Actually they are not in "control" but way, way OUT of control. Well, what can be expected from a one-party rule? I cannot imagine anything so dangerous and it ultimately won't matter what a party professes or calls itself once it gains all power.
And "WE THE PEOPLE" who put them there? My God! How could you morons out there have done such a dangerous and stupid thing? Does anyone learn history at all anymore?
It's LONG past time to wake up. "If you are ignorant of history, you are condemned to repeat it".
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:25 PM
THE FOLLOWING IS A RANT! (You have been warned)
Recently, on another Internet Forum I read and contribute to, a poster initiated a thread quoting at length an e-mail/letter/opinion piece entitled “An Axis Of Idiots”. This e-mail/letter/opinion piece was signed by “J.D. Pendry, a retired Marine Sergeant Major and writer for Random House”. However, it turns out that no “J.D. Pendry, a retired Marine Sergeant Major and writer for Random House” exists. There is a retired ARMY Sergeant Major named J.D. Pendry who does write for Random House. I took the time and effort to contact him, through his publisher, and he wrote back saying that he never wrote the e-mail/letter/opinion piece (he had written something similar 6 years ago but the new version was filled with added material he never wrote).
The topic is not the text of the e-mail/letter/opinion piece, but rather...
Why is it that, when someone wishes to express their personal opinion on the Internet, they don’t have the guts to use their own name, but make up a different name or steal someone else's name? And why is it that the fake name they select or the real person's name they steal, more often than not, is followed by “Sergeant Major, USMC, retired” or “Army Green Beret, retired” or “Navy Seal, retired”?
Is a lie more acceptable or more believable if you sign it with someone else’s name or a completely made-up name and the tagline “Sergeant Major, USMC, retired” or “Army Green Beret, retired” or “Navy Seal, retired”?
The person who actually wrote it was probably a civilian, anyway...
END OF RANT
Posts: 2406 | Registered: Thu 20 December 2007
Hultberg
Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:30 PM Hide Post
1. They fake their identity because they are cowards or not credible as sources.
2. They fake titles to increase their credibility, because far too many people dont question authority. And lots of people on the net just copy and paste without checking the source anyway.
Posts: 2554 | Registered: Wed 09 June 2004
Ignored post by Hultberg posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:30 PM Show Post
godawgz
Experienced Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:34 PM Hide Post
I dunno.. I guess it depends on the subject and the title.. for example, it would in the case of "Cornered Collies More Dangerous than Pit-Bulls" - Lenard L. Putzgrass, City Dog-Catcher; but not in the case of "HealthCare Reform Won't Cost You A Thing." Barack Obama, POTUS
Posts: 5625 | Registered: Thu 24 January 2008
Ignored post by godawgz posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:34 PM Show Post
thorin001
Sarcastic Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:35 PM Hide Post
Truthful, no.
Credible, yes.
Someone who should have more info/experience on a subject is generally more credible.
Posts: 8587 | Registered: Thu 22 March 2001
Ignored post by thorin001 posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:35 PM Show Post
67NOV
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:57 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fightdirector:
THE FOLLOWING IS A RANT! (You have been warned)
Recently, on another Internet Forum I read and contribute to, a poster initiated a thread quoting at length an e-mail/letter/opinion piece entitled “An Axis Of Idiots”. This e-mail/letter/opinion piece was signed by “J.D. Pendry, a retired Marine Sergeant Major and writer for Random House”. However, it turns out that no “J.D. Pendry, a retired Marine Sergeant Major and writer for Random House” exists.
Holy Canoli!! An e-mail sent out that wasn't truthful!
Circular file.
Posts: 8860 | Registered: Thu 21 September 2006
Ignored post by 67NOV posted Tue 11 August 2009 01:57 PM Show Post
transport1
"88M, CAUSE EVERYONE ELSE IS CARGO."
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 02:12 PM Hide Post
Nothing makes a lie more truthful, it's still a lie. The rank of the supposed liar just makes the lie harder to dispel and makes more people believe it.
Posts: 3665 | Registered: Tue 19 June 2007
Ignored post by transport1 posted Tue 11 August 2009 02:12 PM Show Post
tawodi
member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 04:19 PM Hide Post
What is really disturbing about the problem so cited is the tendency of people to give up soveriegnty over themselves in society today. This I believe is why the problem exists. If given the cache' of authority it is thought that the lie is more believeable.......example our president! " I was never a proponent of the single payer system!" Just today once again at the N.H glee club soire" a proovable lie as there is video from 2003 in Illinois and from the U.S. Senate in 2007 of him saying exactly that he was there because he was a proponent of the single payer system.
LIES!! BUT!! HE's the president we HAVE to believe him.....right?
Posts: 7431 | Registered: Wed 29 November 2006
Ignored post by tawodi posted Tue 11 August 2009 04:19 PM Show Post
L0A1
-------------------
Proud Member
Derelict Veterans'
Group
-------------------
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 04:22 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fightdirector:
Is a lie more acceptable or more believable if you sign it with someone else’s name or a completely made-up name and the tagline “Sergeant Major, USMC, retired” or “Army Green Beret, retired” or “Navy Seal, retired”?
The person who actually wrote it was probably a civilian, anyway...
People hee do it often, they cite "News" article which can be the same thing. It's other peoples (in most cases bias) opinions based on only the facts they choose to write about.
Todays politics remind me of an old saying. - "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin
Posts: 8256 | Registered: Sat 03 March 2007
Ignored post by L0A1 posted Tue 11 August 2009 04:22 PM Show Post
JustanotherGI
Watching Husker Football is the most fun you can have with your clothes on
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 06:16 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fightdirector:
Is a lie more acceptable or more believable if you sign it with someone else’s name or a completely made-up name and the tagline “Sergeant Major, USMC, retired” or “Army Green Beret, retired” or “Navy Seal, retired”?
The person who actually wrote it was probably a civilian, anyway...
END OF RANT
Couldn't care less what they have to say, too much stock is splaced into what people have to say, --NFL, NBA, MLB players. It's the same with Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen.
Don't care what you have to SAY, do care about what you mean.
Posts: 625 | Registered: Fri 08 December 2006
Ignored post by JustanotherGI posted Tue 11 August 2009 06:16 PM Show Post
john2x
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 07:04 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tawodi:
What is really disturbing about the problem so cited is the tendency of people to give up soveriegnty over themselves in society today. This I believe is why the problem exists. If given the cache' of authority it is thought that the lie is more believeable.......example our president! " I was never a proponent of the single payer system!" Just today once again at the N.H glee club soire" a proovable lie as there is video from 2003 in Illinois and from the U.S. Senate in 2007 of him saying exactly that he was there because he was a proponent of the single payer system.
LIES!! BUT!! HE's the president we HAVE to believe him.....right?
Wrong. He admitted he hadnt read the complete bill, but yet he's out there stumping for passage of something he himself hasnt read and assimilated. Thats pure BS and will affect any credibility he had. Im finished with him and am writting to let him know he's no better than all the other lying self serving politicians.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Sun 27 May 2007
Ignored post by john2x posted Tue 11 August 2009 07:04 PM Show Post
catahoulagill
Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 07:26 PM Hide Post
A rank or a title will only garner a certain measure of respect. Caught in a lie, such a person is likely to lose the respect of others. Only power will maintain a measure of repect at that point. It is then that power may have to be maintained at all costs for such a persons ego.
A rank or a title will not turn a lie into the truth, but the power of a rank or a title, if great enough, may not allow anyone to do a darn thing about it.
Posts: 995 | Registered: Sat 24 March 2007
Ignored post by catahoulagill posted Tue 11 August 2009 07:26 PM Show Post
thorin001
Sarcastic Member
Posted Tue 11 August 2009 07:28 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by tawodi:
What is really disturbing about the problem so cited is the tendency of people to give up soveriegnty over themselves in society today. This I believe is why the problem exists. If given the cache' of authority it is thought that the lie is more believeable.......example our president! " I was never a proponent of the single payer system!" Just today once again at the N.H glee club soire" a proovable lie as there is video from 2003 in Illinois and from the U.S. Senate in 2007 of him saying exactly that he was there because he was a proponent of the single payer system.
LIES!! BUT!! HE's the president we HAVE to believe him.....right?
Works even better for those in clerical robes, so the willingness surrender soveriegnty over themselves is hardly a new phenomenom.
Posts: 8587 | Registered: Thu 22 March 2001
Ignored post by thorin001 posted Tue 11 August 2009 07:28 PM Show Post
Mom2APAJ
Experienced Member
Posted Wed 12 August 2009 07:08 AM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john2x:
quote:
Originally posted by tawodi:
What is really disturbing about the problem so cited is the tendency of people to give up soveriegnty over themselves in society today. This I believe is why the problem exists. If given the cache' of authority it is thought that the lie is more believeable.......example our president! " I was never a proponent of the single payer system!" Just today once again at the N.H glee club soire" a proovable lie as there is video from 2003 in Illinois and from the U.S. Senate in 2007 of him saying exactly that he was there because he was a proponent of the single payer system.
LIES!! BUT!! HE's the president we HAVE to believe him.....right?
Wrong. He admitted he hadnt read the complete bill, but yet he's out there stumping for passage of something he himself hasnt read and assimilated. Thats pure BS and will affect any credibility he had. Im finished with him and am writting to let him know he's no better than all the other lying self serving politicians.
He 'admitted' he never read something that he's 'stumping for' and denigrating those who HAVE read it publically that's a little more than just lying.
Posts: 6986 | Registered: Tue 15 February 2005
Ignored post by Mom2APAJ posted Wed 12 August 2009 07:08 AM Show Post
john2x
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Wed 12 August 2009 12:02 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mom2APAJ:
quote:
Originally posted by john2x:
quote:
Originally posted by tawodi:
What is really disturbing about the problem so cited is the tendency of people to give up soveriegnty over themselves in society today. This I believe is why the problem exists. If given the cache' of authority it is thought that the lie is more believeable.......example our president! " I was never a proponent of the single payer system!" Just today once again at the N.H glee club soire" a proovable lie as there is video from 2003 in Illinois and from the U.S. Senate in 2007 of him saying exactly that he was there because he was a proponent of the single payer system.
LIES!! BUT!! HE's the president we HAVE to believe him.....right?
Wrong. He admitted he hadnt read the complete bill, but yet he's out there stumping for passage of something he himself hasnt read and assimilated. Thats pure BS and will affect any credibility he had. Im finished with him and am writting to let him know he's no better than all the other lying self serving politicians.
He 'admitted' he never read something that he's 'stumping for' and denigrating those who HAVE read it publically that's a little more than just lying.
Ironically what he attempted to do has backfired
and he has set the entitlement movements back millineums and thats a plus. It has wakened up a
sleeping giant that has never before been involved. He gambled and lost. He's a silvered tounged devil and had my support even though I didnt vote for him till now that he exposed himself.
He underestimated the American people. He capitalized on in place misinformation network. Using the hit em and kiss em strategy. First kiss em them hit em and soon they wont know whether their being hit or kissed.
started off kissing the people gaining thier confidence early on, market up, economy improving, Then took the shot at socialisim. Fatal error because that would never float in America and woke up the sleepers.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Sun 27 May 2007
Ignored post by john2x posted Wed 12 August 2009 12:02 PM Show Post
godawgz
Experienced Member
Posted Wed 12 August 2009 08:27 PM Hide Post
You know John, there's an old wives tale that if two men walk by a snake the first man will get him riled but the second man will get bit.. Maybe that same thing is in play now.. conservatives and independents were getting pretty pizzed by the end of bush's second term and Obama showed up just in time to kick a hornets nest that was already buzzing pretty furiously.. and yes i know I mixed my wildlife metaphors.. what the hell, it's late.
Posts: 5625 | Registered: Thu 24 January 2008
Ignored post by godawgz posted Wed 12 August 2009 08:27 PM Show Post
Powered by Eve Community
Please Wait. Your request is being processed...
Logout: Military.com Forums
Update LiveCloud Account Reply
Military.com Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Does a rank or a title make a lie more truthful?
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more
fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir.. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it?
Lord help us! See Dick run.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.
Semper Fi,
J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired
In a recent issue of U.S. News and World Report—a news magazine I had thought was more objective than liberal-leaning magazines like Time and Newsweek—there appeared a major article titled "Mainstreaming the militia." Far from being the objective piece I had hoped for, it was yet another distorted mainstream media reporting about the goings on of America's mushrooming militia movement.
The article painted militia groups and other anti-government groups as being composed of unemployed, low-income, uneducated, paranoid, and easily-led misfits who are seeking to blame someone—the U.S. Government, the United Nations, the New World Order, or whatever—for their troubles. Backwoods Home Magazine was mentioned as one of the "magazines that have sprung up to compete for the antiestablishment audience."
The article has all kinds of references to the Oklahoma City bombing, potential violence by militia groups to revenge the Waco massacre or to mark the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the suspicion by federal agents that the militia groups are planning all sorts of violence just as an outlet for their hate and extremism.
The supposed "sources" for the information in the article comes from groups, publications, and Internet sites with explosively ominous names like Klanwatch, Center on Hate and Extremism, the Hate Directory, the Program for the Study of Violence and Conflict, Skinheads USA, the Ku Klux Klan Home Page, Library of a White Tribalist, and Aryan Nations. And, of course, the books and videos these outfits sell have titles like Hitman, How to Kill, and Ultimate Sniper to "help Americans preparing for a race war," among other dastardly things. And, of course, these dangerous nuts all hang out at the "notorious" Preparedness Shows that are popping up all over the country.
Now let me qualify my annoyance with this distorted and misleading U.S.News article by saying that neither I, my staff, nor Backwoods Home Magazine have membership in any militia group or other anti-government group. This is not intended as a statement to back away from these people in any way, but as an assertion that we are an independent publication that is interested in the fair treatment of all Americans, be they militia groups from America's political right or environmental groups from America's political left.
That said, I can tell you during the eight years of BHM's existence, I have met many militia members at the various Preparedness Shows I have attended and I have met many environmentalists at the various environmental and energy shows I have attended. The most prominent of these people, such as John Trochmann (pictured prominently and ominously in the U.S. News article as the head of the "notorious" Montana Militia), and John Schaeffer (always displayed favorably in the media as the environmentally-aware owner of Real Goods Corporation), are exceptionally smart businessmen and exceptionally good family men. As with other prominent people on both the left and the right, they have their hangers-on who are jerks.
What angers me, being libertarian and conservative, is that I have never, in eight years of attending these shows in cities from Boston to Denver to Los Angeles, read anything in the mainstream media that was negative about environmental shows, or that was positive about Preparedness Shows. Even though, in my observations, the environmental shows are full of environmental crackpots, many of whom would be willing to resort to violence to promote their agenda (Remember the Unabomber and tree spikers?), and the Preparedness Shows, though plagued by their own share of crackpots, by and large are attended by well-educated, well-informed, sensible people whose chief sin seems to be demanding the government behave in accordance with the Constitution.
So why the difference in press coverage? In a nutshell: The environmental shows are full of liberals who want to promote government intervention to save the world as they think it should be, and the Preparedness Shows are full of conservatives and libertarians who want to limit government intervention so as to save America the way they think it should be. If you are liberal, you get good press; if not, you get tagged as a racist, extremist, or nutcase. It just makes me so mad I could spit.
Well, at least the U.S. News article was partly right when it said the militia movement is becoming more mainstream, but it underestimates the appeal. Instead of the six Preparedness Expos it said are planned for this year, there are at least 19. They are in cities like Orlando, Portland, Indianapolis, Phoenix, Kansas City, San Francisco, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Nashville, Tulsa, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Buffalo, St. Louis, Columbus, San Diego, and Dallas. Some have already taken place.
You see, U.S. News, Americans aren't really influenced by how much you or the rest of the mainstream media distort the meaning of a legitimate American movement. They've been down this freedom road before. And what the militia movement is in America is a healthy exercise of freedom—what freedoms we have left—to oppose the excesses of our own government. If it has racists and extremists on its fringes, so does every other movement this country has ever had. You concentrate on the fringes to pull off your distortion, but big government zealots like you have never been able to stamp out the real truth with your high profile distortions.
I see a lot of room for him to manuver in this bill.
If anything, it certainly has that old familiar one world government smell that he seems to like so much..
The story is about arms imports and exports, not the right to keep and bear arms.
> If This Passes, There Will Be WAR!
No there won't, you fucking moron.
> The Full Article Here
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
> ;
> The Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to
> ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends
> to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens
> through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.
That's not even close to what the talks are about. Talks on international standards for importing and exporting arms are not even close to "a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens."
Groups Pushing ClimateGate Have Extensive Ties To Exxon-Mobil
By: David Dayen Friday December 4, 2009 9:23 am
The ClimateGate controversy has now become a full-fledged talking point on the right, despite the reality of the situation. But the storm being created over the stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit is being pushed by exactly the same fossil fuel industries that have been fighting climate science for years, if not decades.
A group promoting skepticism over widely-accredited climate change science has a web of connections to influential oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Raw Story has found.
The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil, a vehement opponent of climate legislation and notorious among scientists for funding global warming skeptics.
“Exxon-Mobil essentially funds people to lie,” Joseph Romm, lauded climate expert and author of the blog Climate Progress, told Raw Story. “It’s important for people to understand that they pay off the overwhelming majority of groups in the area of junk science.”
The story details the nexus between the NIPCC, the Heartland Institute (recipient of $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil over the last 10 years), the Cato Institute ($125,000 from Exxon-Mobil in the last decade) and multiple other right-wing front groups.
In addition, one of the key pieces in the hacked ClimateGate emails refers to a study reported in scientific journals that was revealed to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, yet another Exxon-Mobil front group:
The incident to which Sensenbrenner is alluding in fact involves an admirable event in scientific history, when the scientific community successfully resisted attempts by Exxon-Mobil and Republicans to politicize and corrupt climate research.
In 2003, the journal Climate Research published a paper by astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon which argued that “the current global warming trend is not unique and that an even more dramatic episode occurred centuries ago, before widespread combustion of oil and coal.”
What Sensenbrenner and the other smear merchants fail to mention is that the researchers were correct in their concerns that the journal had been taken over by biased ideologues. Despite Sensenbrenner’s claim, no editors were fired because of the climate realists. Rather, the editor of Climate Research, Hans Von Storch, quit in July 2003 because he was suppressed by the journal’s publisher when he attempted to disown the paper’s “severe methodological flaws“ [...]
The Soon-Baliunas paper turned out to be crass Big Oil propaganda, “underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute and promoted by nonprofit organizations that receive support from energy interests, primarily ExxonMobil Corp.” Journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted in August, 2003, that the Soon-Baliunas claims “cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper” — but only after the paper had served its political purpose.
Americans honor the courageous informant, the gutsy citizen who stands against the savagery of the profit-mongering conglomerate. Well, sometimes. It appears, believe it or not, that there are those who aren't religiously tethered to this sacred obligation.
For now -- because of revelations of the ClimateGate scandal, in which hacked e-mails revealed discussions among top climate scientists about the manipulation of evidence -- Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain, has stepped down from his position. Michael Mann, architect of the famous "hockey stick" graph, is now under investigation by Pennsylvania State University. Similar inquiries should follow.
Yet Barbara Boxer, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is off hunting bigger game.
"You call it 'ClimateGate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" Boxer clarified during a committee shindig. "We may well have a hearing on this; we may not. We may have a briefing for senators; we may not." Boxer, as steady as they come, went on to put the focus where it belongs: on hackers. She warned: "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated. ... This is a crime."
If this hacker(s) is unearthed on U.S. soil (or anywhere in the Middle East, actually), Boxer can jettison the guilty party to Gitmo for some well-deserved sleep deprivation.
But surely there is time for some sort of investigation? This is, after all, the senator who ran a vital committee hearing in 2008 so that an Environmental Protection Agency whistle-blower, who accused the Bush administration of failing to address greenhouse gas emissions appropriately, could have his say.
Boxer's rigid devotion to rule of law is also admirable. But this is the senator who championed the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and fought for whistle-blowing rights for defense contractor employees (to ferret out bureaucratic waste) and for nurses (to protect patients' rights).
All of which sound like sensible protections for the truth-seeking citizen. Because taxpayers matter.
So take Kevin Trenberth, who was caught claiming it was a "travesty" that climate scientists could not "account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- though such anxiety never slowed him from weaving unnerving tales of calamity. Trenberth runs the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., which obtains 95 percent of its funding from taxpayers.
Take the taxpayer-funded EPA, which was handed the incredible power to arbitrarily (and without Congress) regulate all carbon dioxide , through the Clean Air Act, in part because of the science in question.
Take NASA, which -- despite a 2-year-old Freedom of Information Act request asking for research detailing its historical data -- continues to ignore taxpayers.
Are these state secrets?
Surely this insularity is one reason 59 percent of Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, believe it is "somewhat likely" that some scientists falsified research data to support their own global warming theories. (Thirty-five percent of Americans believe it's "very likely.")
Fortunately, President Barack Obama has an unwavering admiration of truth tellers, asserting during his campaign that their "acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled."
In the mean time, Sarah will continue selling books by the millions, she will continue to gain national following, she will continue to work hard to live up to the expectations of her family, her nation and her god.
We all need to heed the warning. We are witnessing the erosion of our constitution. The constitution doesn't grant us rights but reaffirms the rights, which were given to us by God.
Our survival as a nation will depend on our ability to understand right from wrong and be willing to stand for what's right. God is right. The constitution is right. When the government has all of the pieces in place, they will turn on the tyranny machine and abandon the constitution once and for all. We must act before it’s to late.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant.
Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Should have known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals. I rest my case.
Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
Many fine humans exist, but yet in general humanity just plains sucks don't it? All through the hated "history". And that includes you, you filthy pig.
The president was in the enemy camp Tuesday night — at least that's what those on the left are saying about Obama's speech at West Point. Enemy camp? They also added that it was a "strange venue" for the speech. Where should it have been? At ACORN? SEIU?
But the left may be onto something because that crowd did not look... how should I say it? Thrilled? The cameras even caught one cadet falling asleep. And they had pretty good reason to be annoyed.
After the president apologized (again) for America's mistakes; blamed Bush for everything that's gone wrong; bragged he's shutting down that evil Gitmo place — the place where, you know, people like the soldiers are torturing poor terrorists with loud music and staying up past night-night time, terrorists that soldiers risk their lives to catch — he topped it all off by saying he'd add 30,000 troops, far below the range of 40,000 to 60,000 requested.
He justified the escalation by underscoring the real threat Al Qaeda and the Taliban poses. In literally the next sentence, he added we'll be bringing the troops home in 18 months.
What kind of strategy is that? This isn't ping pong; this is a death match. You don't tell the other team hey, we are bringing the thunder! But we'll be going home in 15 minutes.
No wonder his approval on Afghanistan has gone down 21 points since July. And no wonder the crowd wasn't out of their seats. Even though, according to Der Spiegel, moments before the president walked onstage, gathered cadets were asked by West Point leadership to "respond enthusiastically."
Wow.
I'm going to get to the politics in a minute, but first I want to ask you: What is the long-term plan?
What's going to happen in five years in Afghanistan? Have we taught them a lesson or will there be Al Qaeda training camps, safe havens, where they are plotting more attacks?
There's no long term planning here. Just like in everything else this president does.
What's the long term planning with the economy? Our debt is so bad now that even the New York Times — one of the main propaganda arms for the Obama administration — is sounding the alarm.
The U.S. economy is like so many of the patients or Jack Bauer victims you see on "24." They get badly wounded and are at death's door, but Jack needs information from them, so he gives them a shot of adrenaline that'll allow them to talk for a few minutes, but:
(BEGIN '24' VIDEO CLIP)
KIEFER SUTHERLAND AS JACK BAUER: This man has information vital to national security. Bring him around now! Now!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
They gave the U.S. economy a $787 billion shot of adrenaline that kept it going for a while, but that just might kill it in the end. If they'd done nothing, the economy would have done worse and there would have been some difficult times, but in the end, we'd have a chance of being healthy. We could get better faster and come back stronger.
Instead, they pretend that "because of the steps they took," they were able to stabilize the economy.
What Barack Obama actually did was to quadruple the debt and increase the unemployment rate from 7.6 percent to 10.2 percent. They've wasted hundreds of millions in stimulus money on congressional districts that don't even exist and this bogus claim of putting people back to work? We've lost 4 million jobs since Obama took office. That's why they created the make believe "saved and created" category.
If you or someone you know hasn't been affected yet, it will soon become very apparent that jobs are not being saved and created. When you're having your neighbors over for a barbeque and 20 percent of them are out of work, someone's going to say, "Hey, where are all these jobs?"
There have been bogus tax cuts. I mean, when up to 15 million people find out they have to pay back the extra 500 bucks they took home in the Obama "tax cut" — remember, these aren't the rich — how are they going to react?
But it's like that across the board with Obama's policies: Spending continues unabated. If cap-and-trade passes, as Obama admitted, your electricity rates will skyrocket:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
And if health care reform passes, there will be massive, immediate tax increases, with no benefits at all — for anyone — coming until 2013.
If we know that this is unsustainable, then surely they do too. When the money or "asset" bubble bursts and the jobs don't materialize, the citizens of this country will have an all-out revolt at the voting booth in November.
So, what is their long-range plan here? I think there are three possible answers:
The first is that we're dealing with plain, old-fashioned, political morons. Maybe they're just so incompetent that they really believe that $787 billion, plus $1.5 trillion equals zero deficit?
I'd love to believe that, because it's better than the alternatives. But I don't. This was the political machine that was assembled just a couple years ago and became so savvy and powerful that it destroyed the former, most powerful political machine in the world: the Clintons.
They're not stupid, but they're not triangulating. Why aren't they?
Look at the president's poll numbers: On Afghanistan: In July it was 56 percent; today it's 35 percent. Health care: In July, 47 percent; today 40 percent. Jobs: In July 55 percent; today: 40 percent. The economy: In July, 53 percent; today: 44 percent.
That's not a winning strategy.
The next best scenario for their seeming lack of long-term vision is that they just don't think anyone will tell you about it. At least no one at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post or any other media outlet besides Fox News and talk radio. Which could explain the full frontal assault on Fox by the Obama administration. They've tried desperately to make Fox "not real news" in the minds of the public. That way, when we report what's going on, nobody will believe it.
At the same time, their drive is just beginning to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, localism or whatever they possibly can to silence talk radio. This week they are having a meeting on what the government's role in the media should be. That's going on right now. Have you seen that?
Finally, they hope that Net Neutrality can neuter the Internet.
If they can accomplish those three things, they believe that it will be smooth sailing for them because you won't be able to talk to each other and you won't have anywhere you can turn to hear the truth. At that point, they'll tell you that it's just you; you're crazy for thinking the way you do. And they'll hope that they can just buy themselves enough time for something good to happen, hoping for some "miracle" fix.
But there is a third option. It's a possibility that we've warned about for many months now. And again, I want to be wrong. They could be employing the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system to intentionally collapse it and transform or remake America:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BARACK OBAMA: We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
VAN JONES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': Right now we're saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism, where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough.
ANDY STERN, SEIU PRESIDENT: Workers of the world unite? It's not just a slogan anymore; it's the way we're going to have to do our work.
OBAMA: We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
All the happy talk they're giving us in the meantime could be to keep us pacified long enough that it all comes crashing down and then, it'll be too late. They'll just restart everything, with their new infrastructure, because the "old" one got us into that mess. Or there could be some sort of "event" that demands that they just take control in order to "keep the peace," "stabilize our situation" or "restore order." It would be for our own good, of course. They certainly wouldn't want to do it; they'd have to do it.
Where have we heard that before?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
OBAMA: What I have no interest in doing, is running GM.
OBAMA: I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
They didn't want to takeover the banking industry; they had to. They didn't want to spend $787 billion; they just had to.
I was actually for the TARP fund for about two days. Here's what said a year ago:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BECK: I'm actually for this bailout... this is not designed to stop it, it is — it is designed to slow down the crash, because we are crashing. Now the question is do we crash into the side of a mountain or do we crash in a forest? We ain't making it to the runway.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
I said that for about two days. By Wednesday of that week, I figured out that the Bush administration and Congress were not being honest with us and I reversed myself.
Don't waste a second now. We have to focus all our attention and resources on stopping this madness. Their temporary fix should have been used to help you become responsible, to live within your means and get your neighbors into a lifeboat.
These people are flying our economy directly into the side of a mountain. Stop spending money. Stop with new programs. Stop with cap-and-trade.
Bring our soldiers home or crush the enemy and then come home. It's the only moral way to send troops into harm's way. Then, maybe, the next time you show up for a speech at West Point, it won't look like you've entered the "enemy camp."
First off who is "we"? If you are referring to the shallow simple minds of the far left, then ok. Second, why would you left wing nuts want to mock anyone. How progressive of you. You PDS suffers are the same people that will rabidly defend Obowma, no matter what. PDS and Obowma gushing seem to go hand in hand.
Obowma disciples/Palin haters are a nasty self absorbed band of misfits. Jealousy and anger can eat a person up. I guess that explains why you morons are nothing but empty shells spewing hate.
1 : vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation
rogue (rg)
n.
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.
adj.
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant.
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls: "How could a single rogue trader bring down an otherwise profitable and well-regarded institution?" (Saul Hansell).
v. rogued, rogu·ing, rogues
v.tr.
1. To defraud.
2. To remove (diseased or abnormal specimens) from a group of plants of the same variety.
v.intr.
To remove diseased or abnormal plants.
rogue
/roʊg/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rohg] Show IPA noun, verb, rogued, ro⋅guing, adjective
Use rogue in a Sentence
See web results for rogue
See images of rogue
–noun
1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.
2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues.
3. a tramp or vagabond.
4. a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition.
5. Biology. a usually inferior organism, esp. a plant, varying markedly from the normal.
–verb (used without object)
6. to live or act as a rogue.
–verb (used with object)
7. to cheat.
8. to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to a desired standard).
9. to perform this operation upon: to rogue a field.
It seems like, in the last few weeks, that every dumpster, building, trailer park or abandoned car here in Anchorage has some reference to this "Filthy Mouth Shirley" spray painted on it. My impression is that this is some kind of political slur but Im not that familiar with politics to understand the significance of the intended slur or innuendo.
Could someone please explain the intended meaning of these?
Ive written down a few of the more colorful ones and posted them here, this is not all of them by far.
NUKE Filthy Mouth Shirley
HILLARY/BUSH - Filthy Mouth Shirley
-SWING- vote Filthy Mouth Shirley
Filthy Mouth Shirley sez
CD n DC Filthy Mouth Shirley
Eat Gas Now Filthy Mouth Shirley
Global Gore Filthy Mouth Shirley
Pork-line Filthy Mouth Shirley
Filthy Mouth Shirley comes back
Obama 4 Filthy Mouth Shirley
Dick Cheney ramification - Filthy Mouth Shirley
Ive seen similar political jargon befor in other cities but the meaning or intended slur of these has eluded me entirely. Sometimes all thats written in this case is "Filthy Mouth Shirley" or "FMS".
If someone understands the political meaning of these could you please post it for the rest of us?
While Sarah Palin is hardly the first politician to release a memoir, in many ways, the enthusiastic response to the former Alaska governor's "Going Rogue: An American Life" boasts a story like no other.
Since the announcement of its impending release months ago, numbers for “Going Rogue” have been remarkable. Harper Collins initially announced a first printing of 1.5 million copies, half a million more than the first printing of Hillary Clinton's long-anticipated memoir, "Living History." But by last Friday, just three days after its release, the publisher announced it would increase those numbers by 1 million.
By Tuesday morning, the Associated Press, which had assigned a whopping 11 reporters to fact-check the book, announced that it had sold 700,000 copies in its first week alone, trailing the first-week sales of Bill Clinton's "My Life" by just 200,000 units. And if sales weren't telling enough, Palin's appearance on "Oprah" in support of "Rogue" earned the talk-show giant her highest ratings in two years.
Indeed, in just a week alone, it seems Palin's already massive celebrity has soared to even greater heights. At just 44 years old, with less than two years in the national political spotlight, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is the politician of whom America cannot seem to get enough.
So what is it about Palin -- a less-than-one-term former governor from Alaska -- that makes her such a star?
"Sarah Palin is a celebrity by virtue of her meteoric rise to fame," says Fraser Seitel, a public relations professor and managing partner of the communications firm Emerald Partners. "Celebrity sells in this country, and she has the 'it factor' that makes people watch her. She is controversial, and controversy sells. And she is a firebrand; she has many qualities that make her incredibly appealing."
But controversy and strong convictions aren't all that set her apart, says image expert Marian Salzman, president of Euro RSCG Worldwide Public Relations. "Sarah Palin's packaging is sublime. Her appearance has had an extraordinary effect on her popularity.
"She is attractive enough to be appealing to both men and women, and she looks likable, even if you disagree with her politics," Salzman says. "She is in great shape, her hair looks great, her clothes are beautiful. All of these things make her the modern embodiment of the American dream."
Salzman says Palin has been a political maverick for her fusion of femininity and politics, taking a divergent path from that of pantsuited politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Palin's wardrobe has been full of high heels, tailored skirts, beehive hairstyles and black patent leather boots. According to Salzman, that fashion-meets-politics persona is the definition of a new generation of women in the public eye.
"Hillary Clinton was from a different era," Salzman said. "Palin's generation didn't have any glass ceilings to break through. It was an era of equality and of sexual confidence. Women did not need to be apologetic for being attractive and that is what Palin embodies.
"Why should she put herself in a plain navy pantsuit? She is [an] American woman who takes pride in keeping herself in shape and presenting herself as someone interested in looking good, but never pushing the envelope into the risque. And in that sense, she is the poster girl of that new generation. It doesn't take away from what women of Hillary's generation did, they had to make the transition for the Palins. But that won't be the look that younger people will want to see."
But while Palin will always be a draw due to her appearance, Republican strategist Steve Castleton says she has to further hone her arguments if she wants to be a potent political force.
"What gets her in the door is that she is eye candy," Castleton said. "She is using her appearance to get shows and notoriety, something Hillary didn't have the option to do. Hillary couldn't be on the cover of a magazine in running shorts, but Hillary did have her politics and her comments to stand on, which is what Palin will need if she is going to go on and be successful as a politician.
"People will go see her because she is gorgeous, but they will only vote for her if she has substance. Is she the kind of leader to whom America can turn in the wake of tragedies and wars, or will she be spending too much time on her hair and her outfit? She will need to show that she is prepared and knowledgeable and has a strong team behind her."
And though her closest advisers deny she's eyeing the 2012 presidential campaign, many Palin watchers predict another run for office in her future.
If her book tour stops are any indicator of political aspirations, Palin seems to have her eye on pursuing the Republican presidential nomination. According to the Washington Post, the tour includes 31 stops in 25 states in mostly GOP-friendly areas. Of those 31 county stops, only 11 were carried by Obama.
Still, even if she's sticking to friendly territory, Palin's national star power should not be underestimated, says Politics Daily writer Matt Lewis.
"To her critics who discount her potential," he says, "it's important to keep in mind: You can teach someone foreign policy. You can't teach them the charisma and star power that comes naturally to Sarah Palin."
The woman has NO substance, she is all window dressing. Watch her tonight,......holding her baby during one of her interviews. We know she has a baby, but she uses it for a prop in the interview.
Not only timely and topical, but genuinely funny. And unlike the last time they hit him hard, this attack comes from the right. Who knew they had it in ‘em?
Actually, spending is only a secondary concern here. The chief target is The One's disintegrating credibility in selling his statist agenda. Never would I have guessed that the great orator's inability to explain cost savings in ObamaCare would be the subject of late-night mockery this late in the game. No wonder his numbers are at new lows nationally and in the swing state that propelled him to the presidency.
Let us have a moment of silence in honor of the late journalism standards of The Washington Post company. They died last week, a victim of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
First came Newsweek's cover of Palin in running shorts, over a headline of "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?" and a snide kicker that "she's bad news for the GOP--and everybody else too."
Beyond the obvious partisanship, many women, Palin included, found the cover sexist and an attempt to demean her with the bimbo treatment.
There might also be legal fallout. Newsweek, owned by The Post, had no right to use the photo, according to Runner's World magazine, which commissioned it.
The company's flagship paper also embarrassed itself. It published dueling reviews of Palin's book "Going Rogue," with snarky blogger Ana Marie Cox making an astounding confession in her review:
"I cannot claim to have completely read 'Going Rogue' -- I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening. It's terrible, I know, but if I didn't read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it."
My inquiry about how this could possibly be acceptable was answered by Rachel Shea, editor of the paper's Book World. She said in a breezy e-mail: "We thought our reviewers each provided unique perspectives on the book, and Ana Marie Cox was up front about her examination of it."
There you have it. The Post no longer requires reviewers to actually read the books they are reviewing, as long as they are "up front" about it.
The silly fucks that think everything is all screwed up because of him,...?..... could be,....?.... dim whit,.. right wing,..... racist, ......hill - billy,... narrow mind, dressed in cammo, total nut jobs. I say, ..
could be.
The hits keep coming for the racist corrupt Obama organization.......THIS IS YOUR TAXPAYER MONIES!
ACORN Mismanaged $200,000 of DOJ Funding, Report Finds
The news is the latest blow to a scandal-plagued group whose public image has taken a beating in recent weeks after some of its employees were caught on video trying to help a couple posing as a prostitute and pimp evade tax laws.
The community organizing group ACORN mismanaged about $200,000 received from the Justice Department, which failed to track how the allocated money was used, according to a report by the department's watchdog.
The news is the latest blow to a group whose public image has taken a beating in recent months after some of its employees were caught on video trying to help a couple posing as a prostitute and pimp evade tax laws.
"It's ironic that the Justice Department provided ACORN affiliates with funding to help prevent crime when many of ACORN's own employees have come under criticism for possible criminal conduct," said Sen. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Smith called on the inspectors general of federal agencies that have provided millions to ACORN to initiate similar investigations.
"The Justice Department's IG's report may prove to be just the tip of an iceberg-sized fraud," he said.
The report comes as ACORN is suing the federal government in attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding Congress voted to block after the undercover videos were released in September. The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.
ACORN claims it has been badly hurt by the congressional actions, and has had to fire workers and close some of its 1,200 branches around the country.
The DOJ report is unlikely to help.
The report targets five DOJ grants $200,000 and given to affiliates of ACORN since 2002. ACORN received an award of $20,000 this year; the ACORN Institute received two awards of DOJ grant funds -- one for $13,000 in 2007 and another for $8,500 this year; the American Institute for Social Justice received an award of $20,000 in 2002; the New York Agency for Community Affairs, Inc., received a $140,000 grant in 2005.
It is not clear how much of the money was spent because the DOJ did not conduct any audits, financial reviews or site visits of the five grants awarded to the ACORN affiliates, according to the report.
The American Institute for Social Justice received its $20,000 as part of a $3.1 million DOJ grant to the National Training and Information Center. But the contract identified "Toledo ACORN" as receiving the $20,000. A 2008 audit revealed significant irregularities in the training center's grant and serious flaws in the groups internal control system. That led to the group's executive director pleading guilty to intentionally misapplying federal funds and was sentenced to five months in prison. Of the 36 sub-recipents of National Training and Information Center's grant, Toledo ACORN was one of two not to respond to the department's inspector general.
We trained Hussien Obomba disciples would not care if he lit a newborn on fire and threw it off a rooftop, we will love and support him no matter what! Why do you conservatives not realize that, or maybe you do. In any case, we will defend obambos f*uck ups till our dying day, we have to, all our eggs are placed in the obombo basket. And darn it, we are owed! I am not sure exactly what my messiah is doing but I love him just the same.
ALL HAIL THE ONE TRUE GOD, BARRY HUSSEIN OBOMBO! (oh, that sent a shiver up my leg) hehe!
_________________________________________
Date: 2009-11-20, 2:30PM AKST
Reply to: comm-9x6sq-1475331196@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
When it was discovered that his grandparents,were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama, People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims, people said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” people said it didn't matter. ( His book Audacity of Hope)
When he admittedly, in his book,said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan , after college on an unknown national passport, people said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, people said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, people said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator", people said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza , set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control, people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,
people said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,
people said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition people said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues, people said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
people said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
people said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax, people said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States ,he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time friend, People said it doesn't matter.
When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States ,
people said it doesn't matter.
When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win, people said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter.
When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc. people said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade. people said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he shouldcall them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
The Senate Ethics Committee on Friday closed its investigation into the controversial appointment of Roland Burris to fill the Illinois Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama, but admonished him for “inappropriate” and “less than candid” statements about the circumstances that led up to his selection by the now-indicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
The Economy: We knew something was funny when the White House claimed that 640,000 to 1 million jobs had been created from this year's stimulus. What we didn't know was that it would turn into a massive fraud.
Not only have 640,000 new jobs not been created from the stimulus — an absurd claim, given the economy's loss of nearly 4 million payroll positions this year — but it now seems that even the jobs themselves are fictional.
Thanks to the digging of a number of data sleuths, it turns out that many of the jobs reported by states come from made-up congressional districts.
This would be funny if it weren't a criminal waste of public funds. And yet, G. Edward DeSeve, who runs the government's economic recovery program, says the errors are "relatively few" and "don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data."
Excuse us? The "relatively few" errors are in fact thousands in number. But that's the pernicious place we find ourselves today — a public official defending shoddy accounting that looks an awful lot like fraud to the tune of billions of dollars.
One example: the 15th Congressional District of Arizona, where 30 jobs were salvaged with $761,420 in spending, according to Recovery.gov, the official government Web site. As ABC News reports: "There is no 15th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight districts."
States as diverse as Kansas, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Minnesota and West Virginia also reported phony jobs.
Stimulus jobs were also reported in 35 congressional districts in Washington, D.C., and four U.S. territories. The problem: None of those jurisdictions even has congressional districts.
All told, according to the useful Web site Watchdog.org, some $6.4 billion was spent to "create or save" 30,000 jobs in phantom districts. That comes out to about $225,000 per nonexistent job. And that's only what's been found so far.
The Washington Examiner's bogus-job count is even higher — at 75,343, a figure likely to climb as more are discovered.
Some cases were egregious. California's state university system took in $268.5 million in stimulus funds, claiming it "saved" 26,000 jobs. It has since admitted that few, if any, jobs were really at risk.
The government's response to all this? "Human beings make mistakes," shrugged Recovery Board spokesman Ed Pound on Monday. But by Tuesday, as the furor grew, the board's DeSeve was vowing to go through reports with a "fine-tooth comb."