Obama administration's commitment to Darfur, Clooney said, "It's good to hear because there was some concern that this could fall off the radar."
The White House didn’t respond immediately to a request for comment on Clooney’s remarks — which amounted to a highly unconventional, and seemingly ad-hoc way of revealing Obama’s thinking about such a key foreign policy decision.
Clooney, who has traveled to the region repeatedly, said the administration “assured me that Darfur is one of a small handful of foreign policy reviews being taken at the senior-most level.”
In separate meetings with Obama, then Vice President Joe Biden, Clooney asked them to make Darfur one of their top priorities and to appoint an envoy. "They assured me and wanted me to assure the rest of whoever it is that is listening that this is high on their agenda," Clooney said.
The actor said his visit to the White House came as the International Criminal Court is expected to indict Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir. “You have to make it known that the actions of this government are not acceptable,” he said.
Clooney, who recently visited the region with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, said of the trip, “It was enlightening in a lot of ways."
He said a U.S. envoy is a pivotal step toward turning around the situation in Darfur, but added, "It's a difficult situation. It's not going to get much better for a long time."
Asked if he discussed any other foreign policy issues with the president or vice president, Clooney laughed. "No, I'm not there as some policy nut,” he said. “I was just there to tell them what I saw and hope that there was some way that I could amplify anything that they were doing.”
Click to go to the article
Monday, February 23, 2009
Obama's 3rd nominee for Commerce Secretary tried to pass a bill in 2004 for racial quotas in college admissions
Washington Governor Gary Locke is Obama's 3rd nominee for Commerce Secretary. In 2004, he tried to pass a bill that would force for racial quotas in college admissions for the State's Universities.
Rees
Race bill unlikely to see action
By Randy Trick
The UW Daily Online, 2004-02-06
"A governor's request bill allowing institutions of higher education to use race as a factor in admissions decisions will likely die today from lack of support.
"The race consideration bill, which had hearings in both the House and the Senate, will not make the deadline, say lawmakers. The bill seeks to repeal part of Initiative 200 which ended affirmative action [racial preferences and quotas] in the state in 1998.
"Senate Bill 6268, received a favorable hearing in the Senate Higher Education Committee, and was approved there. However, the bill then transferred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob McCaslin, R-Colfax, where it has not received consideration, and likely will not.
"The House version of the bill 2700, received a much more animated hearing, as opponents of the bill and the original sponsors of I-200 testified.
"The bill will not receive a vote in the House Higher Education Committee, chair Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, D-Seattle. She said she does not have enough votes in favor of the bill. She is a co-sponsor of the bill.
"It's the right thing to do,' Kenney said. 'I commend the governor for doing that. If you don't try, you never know.'
"Kenney said part of the reason the bill did not have enough support in her committee is because it is an election year, and amending an initiative dealing with affirmative action [racial quotas] is tough to get behind. She suggested that next year a similar bill would have a better prospect.
"At the UW, the impending defeat of the bill was disappointing to those in the Office of Minority Affairs."
'The University made clear it supports this as a way to improve [forced] diversity,' said Enrique Morales, the office's assistant vice president in charge of outreach and recruitment. 'While we have made headway, the legislation would have given us the ability to consider different backgrounds and experiences based on race and ethnicity.'
"According to Morales, the debate over the topics like affirmative action [racial quotas] and [forced] diversity are prone to misunderstanding.
"The issue 'is divisive based on the ways it can be misunderstood,' said Morales. 'I would like to hope that, while the bills may be dead, the discussions will continue.'
Click to go to the article
Rees
Race bill unlikely to see action
By Randy Trick
The UW Daily Online, 2004-02-06
"A governor's request bill allowing institutions of higher education to use race as a factor in admissions decisions will likely die today from lack of support.
"The race consideration bill, which had hearings in both the House and the Senate, will not make the deadline, say lawmakers. The bill seeks to repeal part of Initiative 200 which ended affirmative action [racial preferences and quotas] in the state in 1998.
"Senate Bill 6268, received a favorable hearing in the Senate Higher Education Committee, and was approved there. However, the bill then transferred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob McCaslin, R-Colfax, where it has not received consideration, and likely will not.
"The House version of the bill 2700, received a much more animated hearing, as opponents of the bill and the original sponsors of I-200 testified.
"The bill will not receive a vote in the House Higher Education Committee, chair Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, D-Seattle. She said she does not have enough votes in favor of the bill. She is a co-sponsor of the bill.
"It's the right thing to do,' Kenney said. 'I commend the governor for doing that. If you don't try, you never know.'
"Kenney said part of the reason the bill did not have enough support in her committee is because it is an election year, and amending an initiative dealing with affirmative action [racial quotas] is tough to get behind. She suggested that next year a similar bill would have a better prospect.
"At the UW, the impending defeat of the bill was disappointing to those in the Office of Minority Affairs."
'The University made clear it supports this as a way to improve [forced] diversity,' said Enrique Morales, the office's assistant vice president in charge of outreach and recruitment. 'While we have made headway, the legislation would have given us the ability to consider different backgrounds and experiences based on race and ethnicity.'
"According to Morales, the debate over the topics like affirmative action [racial quotas] and [forced] diversity are prone to misunderstanding.
"The issue 'is divisive based on the ways it can be misunderstood,' said Morales. 'I would like to hope that, while the bills may be dead, the discussions will continue.'
Click to go to the article
Yes, that Ann Dunham-Soetoro - Obama's Mother
Timothy F. Geithner - United States Secretary of the Treasury
His Dad, Peter Geithner, oversaw a program in Indonesia being developed by Obama's Dad. It may be a small world, but it's not that small of a world. It's obvious that he's had connections for many years with these people in his administration. These are birds of a feather and each one of them is either a marxist, communist, socialist, racist, corrupt politician, tax evader or a combination.
Rees
Early life and education
Geithner's paternal grandfather, Paul Herman Geithner (1902–1972), emigrated with his parents from the German town of Zeulenroda to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1908.[2] His father, Peter F. Geithner, is the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once.[3]
His Dad, Peter Geithner, oversaw a program in Indonesia being developed by Obama's Dad. It may be a small world, but it's not that small of a world. It's obvious that he's had connections for many years with these people in his administration. These are birds of a feather and each one of them is either a marxist, communist, socialist, racist, corrupt politician, tax evader or a combination.
Rees
Early life and education
Geithner's paternal grandfather, Paul Herman Geithner (1902–1972), emigrated with his parents from the German town of Zeulenroda to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1908.[2] His father, Peter F. Geithner, is the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation's microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Obama's mother, and they met in person at least once.[3]
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Another video interview with Rick Santelli - "It's because we "hit a nerve"
Why is this rant over the last 14 years such a big deal or different than the others? It's because "we hit a nerve."
Does this mean this is how the Obama White House is going to react to criticism from the media?
Does this mean this is how the Obama White House is going to react to criticism from the media?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
A Must Watch Glen Beck Video
Worst-Case Scenario No. 3
Beck's 'War Room' experts imagine what would happen if widespread civil unrest broke out at home
Beck's 'War Room' experts imagine what would happen if widespread civil unrest broke out at home
Alan Keyes: Obama is Going To Destroy This Country
"We're acting like the laws of economics have been repealed"
from the Evil Conservative Blog
Saturday February 21, 2009
WOW!! Ambassador Alan Keyes pulls no punches in this short interview. Everything he says is so dead on in this clip.
"This is insane... it's like we've elected a bunch of children and adolescents to run our nation."
"We will either stop him or we will cease to exist as a nation."
"Obama is a radical communist who will destroy the nation."
"He refuses to provide proof that he is a citizen of our nation."
And more.... no punches pulled. No one can say that Keyes didn't see it coming.... he tried to stop Obama in 2004 in Illinois while most of the nation laughed at him for railing about how radical and dangerous Obama is. Who's laughing now?
Click to go to article
from the Evil Conservative Blog
Saturday February 21, 2009
WOW!! Ambassador Alan Keyes pulls no punches in this short interview. Everything he says is so dead on in this clip.
"This is insane... it's like we've elected a bunch of children and adolescents to run our nation."
"We will either stop him or we will cease to exist as a nation."
"Obama is a radical communist who will destroy the nation."
"He refuses to provide proof that he is a citizen of our nation."
And more.... no punches pulled. No one can say that Keyes didn't see it coming.... he tried to stop Obama in 2004 in Illinois while most of the nation laughed at him for railing about how radical and dangerous Obama is. Who's laughing now?
Click to go to article
I'm a Racist Coward! - and you are too according to Eric Holder our new Attorney General
This is an absolutely spectacular article. Someone in the media finally called BS on Eric Holder's comments that we are all racists.
At some point in time, blacks like Eric Holder need to just give it a rest. However, he and others like him, Obama included, won't because in reality they are the racists.
We now have a racist President and Attorney General. Thanks again to all of you who fall within that lovely 52% that voted for Obama. To quote Obama's buddy, the flamboyantly racist Reverend Wright, "your chickens are starting to come home to roost."
Rees
I’m a Racist Coward!
by Gary Graham
from Breitbart.Com
I am appalled. I just found out that I am a racist and a coward and I did not know it.
Eric Holder said yesterday, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
How could I have been so self-deluded?
Wow. I know, huh? The things you find out about yourself if you just listen to newly appointed/elected government officials.
I always thought that I treated everyone fairly in my daily life with no preference or deference to anyone based solely on skin color. I always loved the words of Dr. Martin Luther King who said so eloquently, that he dreamed of a day when people “would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. But now…I find out that that philosophy is racist and cowardly. And it is proclaimed by the top law enforcement officer in the land, our new Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Apparently, I’m a racist coward because I want to be color blind. This great national offense of racism doesn’t want to die - even though we just elected our first black president. Just when you thought it was okay to climb out of the past, to put racial injustice and animosity behind us…the Attorney General in the national media yesterday drags it back out.
At my favorite Baptist Church in North Hollywood, the congregation being 90% Black, I have often been asked to get up and read long passages of scripture for special events. Christmas, Thanksgiving, Good Friday, Easter Sunday. Guess they thought my acting background translated to passable delivery of the Lord’s word; I was always happy to oblige, and I hope I did not disappoint. But each year, when the month of February rolled around, I was always asked the same question: Would I like to participate in a special Black History Month pageant? My answer was always the same: No thank you, I don’t believe in it. And their response was always the same: A puzzled look washes over the inquirer’s face, he starts to respond, then not knowing how, drifts away, puzzled. No matter how many times I explained my position, it seemed to make so little sense to them, as to gain no purchase in memory banks. This yearly ritual has been repeated six years running.
I don’t believe in Black History Month any more than I believe in White History Month. To me, Black History Month is a complete insult to Blacks. We must prop up an entire race of people, give them special awards, honors, and recognitions, underscoring their accomplishments and achievements and contributions to society, based on their color… as if it’s so truly remarkable that they did it in the first place…and are African American to boot? Stop the presses! A black person accomplished something great! As if they couldn’t have done it on their own, without help. As if they are somehow inferior to whites. That they somehow overcame their blackness…and did all these wonderful things despite the obvious disadvantage, encumbrance, disability…of being a person of color.
Am I the only one in America…who finds this the least bit patronizing and insulting…and downright, well, racist?
I’ve got a lot of black friends who have accomplished great things in the arts and music world, in the business world, the legal profession, the medical profession…and not one of them has ever expected anything from me other than to be a good friend. I celebrate the achievements of all my friends with love and support and good cheer, and with absolutely no patronizing overt or subliminal addendum of how wonderful you did all this “and you’re a black man, too! Amazing!” I don’t compartmentalize my friends based on their skin color, ethnicity, religious affiliation, political leanings or sexual preference. We’re all just people, period.
I believe it was the great Vince Lombardi who, when chastising a player for a grandstanding end zone dance, post touchdown, would yell, “Knock off the hoopla - act like you do it all the time!” We could all learn something about humility…and equality…from those words.
But now I find out we’re a nation of cowards because we don’t talk about race enough.
Mr. Holder went on to say, Even when people mix at the workplace or at after work social events, many Americans in their free time are still segregated inside what he called “race-protected cocoons.”
Uh…yeah. Maybe because people like Eric Holder are so preoccupied with race that every waking thought is consumed with it? And they insist on inflicting into every thought and daily conversation within the black community a general and constant grievance-addled invective that fosters a victimhood mindset? Just a thought.
So…let me get this straight. If I’m a racist coward because I don’t want to talk about race all the time, don’t want to even think about it, just wish all racism would go away, and everybody just get along as if we we’re all just human beings…and truly do want to judge people not based on skin color, but on the content of their character… Does that mean Dr. Martin Luther King was also a racist? If he were here today, and repeated those words about ‘content of character’ …would Eric Holder call Dr. King a coward?
I hear Eric Holder’s words and I get a chill up my spine. It doesn’t sound like freedom from racism to me. It sounds like reverse racism. It smacks of concepts like “reparations”…”affirmative action” (code for racial preferences)…and “get-even-with-‘em”… So, Mr. Holder, what can I infer from your words…but a tacit warning?
This, Mr. Attorney General…this is what you want to stir up? You should be ecstatic for the ultimate affirmative action as reflected on November 4th. White guilt to a very large extent enabled a charming but inexperienced young socialist to assume the reins of the most powerful nation in the world. And still we are cowards because we don’t talk about race enough?
Dude - are you off your meds??
This supports my assertion that no matter what whites come up with, no matter how many ‘adjustments’ or reparations, or consolations they offer, groveling grotesquely at the altar of Political Correctness for the race-baiters…it will never be enough. My severed head on a silver platter would not placate the sense of racial inequality, aggrieved victimization and indignant persecution Eric Holder and his ilk envision has been perpetrated against him and his constituency by myself and millions like me - people who just want to treat everyone fairly and get along.
Our former leader, President George W. Bush, in one of his more articulate moments, exhorted us to “…challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
But you, Mr. Holder, and those who share your views, are the ones who perpetrate racism in
America - by never shutting up about it! Yes, we Americans are proud of our ‘melting pot’ - we are proud of our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one”. We are proud of the idea of America, the most brilliant and good and moral proposition ever submitted to the human race: That all people can assemble in this one nation, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, creed…all men and women can come here and be free. We can pursue our dreams to the utmost and are free to enjoy the fruits of our efforts and talent and determination, unimpeded by coercion or kings. We’re not white Americans, or black Americans, or Hispanic Americans…
We’re Americans.
So… if Mr. Holder is calling me a racist and a coward…isn’t he calling Dr. Martin Luther King one, as well?
At least I’m in good company.
Click here to read the article
At some point in time, blacks like Eric Holder need to just give it a rest. However, he and others like him, Obama included, won't because in reality they are the racists.
We now have a racist President and Attorney General. Thanks again to all of you who fall within that lovely 52% that voted for Obama. To quote Obama's buddy, the flamboyantly racist Reverend Wright, "your chickens are starting to come home to roost."
Rees
I’m a Racist Coward!
by Gary Graham
from Breitbart.Com
I am appalled. I just found out that I am a racist and a coward and I did not know it.
Eric Holder said yesterday, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
How could I have been so self-deluded?
Wow. I know, huh? The things you find out about yourself if you just listen to newly appointed/elected government officials.
I always thought that I treated everyone fairly in my daily life with no preference or deference to anyone based solely on skin color. I always loved the words of Dr. Martin Luther King who said so eloquently, that he dreamed of a day when people “would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. But now…I find out that that philosophy is racist and cowardly. And it is proclaimed by the top law enforcement officer in the land, our new Attorney General, Eric Holder.
Apparently, I’m a racist coward because I want to be color blind. This great national offense of racism doesn’t want to die - even though we just elected our first black president. Just when you thought it was okay to climb out of the past, to put racial injustice and animosity behind us…the Attorney General in the national media yesterday drags it back out.
At my favorite Baptist Church in North Hollywood, the congregation being 90% Black, I have often been asked to get up and read long passages of scripture for special events. Christmas, Thanksgiving, Good Friday, Easter Sunday. Guess they thought my acting background translated to passable delivery of the Lord’s word; I was always happy to oblige, and I hope I did not disappoint. But each year, when the month of February rolled around, I was always asked the same question: Would I like to participate in a special Black History Month pageant? My answer was always the same: No thank you, I don’t believe in it. And their response was always the same: A puzzled look washes over the inquirer’s face, he starts to respond, then not knowing how, drifts away, puzzled. No matter how many times I explained my position, it seemed to make so little sense to them, as to gain no purchase in memory banks. This yearly ritual has been repeated six years running.
I don’t believe in Black History Month any more than I believe in White History Month. To me, Black History Month is a complete insult to Blacks. We must prop up an entire race of people, give them special awards, honors, and recognitions, underscoring their accomplishments and achievements and contributions to society, based on their color… as if it’s so truly remarkable that they did it in the first place…and are African American to boot? Stop the presses! A black person accomplished something great! As if they couldn’t have done it on their own, without help. As if they are somehow inferior to whites. That they somehow overcame their blackness…and did all these wonderful things despite the obvious disadvantage, encumbrance, disability…of being a person of color.
Am I the only one in America…who finds this the least bit patronizing and insulting…and downright, well, racist?
I’ve got a lot of black friends who have accomplished great things in the arts and music world, in the business world, the legal profession, the medical profession…and not one of them has ever expected anything from me other than to be a good friend. I celebrate the achievements of all my friends with love and support and good cheer, and with absolutely no patronizing overt or subliminal addendum of how wonderful you did all this “and you’re a black man, too! Amazing!” I don’t compartmentalize my friends based on their skin color, ethnicity, religious affiliation, political leanings or sexual preference. We’re all just people, period.
I believe it was the great Vince Lombardi who, when chastising a player for a grandstanding end zone dance, post touchdown, would yell, “Knock off the hoopla - act like you do it all the time!” We could all learn something about humility…and equality…from those words.
But now I find out we’re a nation of cowards because we don’t talk about race enough.
Mr. Holder went on to say, Even when people mix at the workplace or at after work social events, many Americans in their free time are still segregated inside what he called “race-protected cocoons.”
Uh…yeah. Maybe because people like Eric Holder are so preoccupied with race that every waking thought is consumed with it? And they insist on inflicting into every thought and daily conversation within the black community a general and constant grievance-addled invective that fosters a victimhood mindset? Just a thought.
So…let me get this straight. If I’m a racist coward because I don’t want to talk about race all the time, don’t want to even think about it, just wish all racism would go away, and everybody just get along as if we we’re all just human beings…and truly do want to judge people not based on skin color, but on the content of their character… Does that mean Dr. Martin Luther King was also a racist? If he were here today, and repeated those words about ‘content of character’ …would Eric Holder call Dr. King a coward?
I hear Eric Holder’s words and I get a chill up my spine. It doesn’t sound like freedom from racism to me. It sounds like reverse racism. It smacks of concepts like “reparations”…”affirmative action” (code for racial preferences)…and “get-even-with-‘em”… So, Mr. Holder, what can I infer from your words…but a tacit warning?
This, Mr. Attorney General…this is what you want to stir up? You should be ecstatic for the ultimate affirmative action as reflected on November 4th. White guilt to a very large extent enabled a charming but inexperienced young socialist to assume the reins of the most powerful nation in the world. And still we are cowards because we don’t talk about race enough?
Dude - are you off your meds??
This supports my assertion that no matter what whites come up with, no matter how many ‘adjustments’ or reparations, or consolations they offer, groveling grotesquely at the altar of Political Correctness for the race-baiters…it will never be enough. My severed head on a silver platter would not placate the sense of racial inequality, aggrieved victimization and indignant persecution Eric Holder and his ilk envision has been perpetrated against him and his constituency by myself and millions like me - people who just want to treat everyone fairly and get along.
Our former leader, President George W. Bush, in one of his more articulate moments, exhorted us to “…challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
But you, Mr. Holder, and those who share your views, are the ones who perpetrate racism in
America - by never shutting up about it! Yes, we Americans are proud of our ‘melting pot’ - we are proud of our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one”. We are proud of the idea of America, the most brilliant and good and moral proposition ever submitted to the human race: That all people can assemble in this one nation, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, creed…all men and women can come here and be free. We can pursue our dreams to the utmost and are free to enjoy the fruits of our efforts and talent and determination, unimpeded by coercion or kings. We’re not white Americans, or black Americans, or Hispanic Americans…
We’re Americans.
So… if Mr. Holder is calling me a racist and a coward…isn’t he calling Dr. Martin Luther King one, as well?
At least I’m in good company.
Click here to read the article
Anyone tired of the "All Obama - All the time" media coverage
I thought this force fed crap would at least slow down once he became President, but it hasn't.
If you think about, he's getting more face time in the media now than when he was running for election because he doesn't have to split any time with McCain. I don't think there's going to be enough Pepto Bismol to keep my stomach settled for the next four years.
Rees
If you think about, he's getting more face time in the media now than when he was running for election because he doesn't have to split any time with McCain. I don't think there's going to be enough Pepto Bismol to keep my stomach settled for the next four years.
Rees
Write your Senator and request that you be changed to the status of illegal alien!
thanks to Mark for forwarding this:
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.
If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively?
This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very
important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted.
If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively?
This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very
important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald Ruppert
Burlington, IA
2008 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report
Thanks to Mark for forwarding this article:
There is a lot of interesting data provided, particularly in the chart with the state by state comparison. The color coded chart of the United States indicates that people in the larger cities have the biggest problem paying their mortgage. Culture or Circumstances? Hmmmm.....
So what are the numbers that Obama and the Media keep smacking us in the face with? Well, we'll hear some extreme number like the foreclosure rate increased 121% from the previous year. This of course gets everyone worked into a lather and then Obama and the corrupt democrats tell us they can rescue if we will only submit to more government spending on wasteful programs.
According to the chart in the article, 1 in every 171 homes had a forclosure filing. That's one-half of 1 percent (.005). That's not a catastrophic number as being portrayed by Obama and the media.
Rees
from RealtyTrac.com
by Realty Trac Staff
Las Vegas documented the second highest metro foreclosure rate in 2008, with 8.89 percent of its housing units (one in 11) receiving a foreclosure filing during the year.
More than 6 percent of Phoenix housing units (one in 17) received a foreclosure filing during the year, giving the city the fifth highest metro foreclosure rate in 2008.
The foreclosure rate in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ranked No. 6, with 5.95 percent of the metro area’s housing units (one in 17) receiving a foreclosure filing in 2008. Other Florida cities in the top 10 were Orlando at No. 7 (5.48 percent, or one in 18 housing units) and Miami at No. 8 (5.21 percent, or one in 19 housing units).
With 4.52 percent of its housing units (one in 22) receiving a foreclosure filing during the year, Detroit registered the tenth highest metro foreclosure rate in 2008.
Click to read the article
There is a lot of interesting data provided, particularly in the chart with the state by state comparison. The color coded chart of the United States indicates that people in the larger cities have the biggest problem paying their mortgage. Culture or Circumstances? Hmmmm.....
So what are the numbers that Obama and the Media keep smacking us in the face with? Well, we'll hear some extreme number like the foreclosure rate increased 121% from the previous year. This of course gets everyone worked into a lather and then Obama and the corrupt democrats tell us they can rescue if we will only submit to more government spending on wasteful programs.
According to the chart in the article, 1 in every 171 homes had a forclosure filing. That's one-half of 1 percent (.005). That's not a catastrophic number as being portrayed by Obama and the media.
Rees
from RealtyTrac.com
by Realty Trac Staff
Las Vegas documented the second highest metro foreclosure rate in 2008, with 8.89 percent of its housing units (one in 11) receiving a foreclosure filing during the year.
More than 6 percent of Phoenix housing units (one in 17) received a foreclosure filing during the year, giving the city the fifth highest metro foreclosure rate in 2008.
The foreclosure rate in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ranked No. 6, with 5.95 percent of the metro area’s housing units (one in 17) receiving a foreclosure filing in 2008. Other Florida cities in the top 10 were Orlando at No. 7 (5.48 percent, or one in 18 housing units) and Miami at No. 8 (5.21 percent, or one in 19 housing units).
With 4.52 percent of its housing units (one in 22) receiving a foreclosure filing during the year, Detroit registered the tenth highest metro foreclosure rate in 2008.
Click to read the article
Friday, February 20, 2009
Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax
Feb 20 2009 11:47AM EST
from Portfolio.com
by by Jeff Bercovici
Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax
This is, without a doubt, the best correction of the week. Okay, the month. Aw, hell, I'll say it: Best. Correction. Ever. From the Huffington Post:
Huffpo had posted what appeared to be a video of Fox News's John Gibson jokingly referring to Attorney General Eric Holder as a monkey with a "bright blue scrotum." That last bit is a reference to an unrelated news story about a Debrazza monkey that escaped from a zoo in Seattle.
Obviously, likening the first black attorney general to a monkey would be a provocative move at anytime, but it would be particularly inflammatory this week after the New York Post -- like Fox News, a unit of News Corp. -- incited outrage with a cartoon of a chimpanzee that some read as a racist slap at Barack Obama.
It didn't happen, though. Huffpo now says the video of Gibson was doctored. By whom is unknown. The phony video has been removed from YouTube.
Click to go to the article
from Portfolio.com
by by Jeff Bercovici
Huffpo Red in the Face Over Fox News Hoax
This is, without a doubt, the best correction of the week. Okay, the month. Aw, hell, I'll say it: Best. Correction. Ever. From the Huffington Post:
Huffpo had posted what appeared to be a video of Fox News's John Gibson jokingly referring to Attorney General Eric Holder as a monkey with a "bright blue scrotum." That last bit is a reference to an unrelated news story about a Debrazza monkey that escaped from a zoo in Seattle.
Obviously, likening the first black attorney general to a monkey would be a provocative move at anytime, but it would be particularly inflammatory this week after the New York Post -- like Fox News, a unit of News Corp. -- incited outrage with a cartoon of a chimpanzee that some read as a racist slap at Barack Obama.
It didn't happen, though. Huffpo now says the video of Gibson was doctored. By whom is unknown. The phony video has been removed from YouTube.
Click to go to the article
Comment of the day on ACE
This is regarding a thread about Senator Burris being asked to resign and the outrageously corrupt Chicago Political system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it amazing that Barack Obama came up through this fever swamp of corruption but kept his tunic lily-white (pardon the expression)? Just a rhetorical question, mind you.
Posted by: nickless at February 20, 2009 01:42 PM (MMC8r)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it amazing that Barack Obama came up through this fever swamp of corruption but kept his tunic lily-white (pardon the expression)? Just a rhetorical question, mind you.
Posted by: nickless at February 20, 2009 01:42 PM (MMC8r)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And another Democrat is about ready to bite the dust..
Illinois gov.: Burris should resign from Senate
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn says Sen. Roland Burris should resign his post for the good of the state.
Quinn said Friday that his fellow Democrat, Burris, is an honorable man. But he says controversy surrounding Burris' appointment has cast a shadow over his service in the Senate.
The governor says a new senator should be chosen by special election.
Burris was appointed by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was later impeached and removed from office.
Burris initially said there was no discussion of him doing Blagojevich any favors in exchange for the appointment. But Burris later acknowledged he did discuss the vacant seat with the governor's friends and allies. He says he was asked to raise money for Blagojevich but couldn't find anyone willing to contribute
Click to go to article
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn says Sen. Roland Burris should resign his post for the good of the state.
Quinn said Friday that his fellow Democrat, Burris, is an honorable man. But he says controversy surrounding Burris' appointment has cast a shadow over his service in the Senate.
The governor says a new senator should be chosen by special election.
Burris was appointed by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was later impeached and removed from office.
Burris initially said there was no discussion of him doing Blagojevich any favors in exchange for the appointment. But Burris later acknowledged he did discuss the vacant seat with the governor's friends and allies. He says he was asked to raise money for Blagojevich but couldn't find anyone willing to contribute
Click to go to article
Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
It's good to see that Rush Limbaugh and now Senator Jim DeMint have decided to be proactive regarding the Fairness Doctrine. I think it was brilliant for Rush to force Obama out into the open by sending a letter to him and making it public. The follow-up by Senator Demint to force a vote by the Senate and House can hopefully finally put a stake into it. It appears that some American's are finally waking up from their Obama induced coma.
The statement by the spokesman for Obama is just pure BS. Obama is just saying this so he won't be attacked by conservatives. He's going to let his fellow corrupt democrats do the dirty work for him and hope that conservatives direct their anger towards them. If Congress should pass some form of the fairness doctrine, Obama will justify signing the legislation by saying that he was just following the will of the people.
I need to get busy in Photo Shop and design a good BS meter that I can post.
Rees
Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
from BusinessandMedia.org
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
2/20/2009 9:30:10 AM
Sen. Jim DeMint plans to introduce amendment on D.C. Voting Rights bill to prevent FCC from censoring talk radio.
Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue.
DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said on Feb. 19 he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week. The Broadcaster Freedom Act was introduced by Republican lawmakers last month and prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it,” DeMint said. “With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”
Click to read the entire article
The statement by the spokesman for Obama is just pure BS. Obama is just saying this so he won't be attacked by conservatives. He's going to let his fellow corrupt democrats do the dirty work for him and hope that conservatives direct their anger towards them. If Congress should pass some form of the fairness doctrine, Obama will justify signing the legislation by saying that he was just following the will of the people.
I need to get busy in Photo Shop and design a good BS meter that I can post.
Rees
Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine
from BusinessandMedia.org
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
2/20/2009 9:30:10 AM
Sen. Jim DeMint plans to introduce amendment on D.C. Voting Rights bill to prevent FCC from censoring talk radio.
Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue.
DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said on Feb. 19 he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week. The Broadcaster Freedom Act was introduced by Republican lawmakers last month and prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it,” DeMint said. “With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”
Click to read the entire article
Rush Limbaugh's lettter to Obama: Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free
from The Wallstreet Journal
FEBRUARY 20, 2009, 12:21 A.M. ET
By RUSH LIMBAUGH
Dear President Obama:
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
Click to go to the article
FEBRUARY 20, 2009, 12:21 A.M. ET
By RUSH LIMBAUGH
Dear President Obama:
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
Click to go to the article
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The thin red line that everyone said Iran cannot be allowed to cross...oops, has been crossed!
Well, it looks like it's time to give the UN and the big shot European powers a standing ovation on a job well done in thwarting Iran's nuclear program. All those years of serious diplomacy and tough UN Sanctions worked about as well as most logical people thought they would.
If our political leaders would just pause for a moment and look in the mirror, they would see that they have "stupid" written all over their faces. Does Obama think he still has several months left to practice his tough "but respectful" diplomacy with Iran? Does he think he can still offer Iran his top secret carrot and stick program and not have awkmuhdinnerjob laugh in his face?
Obama better be prepared to be humiliated because I will place my bet that Iran will humiliate Obama when given their first opportunity. They know Obama doesn't have the courage to deal with Iran the way that these latest developments require.
I believe that from this point forward Obama will purposely stand on the side lines and let SOS Clinton and Susan Rice is in front of the news media. This action is something that he wants no part of now. He was talking tough during his campaign and was nonstop about his intent to talk directly to awkmuhdinnerjob without precondtions.
Well, Iran just crossed that red line and there is no way they are going to turn around. Obama won't be able to do his pretty boy posturing with Iran now. It wouldn't matter anyway, because Iran is just going to tell Obama, the European big boys and the UN to shove it, and dare them to do anything about it.
Let's see, will the UN do anything? No. Sorry, I admit that was a stupid question.
Will the European big boys do anything? Are you kidding? They are the Sultans of Surrender.
Well, that's two out of three, and in this case with my apologies to Nazareth, "two out of three is in fact bad."
Darn, it boils down to Obama. Unfortunately, I believe it will just have to be a great big "Nope for the Messianic Hope." By the way, the noise you hear in the background is Obama trying to find his "present" button so he can prepare to cast his vote. But what have we here. You mean to say that this will actually be a decision that only the President can make? Obama can't have Joe B. vote for him? NOPE! The buck stops at him. Sure he'll supposedly listen to all of his advisers, but he is the only one who has the Constitutional power to order our Military to pull the proverbial trigger.
It looks as if Israel will have to go it alone. Bush wouldn’t give Israel the green light to proceed while he was in office. He wanted to be able to leave office with the Iraq situation under control. I can understand why Bush would not want to ruffle the feathers of the Iraqi population, but if will have to happen at some point in time. The longer the military strikes against Iran are delayed, the more difficult it will become to be successful.
The outgoing Israeli leaders are pessimists, but they also realized that when it came to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it had to be stopped. The only reason the outgoing leaders were even contemplating the military operation is that they believed the U.S. would participate militarily in the operation. Now, Israel will be very lucky if Obama with allow them to fly through Iraqi airspace. If Obama doesn't authorize Israel to do that, it will be almost impossible for Israel to achieve any element of surprise because of the flight paths they will have to utilize. It will just about make it impossible for Israel to be successful. However, Israel has now choice but to proceed.
The Iranian Mullahs believe it is their duty and destiny to destroy Israel. The Koran states this and Iran has not been bashful about letting the world know that they intend to wipe Israel off the map. Although Iran keeps publicly stating this position, there are those educated people on the left that just continue to be in a state of denial. I don't believe these people will ever change. Next you have the uneducated or stupid people. You can educate the un-educated, but stupid is permanent.
Now that Iran has reached the nuclear threshold Israel has to throw the self-defense part out the window. They can't wait for Iran to fire the first nuclear shot. Israel only has one option and that is for pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The question now is whether Obama going to support Israel and protect our interests or if he is going to vote present.
If Obama chooses to not allow Israel to fly through Iraqi airspace, it will be impossible for Israel to maintain any element of surprise. It also puts the Israel pilots at a greater risk and makes it very difficult for Israel to fly enough aircraft and missions to do the necessary damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.
If Obama thinks he can vote present on this one and get away with it he is totally naive. If he thinks that Iran won't retaliate against Israel and the U.S military in Iraq and the surrounding areas then he's just plain stupid. If Iran attacks our troops and doesn't allow our Military Commanders to respond accordingly, then he should be impeached.
I think the incredibly narcissistic Obama actually believed he would just step in and solve all these problems that past administrations were unable to. This issue will Iran will bring him down a few cloud levels.
The price of oil might have dropped back to incredibly low levels, but I don't think that will be the case 6 months from now.
Rees
Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
from The Financial Times
Published: February 19 2009 21:18
Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51
Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.
They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.
If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.
“It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb,” said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran’s production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.
Click to read the rest of the article
If our political leaders would just pause for a moment and look in the mirror, they would see that they have "stupid" written all over their faces. Does Obama think he still has several months left to practice his tough "but respectful" diplomacy with Iran? Does he think he can still offer Iran his top secret carrot and stick program and not have awkmuhdinnerjob laugh in his face?
Obama better be prepared to be humiliated because I will place my bet that Iran will humiliate Obama when given their first opportunity. They know Obama doesn't have the courage to deal with Iran the way that these latest developments require.
I believe that from this point forward Obama will purposely stand on the side lines and let SOS Clinton and Susan Rice is in front of the news media. This action is something that he wants no part of now. He was talking tough during his campaign and was nonstop about his intent to talk directly to awkmuhdinnerjob without precondtions.
Well, Iran just crossed that red line and there is no way they are going to turn around. Obama won't be able to do his pretty boy posturing with Iran now. It wouldn't matter anyway, because Iran is just going to tell Obama, the European big boys and the UN to shove it, and dare them to do anything about it.
Let's see, will the UN do anything? No. Sorry, I admit that was a stupid question.
Will the European big boys do anything? Are you kidding? They are the Sultans of Surrender.
Well, that's two out of three, and in this case with my apologies to Nazareth, "two out of three is in fact bad."
Darn, it boils down to Obama. Unfortunately, I believe it will just have to be a great big "Nope for the Messianic Hope." By the way, the noise you hear in the background is Obama trying to find his "present" button so he can prepare to cast his vote. But what have we here. You mean to say that this will actually be a decision that only the President can make? Obama can't have Joe B. vote for him? NOPE! The buck stops at him. Sure he'll supposedly listen to all of his advisers, but he is the only one who has the Constitutional power to order our Military to pull the proverbial trigger.
It looks as if Israel will have to go it alone. Bush wouldn’t give Israel the green light to proceed while he was in office. He wanted to be able to leave office with the Iraq situation under control. I can understand why Bush would not want to ruffle the feathers of the Iraqi population, but if will have to happen at some point in time. The longer the military strikes against Iran are delayed, the more difficult it will become to be successful.
The outgoing Israeli leaders are pessimists, but they also realized that when it came to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it had to be stopped. The only reason the outgoing leaders were even contemplating the military operation is that they believed the U.S. would participate militarily in the operation. Now, Israel will be very lucky if Obama with allow them to fly through Iraqi airspace. If Obama doesn't authorize Israel to do that, it will be almost impossible for Israel to achieve any element of surprise because of the flight paths they will have to utilize. It will just about make it impossible for Israel to be successful. However, Israel has now choice but to proceed.
The Iranian Mullahs believe it is their duty and destiny to destroy Israel. The Koran states this and Iran has not been bashful about letting the world know that they intend to wipe Israel off the map. Although Iran keeps publicly stating this position, there are those educated people on the left that just continue to be in a state of denial. I don't believe these people will ever change. Next you have the uneducated or stupid people. You can educate the un-educated, but stupid is permanent.
Now that Iran has reached the nuclear threshold Israel has to throw the self-defense part out the window. They can't wait for Iran to fire the first nuclear shot. Israel only has one option and that is for pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The question now is whether Obama going to support Israel and protect our interests or if he is going to vote present.
If Obama chooses to not allow Israel to fly through Iraqi airspace, it will be impossible for Israel to maintain any element of surprise. It also puts the Israel pilots at a greater risk and makes it very difficult for Israel to fly enough aircraft and missions to do the necessary damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.
If Obama thinks he can vote present on this one and get away with it he is totally naive. If he thinks that Iran won't retaliate against Israel and the U.S military in Iraq and the surrounding areas then he's just plain stupid. If Iran attacks our troops and doesn't allow our Military Commanders to respond accordingly, then he should be impeached.
I think the incredibly narcissistic Obama actually believed he would just step in and solve all these problems that past administrations were unable to. This issue will Iran will bring him down a few cloud levels.
The price of oil might have dropped back to incredibly low levels, but I don't think that will be the case 6 months from now.
Rees
Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
from The Financial Times
Published: February 19 2009 21:18
Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51
Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.
In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.
They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.
If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.
“It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb,” said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran’s production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.
Click to read the rest of the article
Santelli's Chicago Tea Party - THIS IS AWESOME TO THE TENTH POWER!
UPDATE: Here is the latest breakdown of the voting:
Would you want to join Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party?"
* 83895 responses
Yes 92%
No 6.7%
Not Sure 1.7%
I obviously don't agree with the people that voted no, but I respect their opinion. However, who are the almost 2% that voted "Not Sure"? They honestly can't make a decision one way or the other on this? Is this their version of voting present?
The following links are from the DRUDGE REPORT
TRADERS REVOLT: CNBC HOST CALLS FOR NEW 'TEA PARTY'; CHICAGO FLOOR MOCKS OBAMA PLAN...
VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...
They tell the guy that he ought to run for the Illinois senate so he can go back to D.C. The guy replies, "Do you think I want to have to take a shower every hour?"
Talk about a perfect scenario. The CNBC Business Channel is talking to their reporter from the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange. He obviously isn't afraid to speak his mind and apparently isn't too worried about the possibility of being paid a visit by Obama's Storm Troopers. It became front page news on the Drudge Report and was highlighted in big red letters. Let's hope this is enough for all the main stream media outlets to pick up on. Do I think it is enough? Well, it's a perfect story, but the MSM got Obama elected and they have been in an obsessive process of glorifying him ever since. If they were to run this negative news story about his horrible proposal to stop mortgage foreclosures it may dent his image. I'm betting most of them won't, but I really hope that I'm wrong. The American public needs a wake-up call regarding what Obama and the democrats are trying to shove down our throats.
By the way, this is from CNBC news which is very pro-Obama. I hope these reporters still have their jobs after today.
Rees
This is from CNBC
Please make sure to vote on the poll question which is:
Click to vote:
Would you want to join Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party?"
Vote "Yes." (and vote often like the democrats)
Click here to watch the video.
Would you want to join Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party?"
* 83895 responses
Yes 92%
No 6.7%
Not Sure 1.7%
I obviously don't agree with the people that voted no, but I respect their opinion. However, who are the almost 2% that voted "Not Sure"? They honestly can't make a decision one way or the other on this? Is this their version of voting present?
The following links are from the DRUDGE REPORT
TRADERS REVOLT: CNBC HOST CALLS FOR NEW 'TEA PARTY'; CHICAGO FLOOR MOCKS OBAMA PLAN...
VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...
They tell the guy that he ought to run for the Illinois senate so he can go back to D.C. The guy replies, "Do you think I want to have to take a shower every hour?"
Talk about a perfect scenario. The CNBC Business Channel is talking to their reporter from the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange. He obviously isn't afraid to speak his mind and apparently isn't too worried about the possibility of being paid a visit by Obama's Storm Troopers. It became front page news on the Drudge Report and was highlighted in big red letters. Let's hope this is enough for all the main stream media outlets to pick up on. Do I think it is enough? Well, it's a perfect story, but the MSM got Obama elected and they have been in an obsessive process of glorifying him ever since. If they were to run this negative news story about his horrible proposal to stop mortgage foreclosures it may dent his image. I'm betting most of them won't, but I really hope that I'm wrong. The American public needs a wake-up call regarding what Obama and the democrats are trying to shove down our throats.
By the way, this is from CNBC news which is very pro-Obama. I hope these reporters still have their jobs after today.
Rees
This is from CNBC
Please make sure to vote on the poll question which is:
Click to vote:
Would you want to join Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party?"
Vote "Yes." (and vote often like the democrats)
Click here to watch the video.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Holder: U.S. cowardly on race matters
Thanks to Mark for telling me about this article.
Hey, Obama supporters! Any flickering of the light bulb in your head yet? I thought not.
It appears that we now have two incredibly egotistical, arrogant african-americans in places of power. It seems that they are quite full of themselves and just can't stop themselves from shoving their blackness down our throats. These idiots are going to piss off a lot of Americans and set back the race relations by 20 years. Well, now Obama has another buddy to help him with his verbal bashing of America. I surprised he didn't start singing "we shall overcome."
I don't know how many times I'm allowed to say this, but you just can't make this crap up.
Rees
Holder: U.S. cowardly on race matters
Ben Conery (Contact)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
from The Washington Times
A forceful Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday called the United States "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race and vowed the Justice Department would assume a greater role in fighting racism and other discrimination.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Mr. Holder said.
"Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
• Text of Mr. Holder's speech
The bold remarks from the nation's first black attorney general were made to Justice Department employees during an event commemorating Black History Month.
Mr. Holder said the Justice Department bears special responsibility in addressing racial ills and referenced President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to describe the department's mission.
"Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must -- and will -- lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest president," he said. "This is our duty and our solemn obligation."
Mr. Holder told reporters after the event that he will help put his words into action by revitalizing the department's Civil Rights Division. "It's a division that has not gotten the attention it deserves, the resources it deserves, and people have not been given a sense of mission," he said. "I am bound and determined to make that section the vital place that it always has been."
Mr. Holder said that despite high-profile gains among blacks in the recent elections, there are many hurdles yet to clear.
"The fact that we have an African-American attorney general, an African-American president, I think, is extremely significant, but it is not an indication that all of the problems that we have confronted as a nation over the years are now resolved," Mr. Holder told reporters.
Click to read the article
Hey, Obama supporters! Any flickering of the light bulb in your head yet? I thought not.
It appears that we now have two incredibly egotistical, arrogant african-americans in places of power. It seems that they are quite full of themselves and just can't stop themselves from shoving their blackness down our throats. These idiots are going to piss off a lot of Americans and set back the race relations by 20 years. Well, now Obama has another buddy to help him with his verbal bashing of America. I surprised he didn't start singing "we shall overcome."
I don't know how many times I'm allowed to say this, but you just can't make this crap up.
Rees
Holder: U.S. cowardly on race matters
Ben Conery (Contact)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
from The Washington Times
A forceful Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday called the United States "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race and vowed the Justice Department would assume a greater role in fighting racism and other discrimination.
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Mr. Holder said.
"Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
• Text of Mr. Holder's speech
The bold remarks from the nation's first black attorney general were made to Justice Department employees during an event commemorating Black History Month.
Mr. Holder said the Justice Department bears special responsibility in addressing racial ills and referenced President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to describe the department's mission.
"Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must -- and will -- lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest president," he said. "This is our duty and our solemn obligation."
Mr. Holder told reporters after the event that he will help put his words into action by revitalizing the department's Civil Rights Division. "It's a division that has not gotten the attention it deserves, the resources it deserves, and people have not been given a sense of mission," he said. "I am bound and determined to make that section the vital place that it always has been."
Mr. Holder said that despite high-profile gains among blacks in the recent elections, there are many hurdles yet to clear.
"The fact that we have an African-American attorney general, an African-American president, I think, is extremely significant, but it is not an indication that all of the problems that we have confronted as a nation over the years are now resolved," Mr. Holder told reporters.
Click to read the article
Obama has new flag frenzy
Oh he's just so patriotic lately. If he was truly patriotic, he would have been surrounded by flags during his campaign. He chose not to because the majority of the people that supported aren't patriotic. They don't like America and what it stands for. They believe we are somehow responsible for most of the problems in the world and that if America would just bow down and be diminuitive that everything would be better..
Rees
White House embraces a backdrop of red, white and blue
Jennifer Harper (Contact)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
from The Washington Times
Oh, say - can you see? Look. It's President Obama, and he's surrounded by American flags.
They're on the dais in star-spangled glory. They're at the town-hall meeting and the news conference, in bold folds of red, white and blue. The White House has rediscovered - or possibly reinvented - the patriotic cachet of Old Glory as a perfect frame for the new president.
That's the same president who once would not wear an American flag pin. Things have changed.
"The biggest factor is that Barack Obama is now the president," said Jack Glaser, a social psychologist with the University of California at Berkeley.
"He's around more flags now. They're behind him or on the podium. That's the reality. He's not running around on the campaign trail.
"Now that he's president, Mr. Obama most likely knows he's an American symbol. So he wears an American flag pin. He appears before American flags. That's part of the job."
Mr. Glaser, who has plumbed the mysteries of public patriotism in his studies, urged people to put the phenomenon into perspective.
"I caution people to be careful about their own perceptions and judging these situations," Mr. Glaser said.
"This does not have the same connotation as the shallow patriotism one might adopt during a political campaign."
President Obama chose in 2007 to forgo a flag pin on his lapel, as president he now wears an American flag pin and appears in public before a phalanx of American flags, creating a compelling visual for newsprint or video.
American Legion spokesman Craig Roberts doesn't care why Mr. Obama flies the flag, just as long as it's there. "From our point of view, no matter what the motivation - image building, repairing an image - it doesn't matter. What's important is that the president of the United States appear with the American flag," he said.
Click to read the article and comments
Rees
White House embraces a backdrop of red, white and blue
Jennifer Harper (Contact)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
from The Washington Times
Oh, say - can you see? Look. It's President Obama, and he's surrounded by American flags.
They're on the dais in star-spangled glory. They're at the town-hall meeting and the news conference, in bold folds of red, white and blue. The White House has rediscovered - or possibly reinvented - the patriotic cachet of Old Glory as a perfect frame for the new president.
That's the same president who once would not wear an American flag pin. Things have changed.
"The biggest factor is that Barack Obama is now the president," said Jack Glaser, a social psychologist with the University of California at Berkeley.
"He's around more flags now. They're behind him or on the podium. That's the reality. He's not running around on the campaign trail.
"Now that he's president, Mr. Obama most likely knows he's an American symbol. So he wears an American flag pin. He appears before American flags. That's part of the job."
Mr. Glaser, who has plumbed the mysteries of public patriotism in his studies, urged people to put the phenomenon into perspective.
"I caution people to be careful about their own perceptions and judging these situations," Mr. Glaser said.
"This does not have the same connotation as the shallow patriotism one might adopt during a political campaign."
President Obama chose in 2007 to forgo a flag pin on his lapel, as president he now wears an American flag pin and appears in public before a phalanx of American flags, creating a compelling visual for newsprint or video.
American Legion spokesman Craig Roberts doesn't care why Mr. Obama flies the flag, just as long as it's there. "From our point of view, no matter what the motivation - image building, repairing an image - it doesn't matter. What's important is that the president of the United States appear with the American flag," he said.
Click to read the article and comments
University of Maryland Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes
Yes. I would really enjoy a student with this mentality and lack of self-respect, operating on me, or heaven forbid, doing a root canal procedure. Makes sense to me. This article will let me know whether Carson or Cody actually visit once in awhile.
Rees
Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes
By MAX ROOSEVELT
Published: February 17, 2009
from The New York Times
Prof. Marshall Grossman has come to expect complaints whenever he returns graded papers in his English classes at the University of Maryland.
“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”
He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.
“I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C,” he said. “That is the default grade. They see the default grade as an A.”
A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.
“I noticed an increased sense of entitlement in my students and wanted to discover what was causing it” said Ellen Greenberger, the lead author of the study, called “Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors,” which appeared last year in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Professor Greenberger said that the sense of entitlement could be related to increased parental pressure, competition among peers and family members and a heightened sense of achievement anxiety.
Aaron M. Brower, the vice provost for teaching and learning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, offered another theory.
“I think that it stems from their K-12 experiences,” Professor Brower said. “They have become ultra-efficient in test preparation. And this hyper-efficiency has led them to look for a magic formula to get high scores.”
James Hogge, associate dean of the Peabody School of Education at Vanderbilt University, said: “Students often confuse the level of effort with the quality of work. There is a mentality in students that ‘if I work hard, I deserve a high grade.’ “
In line with Dean Hogge’s observation are Professor Greenberger’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.
Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.
“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”
“
If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”
Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed, saying, “I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.”
At Vanderbilt, there is an emphasis on what Dean Hogge calls “the locus of control.” The goal is to put the academic burden on the student.
“Instead of getting an A, they make an A,” he said. “Similarly, if they make a lesser grade, it is not the teacher’s fault. Attributing the outcome of a failure to someone else is a common problem.”
Additionally, Dean Hogge said, “professors often try to outline the ‘rules of the game’ in their syllabi,” in an effort to curb haggling over grades.
Professor Brower said professors at Wisconsin emphasized that students must “read for knowledge and write with the goal of exploring ideas.”
This informal mission statement, along with special seminars for freshmen, is intended to help “re-teach students about what education is.”
The seminars are integrated into introductory courses. Examples include the conventional, like a global-warming seminar, and the more obscure, like physics in religion.
The seminars “are meant to help students think differently about their classes and connect them to real life,” Professor Brower said.
He said that if students developed a genuine interest in their field, grades would take a back seat, and holistic and intrinsically motivated learning could take place.
“College students want to be part of a different and better world, but they don’t know how,” he said. “Unless teachers are very intentional with our goals, we play into the system in place.”
Click to go to the article
Rees
Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes
By MAX ROOSEVELT
Published: February 17, 2009
from The New York Times
Prof. Marshall Grossman has come to expect complaints whenever he returns graded papers in his English classes at the University of Maryland.
“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”
He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.
“I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C,” he said. “That is the default grade. They see the default grade as an A.”
A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.
“I noticed an increased sense of entitlement in my students and wanted to discover what was causing it” said Ellen Greenberger, the lead author of the study, called “Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors,” which appeared last year in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Professor Greenberger said that the sense of entitlement could be related to increased parental pressure, competition among peers and family members and a heightened sense of achievement anxiety.
Aaron M. Brower, the vice provost for teaching and learning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, offered another theory.
“I think that it stems from their K-12 experiences,” Professor Brower said. “They have become ultra-efficient in test preparation. And this hyper-efficiency has led them to look for a magic formula to get high scores.”
James Hogge, associate dean of the Peabody School of Education at Vanderbilt University, said: “Students often confuse the level of effort with the quality of work. There is a mentality in students that ‘if I work hard, I deserve a high grade.’ “
In line with Dean Hogge’s observation are Professor Greenberger’s test results. Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.
Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.
“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”
“
If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”
Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed, saying, “I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.”
At Vanderbilt, there is an emphasis on what Dean Hogge calls “the locus of control.” The goal is to put the academic burden on the student.
“Instead of getting an A, they make an A,” he said. “Similarly, if they make a lesser grade, it is not the teacher’s fault. Attributing the outcome of a failure to someone else is a common problem.”
Additionally, Dean Hogge said, “professors often try to outline the ‘rules of the game’ in their syllabi,” in an effort to curb haggling over grades.
Professor Brower said professors at Wisconsin emphasized that students must “read for knowledge and write with the goal of exploring ideas.”
This informal mission statement, along with special seminars for freshmen, is intended to help “re-teach students about what education is.”
The seminars are integrated into introductory courses. Examples include the conventional, like a global-warming seminar, and the more obscure, like physics in religion.
The seminars “are meant to help students think differently about their classes and connect them to real life,” Professor Brower said.
He said that if students developed a genuine interest in their field, grades would take a back seat, and holistic and intrinsically motivated learning could take place.
“College students want to be part of a different and better world, but they don’t know how,” he said. “Unless teachers are very intentional with our goals, we play into the system in place.”
Click to go to the article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
